User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2021-12

Murdoch Mysteries - Main Page

Hello;

Someone did something to the main page and I'm too sick and tired to focus, to see what needs fixing. Could you take a look please? BlackW76 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again;

That user "Flameboy" has messed up the main page again. I took a look but can't see what he did. BlackW76 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chosen

Hi Walter! I hope you don't mind me contacting you here. I went back over Gwapong's edits on The Chosen and it seems they have a history of disruptive edits. I believe them to be good faith, simply being new and not understanding Wikipedia standards. But since it is affecting article quality, I will be addressing the issues in the cast list as well as the season 2 table. Per MOS:TV none of season 2 should be there other than mentioning details of it being in production, provided that can be sourced (hope you agree with that?). I've already taken this out of the cast, noted why in the edit summary, and left some notes on the talk page. I am waiting to see how they respond. Depending on that response, I'll move forward on addressing other issues with the cast list and removing the season 2 table, which should not be included until it can be complete without any "TBA." The end goal is to address article quality issues while at the same time trying to channel Gwapong's enthusiasm in a constructive direction. If you have any concerns, advice, criticism, or anything else, please let me know. Butlerblog (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your revert today. I've blocked the other editor - they clearly think that they can add material and that others should find the sources, they once again stated that in an edit summary today. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The material was just removed by Butlerblog (talk · contribs) over the past few days, with full explanation on the article's talk page. The other editor has different ideas about inclusion. I responded on the article's talk page literally as you were writing here. To be fair, I've seen some odd edits with TV shows. No need for references once an episode has aired, and odd rules about inclusion, so my concern has primarily been in keeping truly unconstructive edits from happening on the article, but I recognize Butlerblog's project-based concerns and would like the other editor to address them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My bad, for some reason I thought you'd reverted Butlerblog. Anyway, the other editor is indefinitely blocked. If they agree to stop adding unsourced someone might unblock them, but the chances of them understanding our policy and knowing what sources are reliable seems slim. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've stopped counting the number of times I've seen "reverted to revision ... by _" and mistaken it for "‎reverted ... edit by _", so I understand the error. Thank you for your involvement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your guidance and efforts. My concerns were primarily listing of future events (i.e. season 2) as they are not encyclopedic, and a consistent pattern of reversion even when issues were brought up and policies explained. I tried to reach out on their talk page to thank them for their efforts, give some information on NOR and how to cite sources, and asked for dialog on moving forward. I was hoping to be encouraging and draw them in, but the response was that they simply blanked their talk page. I wanted to assume good faith, and hope I didn't act in bad faith in my approach towards them so if there's any feedback for me from a growth perspective, let me know. Thanks! Butlerblog (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts on The Chosen, Walter. It's the first time I've dealt with that kind of conflict, and it was a learning experience to approach it the right way. I'm wondering if it might make sense to move the two Big James credits next to each other, since they're now only one credit apart. I wonder if it might confuse people and lead them into a good faith edit that seems to make sense to them. The reason I ask you here is after all that's happened, I didn't want it to seem like now I'm moving away from what I had supported (broadcast order of the credits). I saw last night's edits and I wonder if that was actually someone else who just thought they may be doing just that? Just wanted to seek your guidance and input on that. Butlerblog (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: It does not seem to be someone else. The initial WP:SPI showed behavioural evidence that the Philippine editor was the named one. The new IP is also from the Philippines and the same ISP as the first anonymous editor. An admin looked into it and blocked the new IP for six months, but we all know that IPV6 addresses change quickly and so the block will likely be ineffective. I have also asked for the page to be locked to new and unconfirmed editors, but that may not solve the problem either.

I support the broadcast order credits as well, and since I'm not really a participant in the TV project, I don't have much advice to offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense. It's all unfortunate because we did try to channel his energy in the right direction, but he just would not bend. I'm sure that kind of thing happens on a regular basis, but I've never dealt with it before. Thanks again. Butlerblog (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Most editors just walk away when they realize that their ideas and process is in conflict with the culture and process used on Wikipedia. Every so often, we find a crusader who will not let go. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Only Way

Hello Walter, I hope you are well happy new year 2021, I would like you to please help me in the article Only Way. In reference 11 I get an error in the appointment, you can help me. Thank you very much, greetings and many blessings in this new year 2021.GJFBR (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@GJFBR: Thanks for the benediction, and blessing to you as well.

The named reference was not defined anywhere else. I assume you mean the 365 Days... entry, as it had been reused a few times though the article. I cleaned it up and the error is gone. If that was not the correct reference, please substitute the correct one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Thanks for your help, in fact I already cleaned some errors, on the other hand you can check this article Heaven on Earth (Radio Single), if there is something wrong you can correct or clean. Thank you very much Walter for your help. Blessings.GJFBR (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

About Echolette, and Arthur Klemt (at least the English Wikipedia article) as well

Hi Walter,

2012 was a long time ago. I must admit I can't recall creating the article at all. Back then I was a fairly well established editor, and can't understand why I would create Echolette without any references at all. But obviously I did. I guess it was because I was a little bit bedazzled by the de:Arthur Klemt (Erfinder, 1913) assertion that the company made effects units used by Chuck Berry and the Beatles.

I note that the 2008 de Löschkandidaten for Arthur Klemt (Erfinder, 1913) resulted in bleibt. That is of course a matter for that Wikipedia.

While looking to see if I could remedy the WP:PROD, all I could find was pretty much either:

• advertisements for antique audio equipment
• reminiscences in online forums about... antique audio equipment

My initial response to the WP:PROD was, WP:REDIRECT to Arthur Klemt. This again was an article I started without any references in 2012.

I personally have no objection to a WP:PROD for both Echolette, and Arthur Klemt. However, it would appear to me that WP:AFD discussions may be appropriate here. I ask your opinions and guidance about this.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Shirt58: My PROD arose from a contested PROD that went to AfD where the most recent editor argued WP:OSE and pointed to this article among others. I did a WP:BEFORE after checking the lack of sources, and PRODed. I did not click through to the Klemt article, but if I had, I might have gone the speedy route. Taking both to AfD might be appropriate with one merged into and being a redirect to the other, or possibly deleting both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

HTTPS links

You reverted about 5 updates I made from HTTP->HTTPS links. Could you please cite the Wikipedia policy that says that links should use HTTP? In these cases, the web servers are are sending a "301 Moved Permanently" response to the HTTP URLs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301. Further, there are countless cases on wikipedia that the link is stored in wikipedia as HTTPS when the HTTP version does resolve - for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House - are you proposing that all articles like the White House article get reverted to HTTP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gavreh: But you're not linking to a 301 page, you are changing a link to a server that would listen on TCP port 80. If the browser is capable of a secure port, it will be rewritten. If there is a firewall that prevents such communication, it won't be. However, if you force TCP port 443 and the firewall prevents it, you are prevented from going to the site. In short, you should not change the link. It's a problem that you do not seem to understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You have not cited a policy in your reply - please link me to the editing policy that talks about this so I can learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you pinged me when you were writing on my talk page and did not bother to follow MOS:INDENTGAP when replying are problems and show your inexperience. So let me know what policy you're following to change a good external link to another one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: "The HTTP response status code 301 Moved Permanently is used for permanent redirecting, meaning current links or records using the URL this response is received for should be updated" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301. I did not claim to be an expert Wikipedia editor :) I am just asking for a link to the editing policy that talks about this so I can learn more ... you have not yet provided that, and instead insulted my skills :(

@Walter Görlitz: Per @RudolfRed: here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#HTTPS_vs_HTTP%3F: "If you are referring to links to external websites, WP:EL says that https links are preferred"