User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12

Archives

Archive 1 2007-01-30

Archive 2 2010-03-31

Archive 3 2010-06-28

Archive 4 2010-10-31

Archive 5 2011-01-31

Archive 6 2011-04-30

Archive 7 2011-06-30

Archive 8 2011-09-30

Archive 9 2011-12-31

Archive 10 2012-04-30

Archive 11 2012-08-31

Adam Cappa

This is his B-DAY! I confirm all birthdays through twitter pages listed on all of the artists websites.HotHat (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked here because you are requesting a block

I thought since you are requesting a block, you would be able to answer. The talk page is fine; however, it appears it is not obvious disruption. Calmer Waters 19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now, and did a self-revert. The editor is still not communicating although today, the editor did not engage in any genre warring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, just was wondering if I had missed anything, as you might have a better understanding of the article's subject. Unfortunately, with the editor's past history of non-communication (either because they don't grasp English well enough or just don't plain want to communicate) it may only be a matter of time until ... Anyhow. Take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Skillet logo/name

Actually that wasn't a test, someone has done the exact same on the Game page and I was inspired (so to speak). I have looked through the guidelines and I didn't find anything that specifically said this wasn't allowed, sorry, K. Kane (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any moderators we can talk too to resolve the situation maybe? Kane (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I nominated two of the images for deletion as breaches of copyright. Once that decision comes down, we'll know if it's safe to use or not. And to be clear, I completely misunderstood the initial purpose of the edit, but now that I see that it was simply removing the text and replacing it with an image, it's an acceptable edit. Explaining that in the edit summary would have helped me to recognize that. The only outstanding issue is whether the image is or isn't allowed to be used. The fact that a similar text-only logo on a backdrop caused the removal of the prior band image doesn't bode well for the continued use of the logo. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I forget to describe the nages sometimes, my bad. Kane (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Both were determined to be too simple. I self-reverted in both cases. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, glad we got that sorted, I hope there no more issues that arise in the future. Kane (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

re my ebooks

Hi Walter re yours and Douglas comments to me yesterday about my ebooks .My specialist interests are indeed poetry and art hence I thought my kindle ebook on these topics would of interest to a reader of Wiki (I certainly have not done this for 'self-promotion'),my ebooks are entirely written for educational purposes and priced accordingly the nearest Kindle allow for foc ! My hundreds of edits to Wiki over the past six years have been entirely motivated by this desire which I believe conforms to my understanding of Wiki's purposes as well ), in my view Wiki are going to have a problem in the future as clearly ebooks are now a major publishing force and will grow even larger as indeed Wiki itself has replaced hard copy encyclopedias.But of course I accept your actions and will continue to support Wiki with edits in the future Kind Rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you show that you are a recognized subject matter expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

that would depend Walter on how you define 'recognised' as a poet I have won an international first prize on the leading net website Poetry Soup and had published over 800 blogs thereon in regard to art and poetry and have introduce thereon many many poetic forms...and judged thereon over 200 member contests .I have had articles published on other reputable poetry net magazines inc SketchBook and Amaze and have had published two ISBN books one on Poetic Form and one on the 'American cinquains' of the Scottish poet 'William Soutar' both of which have been independently reviewed on reputable net mags (I can give you links if you would like to check them out).I have only studied and practiced art as an amatuer interest for over the past decade and am by profession a retired qualified accountant of over fifty years practical knowledge of that subject (having worked for both US and Uk corporations).In the area of Christianity I am a committed evangelical Christian having been born again in 1987 and my publications arise from my discipleship and similar studies etc over some 27 years now .Best regards Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't define it. Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Further reading does, depending of course on where you included your e-books. If you can prove that you're in compliance with those guidelines (or proposed guidelines) you should be able to add them back while quoting the sections. If, however someone questions your addition, the best place to take them the places that WP:ELBURDEN suggests. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Walter but I guess I'll leave my ebooks reverted from Wiki...... no doubt they will come to light and benefit others elsewhere other than Wiki.rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Day entries

Walter, I did not keep a copy of the text that I inserted on the Third Day band page, so I'm not sure what part of it you thought was not neutral. As the founder and CEO of Gray Dot Records and Executive Producer of Third Day's first CD to be released on a national level, I think I have a very good overview of that time period. I have plenty of written documentation such as their original multi-year Recording Contract with Gray Dot if you care to see it. Do you have the original text that I posted. If so, please send me a copy so that I can correct what it wrong. Gray Dot Records played a huge part in making Third Day a success and I would appreciate having the facts available to anyone interested. Marty Bush MartyBush (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspected that you were in a conflict of interest when writing about the subject. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that every edit is kept, so you don't need to have kept a copy. Here's what I removed. The phrases that are particularly irksome can be found in bold below.

After many long days and nights of promoting the band to radio stations, concert promoters, retailers, etc the band began to get national recognition. As this happened, a number of unscrupulous so-called christian record executives began an attempt to recruit the band and get them out of their multi-album deal with Gray Dot Records. The band went as far as hiring an attorney and even threaten to break up if they were not released from their Gray Dot contract.... Reunion Records was soon sold to BMG who decided not to honor the agreement with Gray Dot Records forcing Gray Dot to file a lawsuit. BMG's team of high-powered attorneys were able to find a loop hold[sic] in the contract and after several years or litigation in federal court was found not obligated to pay Gray Dot additional royalties.

The most offensive part was that you inserted the material immediately before a reference. That reference supports none of the claims you made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

May I also point-out that none of what was written was actually supported with any references. We need to ensure that the material is supported with verifiable and reliable sources. Your memory of the events, however accurate they may be, do not meet either criteria. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to supply references. I have boxes of court documents as well as the original multi-album recording contract between Third Day and Gray Dot Records with all of the bands signatures. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia that I can upload these legal references? My objective was not to be offensive, but to rebut the incorrect statements referenced and provide more history on how Third Day became successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyBush (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Marty. I don't know how that would support statements such as "many long days and nights", "unscrupulous", "so-called christian", "get them out", "decided not to honor" and "find a loophole". In short, your statements were not neutral and that's was my original reason for removing them. They were also not supported and that's why they had to be removed. You can't fix both with your box of documents. There's nowhere to upload these legal documents, but if they're court records, they're online. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Berlin peer review

Could you help do the Berlin peer review? You can find it here. here. I know the questions may or may not seem obvious. But I'm looking for detailed answers. Kingjeff (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes

Any third party would be able to tell you your grounds for removing that content is not applicable at all in this case. You may be successful at deleting content but don't think I'm dumb enough to actually think your reasoning applies here. Know that I am smarter than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayhat551 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Please read the comments left on your talk page and don't threaten me. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is threatening you. Please show me where you are being threatened. The only one being threatened here is me, by you, who keep putting up warnings on my talkpage of being kicked off. (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2012 (PST)

Your threat is implied. My tagging of your page is not a threat. All I can do is try to help you become a better editor. I have been trying for a month now but you don't heed the informative tags. There are procedures that must be followed to do that an I am following them. If you are feeling threatened, you don't seem to act that way as you continue to perform the actions that require me to warn you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an implied threat? You really do make shit up. Wikipedia is not my life, I just jump on here once in a while and add some stuff that I know to be true and most other people of familiarity with the situation would also know to be true. That stuff you were disputing I had proper citation for - and you know it. (Just to clarify, that is NOT an implied threat). Whatever your reasons for taking it down they do line up with wikipedia. This site is about adding knowledge, not taking it away.--Grayhat551 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is.

Please read what wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This addresses your first and last sentences or points.

The stuff I'm removing is not supported by the links you provided as references. As simple reading shows that. They're also primary sources, which don't make particularly good references.

I'm also removing the material because you are not using edit summaries. I placed that warning with links to pertinent articles in August. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And I should clarify that I'm not saying or even claiming that you're making things up. Please see WP:V and WP:RS to see what I'm saying. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Then please show me why you keep deleting this:

The university is also home to Redeemer Pacific College, Trinity Western’s constituent Roman Catholic college. RPC is administered independently from the university by a Catholic faculty. Courses in Catholic studies are offered, and a liberal arts curriculum in taught in the Catholic spirit. [1] Mass is offered four times weekly and students have access to the Blessed Sacrament.

I would like you to point out exactly what is wrong with these sentences which you insist on removing from Trinity Western University's page. Please tell me what is here that is not supported by the link?--Grayhat551 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that you drop the attitude?

http://www.redeemerpacific.net/courses doesn't say anything about "liberal arts curriculum in taught in the Catholic spirit" or even that it's on the TWU campus. It doesn't even mention the school's name. It is simply a list of nine courses. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and so it's all-round bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

So first and foremost, the reference doesn't support the statements. If you would spend just a few minutes reading the links I have provided you, you might actually understand what it is I am saying to you.

And once again you have completely missed the entire point of this exercise. Please read Help:Edit summary and stop editing until you have.

And I totally forgot WP:UNDUE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Couldn't agree more

Haha so I could see and I agree as well. That sentence should be reworded to indicate his move from Feyenoord and then to Man U because even before I clicked undo I kept reading the current sentence and it just seems confusing. Anyway I will reword it and if I see him come back with more good faith bad edits I will undo them. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 follow up

Ah! but if you had looked on the talk page of the editor who's edit I undid all would have been revealed. As it was a multi-page undo for a multi page edit, there was little point going into detail on every page where the undo was done. -- PBS (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page "Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia." So do you know of all my contributions to Wikipedia good bad and indifferent. If not why are you thanking me for all my contributions to Wikipedia and not for this specific one which you saw? In the next sentence you say "I noticed your recent edit to List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners does not have an edit summary" Yet the edit did have an edit summary it was "green|Undid revision 511282897 by Mentoz86 (talk)}}". Then you wrote "Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history." But as shown one was provided! Then you write "Thanks!" thanks for what and why an explanation mark?

Your comment shows you are confused about the details, I did not add back a template I remove one. I have given you an explanation where a detailed comment was placed, and why I did not expand on the auto-generated comment in the edit history. So while you can have opinions on whether the undo comment was or was not adequate, as the comment that was supplied is an automated one generated when an undo is performed, perhaps you should take you stick and beat the programmer(s) who is/are responsible for generating it. If you consider this an issue that is so important to you that you want to have the last word, by all means respond to these two paragraphs, because I will not continue the conversation as I think it is a waste of time for both of us. -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? 70.253.91.210 (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Image for DJ Maj

You realize that I emailed in the permission from his production team, right? They really wanted the previous photo to be removed since it is a very different image than this one. They worked hard with me to figure out what we need to for using another photo from their publicity (no words, watermarks, etc). I don't see anywhere in OTRS that the photo shouldn't be used until after OTRS team verifies what I already have verified (especially since it often takes 1 month). It's not like I'm someone new here who doesn't understand images like we commonly see. In any case, I appreciate all that you do to watch articles that aren't watched my many others but I think you did the wrong thing in this case. Royalbroil 04:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Cirt since they have OTRS permission. Royalbroil 11:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes for National teams

It says in the link you share on my page (rules about flag in infoboxes), that exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games.

So my question is, why doesn't it make sense to add a flag to a national team?! It is a team representing a nation in international sporting events, and it certainly adds more clarity. Also other sports have the flag present on the page, as well as several other national teams, not only for football, but for several other sports as well. From how I understand the rules, international sporting events, such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympics are exceptions to this rule, so why did you go and remove all the flags I added to the national teams? --subzzee (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Competitions are fine, but national teams are not. Please see the talk page for the template: Template talk:Infobox national football team#Flags. If it was a good idea it would have already been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is already being done, if you are going to remove the flag icon from every sporting national team on Wikipedia you will be sitting here all day. there are still several more out there, have fun on your quest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzzee (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here (your talk page is still on my watchlist for some reason) but I believe we could get a bot to deal with that and if not we will just gradually get through it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If I see it happening on the national team articles I watch, I'll be sure to undo it and remind those editors of the various guidelines. However, we know that Subzzee won't be adding them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Touchdown! Thanks for the cleanup. Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eye on It

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup squads

Actually, the official FIFA document that the entire article is based on lists Jong Tae-se as a defender. We may know with hindsight that this was wrong, but I was nevertheless right that my edit was supported by the source. – PeeJay 22:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Thank you for your messages. Could you please give a reference that says one MUST provide an edit summery before making a change? It seems like most people do not use edit summery and I suppose that it would be difficult to warn every single one of them. --Miunouta (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary: Edit summaries are a communal consensus. They are Wikipedia norms and practices. It is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.

I trust that you are not arguing that because many people do not give edit summaries that makes it OK for you not provide one. It would not be difficult to warn everyone. There is a bot that warned you for not signing your comment here. I trust that if consensus were high enough, a similar bot could be commissioned to warn those who do not provide a meaningful edit summary.

It seems you would rather wikilawyer than be a cooperative editor. That's fine too. We won't have to deal with that behaviour if it persists for much longer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I would consider "we won't have to deal with that behaviour if it persists for much longer" as a verbal threat. I did not come here to argue anything. For your information, I am new to this and there is a learning process apparently. --Miunouta (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a threat at all, it is merely an observation. Those who cooperate and follow the common practises seem to stick around longer than those who insist on doing things their own way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger

Hi there I noticed that you undid the change I made to Arsène Wenger because Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain "started at Southampton". In case that you don't know, Theo Walcott started at Southampton as well. If you removed AOC which was added by me, then why would you not remove Theo Walcott at the same time?--Miunouta (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did, because it's true. I can remove Walcott as well, but he wasn't in contention. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the fact that AOC "started at Southampton", however, I'm afraid that your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. Please be more consistent when you edit next time. If you want remove AOC for that reason, then please remove Theo Walcott as well. And hopefully you did not remove AOC because the change was made by me. Thank you very much.--Miunouta (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I simply undid your change as it did not fit into the provided description. I didn't fact-check the entire paragraph (or article for that matter). I'm sorry if I don't measure up to your standards. Feel free to adjust the article to remove other inaccuracies as I removed yours. It's better though, not to add more just because one exists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll do it. Thanks. --Miunouta (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very confused I have to say. I really do not understand why you undid the change I made again? So you are saying that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain cannot be included because he "started at Southampton" but Theo Walcott should stay there even though he started at Southampton as well? Please give me a clear explanation on this. Thank you.--Miunouta (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Several English players have started their careers at Arsenal under Wenger, including Cole, David Bentley, Steve Sidwell, Jermaine Pennant and Matthew Upson."

• Bentley's first senior club was Arsenal.
• Sidwell's first senior club was Arsenal.
• Pennant's first senior club was not Arsenal.
• Upson's first senior club was not Arsenal.

Onto the next phrase: "Young English talent such as Theo Walcott, Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere are still building careers at the club."

• Walcott's second (and current) club was Arsenal and since he's 23 until March 16, would qualify to play for England at the Olympics and so is considered young.
• Gibbs and Wilshere are on loan and should probably be removed.

So changing the article isn't particularly useful.

However the real key comes with the included references:

• Simons, Raoul (23 January 2006). "Walcott deal can't hide Wenger's foreign fancy". Evening Standard. London. p. 63.
• Campbell, Jeremy (8 August 2010). "Arsène Wenger: Kieran Gibbs's fitness is good for Arsenal and England". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 29 July 2012.

What do they say? Who do they list? We can't just add what we want, we have to support our statements with verifiable and reliable sources. And when one inserts their own opinions into a referenced section, one has to be careful not to change the meaning against those references. Adding new references is a different matter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your detailed explanation. I appreciate it. I do understand that a valid source is needed when an addition is made. However, it still doesn't explain very well why AOC has been removed for the reason that he "started at Southampton". Also, I found an article that might support the addition of AOC. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2193683/Arsene-Wenger-hails-new-generation-young-British-players.html If you still have problem with me listing AOC in the Arsene Wenger article, please find a verified Arsenal expert to prove that I am wrong. Thank you.--Miunouta (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this. They're not the same. That was my original estimation.

I don't actually like the second phrase and when I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Questions for a new editor, that's what the only editor who responded said. Perhaps you should raise your concerns there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your comment about "[me] mucking about with" the Wenger article. For your information, I do know what I am doing. I'm putting my precious time into this article just to make it better and didn't expect it to be seen as "mucking about". My suggestion to some editor is that one should think twice before reverting a change that someone else has made with effort. Vandalism is a totally different case though.--Miunouta (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you also think too highly of yourself and my advice to you is that you read twice before adding material to a location where it makes no sense. Vandalism is a totally different case and you might want to go back to the footy project talk page to see how other perceive your assessment of this situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

MLS Stadiums

Can you explain what you mean by "unnecessary and distracting use of colour"? If anything, it needs to be something which engages readers, captures their attention and want to know something more about the MLS and its history. Bland is what it is now when you reverted it back to its original page. I'm sure there a probably market studies/reports on what captures attention.

To the rest of the world, football(soccer) may be number one sport, but it's "only" the 7th rated sport here in the US behind the NFL, Major League Baseball(MLB), NBA, NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, and the NHL! Its TV viewership barely registers on television screens. Newspapers are barely covering it outside of the markets which host a team.

I wanted to take a few columns out of the table but, out of respect for the person who created it, I left them in. So, if you feel that the use of color takes away from someone wanting to satisfy their thirst for knowlege, then so be it.

68.50.13.209 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You have two colours for three sections. That's confusing. Why does it need colour at all? Why not a single table? It presents the information better. There is no need to engage the reader. Their presence on the page is all the engagement that we need. This section is previous stadiums. Why do we need to capture their attention and distract them from the current table? Bland is good for them all so as to not draw attention from the primary material.

If you're suggesting that by adding distracting colour to a list stadiums that are no longer used in MLS soccer is somehow going to raise the awareness of the sport in North America, you'll have to explain how that is going to work, because you've lost me.

The addition of colour does not increase the informative nature of the table and that's the goal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlits

Is this you? Or is this an impersonation attempt? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not me, no. The family name is not a German one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Having read the editor's additions it appears that this is a football fan who has had to deal with Kevin McE and me before. Possibly 71.139.164.148. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Imitation, as they say, is the sincerest form of flattery: you have an admirer Walter! Given that he/she posted to my talk page exactly what I put on the page of that IP user, it is almost certain. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

champions league 2012-13

Hi, some guy put a protection template for the article until october. most of the stats are outdated already. we need to change it. can u remove the preotection template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.244.230 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We got a problem here

Hey, if you hadn't noticed. The Vancouver MLS category was merged before the other category discussions regarding the Whitecaps were settled. Is there anyway that can be fixed, because were running into a bit of a problem regarding this. – Michael (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Adam Young

Hey Walter, Adam Young, an article that you have been involved in editing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/FC Bayern Munich/archive1

I nominated Bayern Munich article for peer review. You might want to look at it. Kingjeff (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Watir article

Hi, I am not sure if this is a good way to contact you.

You wrote this comment: "Facebook may not be the best reference."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watir&diff=517210219&oldid=517209187

It is an article from Facebook Engineering blog, I thought it was credible enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.11.127 (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

--Zeljko.filipin (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SELFSOURCE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. As far as I understood it, the article talks about user generated content at Facebook. My reference was to the official Facebook Engineering blog. I think it has more credibility than a random post at Facebook. --Zeljko.filipin (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah. That's got credibility. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Canada

That article has used yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates pretty consistently since they were introduced 2009-MAR-21. The MOS specifically allows ymd for accessdates. Abbreviating the publication dates is also specifically allowed. I think that full month names are important in the body, but just take up space in the ref section, but if you object to that, I have no objection to restoring the full month names, as that is how they were originally entered. There was no consistency in publication dates, all 3 formats were being used until today, and YMD is not an option for publication dates (acc to the MOS). --JimWae (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Can you please read Cougar#Naming and etymology, and then compare this article with jaguar? Lguipontes (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you read no one cares since it's not really relevant to anything in this article about a football tournament and not about all the mundane minutia related to the selection of the mascot. The original "the jaguar, one of the biggest felines of the American continent alongside puma, known in Brazil as suçuarana or onça-parda" is sufficient and adding "surpassing the cougar or puma, that is" adds undue weight to this parenthetical phrase.

This discussion should be happening on the article's talk page, not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. I re-wrote the entire section and remove the trivial information about what the items were. Again, the article is about the tournament, not the distractions of selecting a mascot. I just checked and the French and German articles don't even mention the mascot. Just goes to show you how tangential the subject actually is. And while the Portuguese article mentions the voting process, it doesn't go into the intricate detail that you were forcing onto the failed selections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Apologies if you were offended by my question regarding your undo of my removal of the playoff comment from the colours and badge section at Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Not sure how in the world you stretched the comment to even remotely coming close to WP:NPA though. You may want to read it through again, especially considering some of your edit comments, such as the "If you would actually be a good editor..." comment you left after this edit. Cheers. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. First line in the policy. As you pointed-out, my earlier edit did make a comment on that editor. Unfortunately, my entire statement wasn't recorded. I intended to state that checking history would show the change, but the other other editor has taken a position against me on several occasions. My comment follows a comment made to me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This one's a keeper, Walter

"Sources don't confirm notability. Notability does." [2]

Well, notable articles are notable - I won't argue with logic like that. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I hate the space provided in a summary. What I meant, and what the guideline states, is that notability is independent of the sources provided in any article. So if there aren't good sources, tag the article with {{refimprove}}. There are additional sources. Reviews and write-ups that support both albums. Will provide at least one more source. However, don't assume that a poorly written and poorly sourced article is the same as having a non-notable subject in that article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but better sources don't seem to be available. If you think you can find them, though, I'll wait a bit before submitting the articles to AfD. (Still, it is a funny edit summary.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've written funnier, but thanks for assuming good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeating links

I think you should read it again, Walter. This is all it says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." None of what you said is listed. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally is a broad statement. In common use, it's usually once per section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it says "generally" because of the exceptions that follow. I thought you were a stickler for following MOS, and not following "common use." And why put a link to MOS if what you say isn't according to it? --Musdan77 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It says generally because of the lack of agreement on how many links per article are sufficient. See the archives in the talk pages.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The wording used to be "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

BarlowGirl changes

Hi Walter!

My name is Paul & I'm the guy who made the changes to the BarlowGirl page you corrected last night.

I am quite aware of the need for accurate information here on Wikipedia as many people use it as a source of reference information. I therefore made the additions with this in mind. The information I compiled and added were based of actual transcripts of not only their final appearance which I have recorded and listened to repeatedly, but also made notes on purely for this purpose. I am a big fan of BarlowGirl and I, more than anyone, am the first to debunk any false stories, myths, or any other source of incorrect information.

The information on the fact of the track "Home For Christmas" where it is the only song their guitarist, Rebecca sings lead vocals is completely relevant, because as you would be aware of, she has a fear of not only of performing on stage, but being the "centre of attention" in a public situation (this was admitted by her sister Lauren on the bonus DVD included in the album "How Can We Be Silent" Premier Edition). As you would also be aware, Alyssa & Lauren were the only 2 who shared lead vocals on any given song, so the fact that Rebecca would even undertake lead vocals on any track is definitely newsworthy!

As for the addition of Beka Hardt's entry. As I explained, the girls themselves would be the first to admit that she has been the unsung "hero" of the band, sacrificing not only effort & time to the band, but also her dedication to her friend's general upkeep, with little or no recognition at all! (I know what that feels like!). There are other points I could also illustrate here, but I will spare you them for the sake of peace.

While I am not sure who you are, or by what authority you have to make these changes (whether you are even a part of Wikipedia), I think you should at lease exercise some sort of restraint in your attitude towards other's entries and at the very least, do additional research into the topics you so freely edit. As pointed out in the introduction to Wikipedia, it is not perfect and mistakes can happen, but to allow a single person to govern and edit it as their own will is not good! I believe that everyone has some source of correct information which they spend hours researching, compiling & entering for the benefit of others, but to have 1 single person come over and change everything to their "liking" is not only unfair, but discouraging to others future entries; it also creates ill will and eventually savage attacks, which as you know, is not the point of this website! (Leave that crap to Facebook * other "social" networks!)

While you, like the rest of us are more than entitled to your opinions, I would ask you to first stop & think before you change another person's entry, & undertake additional research before you hit your "delete" key. You might think you know everything here on Wikipedia, but please don't discount the fact that someone else might know more than you!

I am not here to pick a fight with you, or anyone else, but just because something is not relevant to you, doesn’t mean that it isn’t relevant to others; that is purely a matter of opinion!!

God bless & take care!

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomasocall (talk • contribs) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

After leaving a welcome message for you, I responded with this. Sorry you feel like I ripped your additions apart, but they needed to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing further. You seem to be under the impression my edits were personal or somehow about the subject (BarlowGirl). They were not. They were about Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyleaf New horizon edit

My bad for not describing my edit, the review i removed was a user review from what i gathered. Going from previous experience, i assumed user reviews didn't get counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.74.127 (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Marco Guzman, Jr

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 I would appreciate if you could weight with your experiences with Marco Guzman, Jr if possible. Thank you and regards.-- PanirajaUpgraded! ^{Tag me!} 12:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to offer as the investigation is not about Marco Guzman. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting entries...

Once again the same old thing. Grande Rock has passed all the notability test by the Admins and they have given the OK. On all rock/metal albums there's a Grande Rock rating below so stop doing that. I'll have to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would love to have that happen since the source is pretty bad and I'd like to make my case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It happened once. They said it's OK. If you have problem with that then just do it again. What's your problem after all? Who are yo to say that the source is pretty bad?(Hard Rocker 13 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs)

Who are "they" and where did "they" say this? In short, my problem is that the source is pretty bad and I'd like to make my case to "them". With that stated, what's your problem? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"They" are the Admins. That happened a year ago. And you come now after a year to say what? What's wrong with you? Don't you have anything else to do than deleting posts others are placing? The source is great & it's been around since you didn't know what Internet is. So take it easy and relax. What do you think you are? A judge of e-sources?!(Hard Rocker 13 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs)

Where is this discussion? Because the community cares about sources, admins have no more rights to state that a source is good or bad than other editors. With that said, I'm an editor and my opinion is that source is pretty bad and I would like to present my case to this location where this supposed discussion took place. Also, you're going to get yourself blocked for signing your posts as someone other than who you are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do have a problem right? This is my signature. The discussion that took place is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AORmaniac13#Your_recent_edits. Who are you to say what's bad or good? Do you even know about music? Don't you have anything else to deal with? I've never had a problem before you appear. Are you a problem seeker? Do you have any major problems or what? Hard Rocker 13 15:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs)

No sir, you have the problems.

1. SineBot says your signature isn't being applied. When you sign as Hard Rocker 13 and your user name is AORmaniac13, you're not signing your name. Simply add ~~~~ at the end of your posts and you'll be signing. It's been added to your talk page as well. I'm not sure why you haven't figured that out yet. The fact that it has been your "signature for almost a year now" doesn't mean you can not sign with your current name. And again, I don't care, SineBot does.
2. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion.
   1. One user is not plural.
   2. Neither User:Mac Dreamstate nor User:Backtable is an admin.
   3. Taking your source to the correct place to be discussed: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Grande Rock.
3. The fact that you have added that pretty bad source with impunity before does not mean that you will continue to do so. When you do it enough times, your actions get noticed and someone will complain. In this case, that's me. And I appeared 2004-10-22T02:27:04. You appeared 2012-01-17T16:41:45. Based on that, you were having problems for a solid seven years before your first edit.
4. Do you have anything else to deal with? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just take it easy. I understand that you have nothing better to do in your life but talking trash won't do you any good.I'm not a regular user so I may not do some things quite well - signatures etc. Too buzz over nothing. Hard Rocker 13 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lovely ad hominem attack. When you actually have something useful to say, feel free to discuss. Until then, please stay civil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I plan on removing any further personal attacks you leave for me here. I will also start tagging your page. At some point, I will get an admin to look into your behaviour as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Could you by any chance keep Nailed. Dead. Risen. on your watchlist? The genre gets screwed with A LOT. 69.233.1.44 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Weight of an Empty Room

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for adding the album reviews from Exclaim! and Punknews.org to this page. I noticed the AfD recently closed and didn't remember putting them in the article myself, so thanks again for beating me to it! Cheers,  Gongshow ^Talk 05:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I harbour no ill will toward the article. Once I realized I had erred, it was easy to improve the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A little help for a newbie?

On the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeenux Linux I commented that following the deletion of Leeenux Linux that RipLinux should also be marked for deletion. To this you replied: Done. In the future, feel free to nominate them yourself directly. Unfortunatly, being new to the Wikipedia website I know not of how to perform such a function for myself; How would one go about requesting the deletion of a non-notable page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 05:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

See {{AfD in 3 steps}}. Alternately, you could install a tool like Wikipedia:Twinkle, which installs a new menu titled TW on every Wikipedia page you navigate to when you're signed-in. Among other tools, a XfD menu exists that throws-up a JavaScript dialog that lets you select what type item it is to delete and which category it fits into. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet

Sorry about not adding the date to {{clarification needed}} in the article Zwarte Piet. I tend to rely on the bots to fix this kind of thing. Do you know of a tool that would insert the dates for me? Qwertyus (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. A bot will come and do it, but it's not difficult to add it yourself. I was watching the page and made the changes. It really wasn't a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy Confusion

Sorry about getting back to this so late. I've been super busy with real life. I noticed that you undid my removal of unreferenced content in Seattle Sounders FC which is currently listed as a featured article. Your edit summary stated this: We don't remove material that can be referenced, we cite or tag it. The policy I'm familiar with, WP:V, clearly states the following: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Editors are not required to add citations or tag unreferenced content. Where it not a featured article, I would have probably done that, but featured articles are necessarily held to a higher standard. Hence the removal. I appreciate you adding the correct citation when you reverted my removal, and more importantly your efforts to ensure that the quality level in featured articles remains high. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

May is the key word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just a heads up: Talk:Test-driven development#OTRS permission for pathfindersolns.com. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Direct response

This discussion began here with my writing:

This series of edits is not appropriate. "Yes we can get back on topic, and we can easily stay on the topic as long as you refrain from telling editors what they haven't read and referring to their opinions as 'making no sense'." You are telling me how to act, which is what you're accusing me of. I simply stated what I saw: that the editors responded to the last thing they read without the context of the entire discussion and missed the full discussion. Without telling you what to do, I would suggest that we either drop it completely or escalate it. The choice is yours. I am doing this here so as to allow for an on-topic discussion on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments in the discussion were inappropriate, and you made such comments multiple times. I've made my points and can drop it if you will drop your inappropriate comments in the discussion. The choice is yours. One point on which we agree: I don't plan to make additional comments about your behavior on the article's talk page; I'll take them to the appropriate administrator page if there is a need. Cresix (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is that my comments were inappropriate. My opinion is those who commented were misinformed and I directed them to the full discussion. Feel free to take it to the appropriate panel because your behaviour is the problem now, not mine. ---Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that your comments were insulting (telling editors what they have not read as if editors don't know what they have read) and attacks (describing editors' opinions in a discussion where all opinions are welcome as "making no sense"). And, oh, you don't need to tell me to "feel free to take it to the appropriate panel"; that's a foregone conclusions if you continue such comments in the discussion. Cresix (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What I was responding to was the Wikipedia equivalent of someone walking into an ongoing discussion, and responding without knowing what had gone on before. It's tiresome and should never be done. If you don't have time to determine what has and has not already been said, you should not speak. Period.

What I was responding to was the Wikipedia equivalent of someone responding to the chapter title of a book without reading the contents of the chapter.

What I was responding to was lazy participation on the part of editors. While I assumed good faith in their edits and I assumed that they understood the subject, it was clear to me that they hadn't read the full discussion. I still hold that position.

Your behaviour of repeatedly calling me out and tell me not to tell others what to do was not only hypocritical, it was a distraction from the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You assume what others have read or not read (equivalent of acting as if you can read their minds), and then make snide remarks about it. This is the end of this discussion. Please don't message me again about this matter unless I escalate it. And should you be tempted to ignore that request, consider it an official demand, and take a look at WP:HUSH. Cresix (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't see things the same way I do. You will likely not be around Wikipedia for long with your bad attitude are rudeness. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A talkback template is not a warning. It's the appropriate way to communicate. As the section you pointed to states: "user talk pages are to facilitate communication". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Muniesa's number

Marc Muniesa is recovering from a knee surgery. He was not enrolled in La Liga, as can be seen on the official website (http://www.lfp.es/temporada/fichaclubplantillas.aspx?IDParam=5). This information that he is the number 26 is wrong because in the Spanish league clubs use the numbers 1-25 on the regular squad. Muniesa is first team player and can not use numbers above 25. What's more, the number 26 is used by the defender Sergi Gómez, yes this player's B team (http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2013/clubs/club=50080/squad/index.html). Marcospace (talk) 30 November 2012 (UTC)

He's listed on the roster and that's the source. If he's out due to injury, you mark that next to the palyer's name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverton

I just wanted to alert you on the subject of an ongoing discussion relating to Christian music.HotHat (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for your work at the UML page

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for all work over the years guarding the Unified Modeling Language page. -- Mdd (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Walter,

I noticed that over the years you responded over 100 time, guarding the UML page and responding to comments on the talk page. I admire your dedication and hope you will continue to do so. -- Mdd (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for the profane and any rudeness I may have shown yesterday.
XyphynX9 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We all get worked-up about things. Some of us let that come-out. I've done similar so it wasn't particularly unexpected, plus it's not like I don't hear that sort of language. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for drawing my attention to Real Earthquake's latest stunt. If any of the stuff that he is posting is worth having on those articles, obviously I wouldn't challenge it being added by you or anyone else in good standing, but I can't ignore his deciding that he is exempt from wiki rules. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Henry

Hey, sorry for taking forever to respond to your message on my talk page. I wanted to get some other things done first. Anyway I agree that newspapers can be used as I use them mainly as my sources for my Indian football pages but at the same time I know the evils of them. Henry is no exception as the Daily Mail came out today saying that the deal is not confirmed at all and that Henry may not actually go to Arsenal now. Who knows to be honest. For these types of transfers its best to just wait for one of the teams to confirm. Here is the Daily Mail article by the way... [3]. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I jumped the gun and was going based on what I saw on the player article and then a Google search. No confirmed loan. My fault. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Its cool. We all make mistakes. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MLS squad templates... non-notable players.

Oh and, as I am sure you have noticed, the MLS club articles are being updated a lot now that the MLS season is over and transactions are being done but it does worry me how their are Academy players being signed (like the ones at New York Red Bulls) and that there is no option to unlink the non-notable players on the current squad template. Now this is not to go against the squad template used in MLS articles as I actually think it is right for MLS articles due to MLS's rules like the HGP and Drafted players/Guest players but there really needs to be an option to unlink the non-notable players so they are not created pre-maturely. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is. Here's an example.

{{football squad player2 |no=36 |nat=CAN |pos=MF |name={{sortname|Bryce |Alderson|nolink=1}} |other=[[Home Grown Player|HGP]]}}

The players don't qualify as notable until they have played in a professional match or have been capped at a major tournament for their nation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that Red Bulls use a different template. It's trivial to switch though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I just tried it and it worked. We can probably change it back to the same format as the other Red Bulls players once he becomes notable. Cheers for that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Merry Christmas :) — ΛΧΣ21 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MLS Squad template

Why are MLS squads listed as one full list while every other league is split in half?