Jump to content

User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-04

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Walter Görlitz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.53.173.48 (talk) at 03:18, 13 February 2012 (→‎RFK Stadium: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Thanks for the corrections

Thank you That's the second time within 24 hours that I see you cleaning up after me. Thanks for that but... how do you manage that, if I may ask? Is it just watchlist and/or recent changes, or do you use other monitoring tools that I am not aware of? Regards, -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's just that you hit articles that I watch. And I don't know if it's cleaning-up after you, it's just that when a page that I've watch changes, I tend to go in with "new eyes" and clean-up as per my understanding of WP:MOS and other guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's just that you hit articles that I watch.
Ah, that explains it then. To be honest, I'm primarily focusing on moving the reviews out of album infoboxes. I might do some other fixes in the process, but when I'm not sure I just leave that to others. Regards, -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Summaries

I will start making a mental note to include them in my editing. I am glad you are trying to make me a better Wikipedia editor. I just hope you like the content that I am working on. Have a great day,HotHat (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I love your edits! Thanks for taking the warnings in the spirit that they were intended. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Needtobreathe

I request your opinion on an interesting matter. Would you review and comment to a comment posted by a Single purpose account (admittedly a member of the band's management) at Talk:Needtobreathe (this diff). Even if the website isn't very reliable, it's an interesting question about how to accommodate the request in the article since it's probably able to be found in a stronger reliable source. Royalbroil 06:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why!!!???

Hi Walter.

I must say, I am finding my entry into wikipedia extremely frustrating.

You deleted my entry "HelpMaster" claming it was not notable. On what basis do you make this claim?

I created a page for HelpMaster, stating the facts, as something that could be built on. It too was deleted.

HelpMaster has been around longer than almost all the other products on this comparison list.

What is your motive in deleting it?Thecoffeeboss (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the article was up for speedy deletion. I didn't tag the article but immediately recognized that it would succeed. See WP:NOTABILITY --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve Green

First of all, your website template needs to be fixed. I don't understand your reasoning for removing Whiteheart. It's the same as with Truth and The Gaither Vocal Band. I looked at the MOS and it says: "For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member" He was not only a member, but a founding member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-12T16:49:01 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts states "For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member". However it goes on to say that "association of groups with members' solo careers: should be avoided, so I had it backward and I stand corrected. I know that he was a member of the first incarnation of White Heart although I believe he was asked to be a member not that he was a founding member, but that's a minor detail. I will restore the band if it hasn't already been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for some advice

It appears (to me) that Hrafn is following me around on Wiki, seeing where I do edits and subjecting me to the same WP:Lawyering crap that he's pulled on Calvary Chapel to either do blanket deletions of whole sections of content or leave cryptic, unhelpful tags to recent additions forcing me to divine his intentions. He never adds info or does constructive edits - he simply drops hand grenades and waits for someone else to pick up the pieces. I'm not perfect. Sometimes my insertions don't meet rules or guidelines, but I'm trying to learn. However, I love to flesh things out and try to add shape and definition to pages - that's my passion. I'm also happy to fix things if pointed out, but I've stopped watching/editting two pages - one of which I've been trying to bring around for months (with little success) - because I've grown tired of his crap. Suggestions? I mean other than to man-up and stop complaining... Thanks -Ckruschke (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Get some examples and take it to either Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or, as follow the suggestions at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope it doesn't come to that, but get a little tired of "the most unhelpful editor in Wiki"... Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Wikiquette assistance is not manned by admins. I've been there in the past and have weighed-in on several issues that have been listed there. Sometimes attackers are intractable, but in other cases, the issues can be resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm going to try at this point WP:Ignore all dramas as he attacks me and my edits in the Talk page and hope he gets bored with my silence. If not, we'll go down the path that you have suggested. I've been through enough mediations (as an onlooker) of people who don't understand that THEY are the problem to know that it's not fun. Thanks again Walter - always reassuring to talk to you! Keep the faith. Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wiktionary FYI

On board means "On or in a means of transportation" [1], since you asked. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks.Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Your recent editing history at David Crowder Band shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The following are in chronological order:
For the record, it's after 2012-01-14T02:23:28‎ and so I'm no danger of going over 3RR, but I do understand the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I fully understand you but you have not discussed the dispute with the other editor. Even though i'm not an administrator, making edit summaries such as O look. See your talk page. Still below quality and references do not meet standards. sounds close to a personal attack. I agree that editors are sometimes hard to work with and continue to disrupt as much as they want, but giving inappropriate edit summaries such as this is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Those are in direct response to an editor who is not cooperative. See the editor's talk page and his actions on the article's talk page (removing all comments and then only his and alternating between anon and signed-in). As for this issue, I have pointed the editor to the appropriate template and the correct usage, which was the issue here. Thanks for you concern and following-up. No offence taken BTW, and I appreciate the reminder. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this is for the talk page, not the article space. I didn't realize that 3rr applied to talk pages, but I just checked and it does. Got it. Please address the other editor in question as they were violating talk page policy. I recognize that I should have left it after one revert and allowed an admin or other editor to revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 You warned about 3RR, not about WP:REDACT Although that may not be necessary as it seems as though the editor in question is trying to get out of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tests to Football squad player2

Hi Walter. I was wondering if you had any opinion on the tests I have made to {{football squad start2}} in the sandbox and/or in my userspace? Colours are an idea for a bit further down the line, but I think the one in the template's sandbox is of particular interest, because it's a function that we should be able to implement immediately. Regards, —WFC— 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New MLS roster layout

Hey Walter.

I can't say I'm a fan of the new MLS squad layout. I don't like that you struggle to fit the entire squad on the same page, meaning you're scrolling up and down too much. Looking at the arguments given, it looks like it's going to win over, but I'm happy to tow the line! UncleTupelo1 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard the "fit the entire squad on the same page" argument before, but I suppose I'm fortunate to have larger monitors at home and work that I can drive at high resolutions. At what resolution do you drive your monitor? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My screen resolution runs at 1366 x 768. It's not too bad, but I think it's going to look pretty ugly to a lot of people. I think that's the major argument against it, but aesthetically it feels a lot weaker. Plus it's going to need crossing over to all other MLS clubs, where as the moment it's still just applied to four or five clubs. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Six currently, and will roll-out to the remainder by the weekend. I understand the appeal of the old format, and I'm sure you understand the utility of the new one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jappix

There is a problem, I see that Jappix has been removed, there was not informed...

Can you transfer the page on my subpage ? Thanks in advance ! — Neustradamus (✉) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC) and — Neustradamus (✉) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was redirected to distributed social network. It doesn't seem to have an edit history either I don't know what happened. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No there was an article before the new redirection. — Neustradamus (✉) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The vote was taken. I'm sorry you weren't notified. I use a tool and it to nominate articles for deletion and the original authors are notified when listing articles for deletion. This is that notification. I don't believe it's my responsibility to notify everyone who has edited an article about a deletion vote. One thing further, you're not supposed to edit a closed deletion vote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
But can you see for recover the Jappix page? — Neustradamus (✉) 11:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ping? Can you recover the original page before the redirection, it is possible I know. — Neustradamus (✉) 01:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought I had answered this. I'm glad you asked again. You need to read Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages and the follow its instructions. I am not an admin so I can't do anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try! — Neustradamus (✉) 16:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion of protecting an Wikipedia page

Hello Walter Görlitz

Recently there has been a lot of vandalism in the El Clásico Wikipedia page but I cleared the information box. Could you or others protect the page as is done with the FC Barcelona and Real Madrid pages for example?

Thank you in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Feel free to request page protection yourself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How do I contact the admins?

And which criterias must be meet to request an protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-19 15:42:01 (UTC)

The place to do so is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. Will give it a try.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Newsboys

Hi I edited your section on Newsboys before I created this account. The reason I edited the Newsboys Discography was because I personally have always found it allot easier to read it using the table and seeing that most Musicians have there music is such a style made me think it was the preferable style, this is seen with even musicians who have one album. Doing the Newsboys Discography was my first attempt at a discography and I would like to thank you for helping me learn if I where to ever attempt it again. I noticed that you put down that the Newsboys Album Devotion was of gold certificate which the source www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php disagrees with. Scorpian333 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

gerrardconsulting.com

I reviewed the recent editing around gerrardconsulting.com links and agree with their removal. You mentioned "recognized experts" in one of your edit summaries, but I don't believe he is from an WP:ELNO#11 or WP:RS viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One was an external link, the other was a reference. They are reliable sources as they are written by a specialist in the field. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sources please.
ELNO#11 states, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." Please address my concern that the external links do not meet this criteria.
Who says he's "specialist in the field" and how does this claim make the source acceptable. Please provide a source for your claim about his expertise, and please quote WP:RS where you believe it allows such sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
He's appeared on the subject at conferences. Therefore he is an expert. One of the links is the talk he gave at one conference. You're arguing from a point of ignorance and it's not a good place to argue from when we're trying to create an encyclopedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Walter, are you saying that because this guy "appeared on the subject at conferences" we must consider his self-published paper on his website a reliable source? Because that isn't so. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't like that answer, take the guy's site to WP:RS because they will back that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you've not addressed either concern beyond requesting it be brought to RSN. That is separate from the external link issue, so I expect that's no longer in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. You haven't offered a valid argument and any actions to remove it will be seen as uncooperative editing. If you'd like to point me to where this private discussion took place so I may address your concerns I'd be glad to, but carrying on conversations in private is not appropriate. I see no discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I see no discussion at all. All I see is a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to take a break from this. I've been discussing two different issues, and have identified and even quoted the relevant policies/guidelines. You're treating them as one issue. Stop and read what I've written. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
For the EL you want to know who says the author is an authority in the field:
StickyMinds is the most popular testing web site. It is the online arm of the most popular testing magazine Better Software. They also host three conferences: StarEast, StarWest, and EuroStar. Paul Gerrard has published eight articles, most on the topic of risk-based testing. He is also mentioned in 16 other articles.
Do you have a source to indicate that he's not an expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at StickyMinds. When you have an understanding of what they do, come back to discuss. This is common practice in the software testing world. Every authority has their own site and this is no exception. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"I think you need to take a break from this." I'm going to take one from you given your escalating hostility [2] [3] [4] --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The hostility is a reflection of your increasing obtuse responses to plain questions. I'm glad you're giving this a break. Take the time to learn how to communicate well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
At least we both agree that you're hostile. I think it's best to ignore you until you decide to take responsibility for your behavior and attempt to follow our behavioral policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you just need to follow the common rules of etiquette so that you don't create hostility in others. I take responsibility for my actions but you sir are devoid of any responsibility and so I assume you're amoral. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Geez, that's a bit over the top. Please just stop. Jonathunder (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Absurd edit warning when rightly trying to remove false information

I am half Spanish and fluent in Spanish. I can easily see if an source is reliable or not. In the case of SeaBoy (which BTW is an banned user that has reappeared with an different username, he admitted so on his talk page) recent edits on the Real Madrid page and his inclusion of the false claim of Real Madrid being the most successful in terms of domestic and international trophies, is an absurd action considering the fact that such a claim has no reason on earth.

First of all the sources are unreliable blogs/football pages that are free for all to participate in. I happen to know a writer on that page (blachereport). His name is Manuel Traquente and he is not even 18 years old. The two blogs do not include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup which is officially recognized by FIFA and UEFA as being the predecessor of the UEFA Cup nor do they include the Copa Eva Duarte trophy, founded and organized by RFEF and regarded as the predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup. Therefore it should not be valid as a source.

Moreover this is a wrong statement as FC Barcelona have more domestic and international trophies. And I only include trophies recognized by either RFEF (The Royal Spanish Football Federation), UEFA and FIFA.

For further explanation and proof of me being right, see the Real Madrid discussion page or the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages of FC Barcelona. Both versions are using reliable sources from one of the biggest Spanish sportpapapers.

It is an untrue and biased statement that can not be proven by reliable sources therefore it must be removed.--Crashwheelx (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm 0% Spanish and can't speak it to save my life. I can easily see that this isn't about either club's record but is simply about fan bias. On Wikipedia we try to stay neutral, which is something that is best done by non-fans of the clubs. There is no false information in the one reliable source. The other two links are fan sites and should be removed, but don't throw out all of the material, and definitely don't edit war and get yourself blocked over it. Take it to the article's talk page to discuss there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

CC

Walter - I was in no way attacking anything you said in any of your posts. I don't know how you got this impression - other than to just assume I'm a jerk. I'm obviously not as experienced in Wiki as you are, but I've obviously come to you in respect to you honest help/opinions. Next time I wish you'd just ask me what I meant... Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes. Sorry. I was confused. Down with a cold and a bit tired and dealing with two other issues. Not an excuse for the confusion and I should go clear that up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. The venim caught me a little off guard, or rather alot, but I can sympathize - I've been known to jump down people's throats too when I felt like crap... Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Nobody's Fault but Mine shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Radiopathy •talk• 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I can count, but the edits are less than accurate and I should tag every other editor with with either uw-tdel1 or uw-error1, but I won't because you're not worth the effort. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

It took me a while to realize what you were talking about, but then I finally noticed. I'm sorry, I guess I just like things neat and lined up. Zenkai251 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, by the way, how did you even notice I removed the space? Zenkai251 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed because it showed-up in the edit history. I watch changes not the current state. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, understood. I was just now tempted to remove that space in your comment........ Zenkai251 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Barca and Madrid

Yes I'm aware of the discussions, and have already edited these pages to this end in the past and participated in the talk page discussions. I think you've been doing a good job keeping on top of them, and I almost posted on here to comment to that effect a few days ago. But the 'discussion' on this topic - particularly at Talk:Real Madrid C.F. - had descended into nonesensical name calling between a couple of editors who had ignored reasonable appeals to one of the few immutable policies of Wikipedia, the WP:NPOV. I didn't see how further discussion was going to convince them, and it looked to me like you'd given up and abandoned those pages, as you'd let the versions which make a mockery of the NPOV stay up.

I've found in the past that eventually in these situations that editors of this type either get bored or get themselves banned; it's a case of correcting the page and letting them dig their own hole. And as it goes, the better version has (touch wood) been stable for a couple of days! So don't let the trolls get you down - from what I've seen on the edit history of these pages you do a good job :) --Pretty Green (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent plan. I've just been sitting back since I don't really know about either club to comment. They're just two of a few clubs that are frequently vandalized, so I keep an eye out for that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on Risk-Based Testing

Hi Walter. I wanted to comment on the discussion on Risk-Based Testing (talk) between yourself and talk. I think, originally, a valid point was raised for discussion. However, in reviewing the dialogue, I think the discussion has gotten very personal and emotional, and I think WP:AGF has been forgotten along the way by both parties. Reviewing your tone and choice of words, I think you have lost your neutrality and have let your feelings show through, and inadvertently contributed to escalating the problem. I think this has now gotten to the point that it puts the content at risk (no pun intended), and I'd like to plead for both parties to cease discussion until the air has cleared a little. I'll be posting the same comment to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulszym (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind, and I got your email, but it seems the other editor doesn't agree. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that the other editor doesn't seem to agree with your advice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I weighed-in on the PM article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all I see is a comment above the secion I created that says that you need more details on the topic. I'm not really sure what your opinion is. Is there anything else you would like to say on the topic? (It's okay if you don't want to; don't feel that I am focing you to take part in the discussion) 174.7.90.110 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Not sure why you created a new section when I had already started one, but that's not important. In short, I don't really care how it ends up looking and I'll let those who do discuss it. I just don't like vandalism or unexplained changes. I'll watch the discussion to make sure that editors don't impose page ownership, but otherwise, I'll be hands-off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine

I don't understand your post to my talk page; please explain. -Ojorojo (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

LA Galaxy

I Don't know what you're talking about. Of course Juninho is on loan, I didn't update that he wasn't. Leonardo, however, was signed on a FREE TRANSFER, therefore is an official member of the Galaxy from here on out. Not on loan.

http://www.lagalaxy.com/news/2012/02/juninho-and-leonardo-return-la-galaxy-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDallum (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't seem to get my response to go through on the CCM talk page

Walter, I don't want to have an argument. Certainly not in public. Could you please just navigate to my article and use my Contact page to send me an e-mail? Thanks, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Race (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually communicate with editors outside of Wikipedia. The issue is simple though. You're not a recognized expert and so adding your page violates WP:ELNO. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

God bless, keep up the good work.

Once again, have a great spring! - Paul

Sorry, it looks like I forgot to Tilda this note appropriately.

Paul Race (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

I think it's time to take Mies to AN/I (again). His fucking bullshit is well-documented--this is how he always wins debates. He lies, he moves goalposts, he pretends you haven't dotted the exact i's and crossed the specific t's he wants you to, and eventually just wears you down. This is well supported by his history and an RFC/U--that being under a previous username; he created this account specifically to avoid scrutiny. → ROUX ₪ 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well this edit was uncharacteristically childish: "I will answer yours just as soon as you answer mine." I felt like I was in elementary school again. But it seems that he is pushing his point, as are you, rather than trying to reach consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with him is, you need to nail him down or consensus simply cannot be achieved. A couple years ago at Talk:Commonwealth realm I had to ask him over thirty times for a reference for what he was claiming, before he finally admitted there wasn't one. That finally allowed consensus to be achieved--if you don't force him to provide a source, he just keeps arguing and arguing and obstructing the process. This is what he's been doing on Wikipedia for years, and has somehow managed to evade getting permanently blocked for it by always maintaining a veneer of politeness on top of his outright lies and distortions of sources. And FYI, that line was not 'uncharacteristically' childish; it is absolutely his usual MO. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Some folk never learn

Sometimes Wikipedia almost makes one lose the will to live. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walter Gorlitz. Please do 'check' my addition. In trying to understand overlinkg, I'd assume it's not the case there. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." You tell me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification -- i.e no-linking to countries or constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

I've responded to your concerns on my talk page. Not sure if you're notified when that happens, so giving you the heads up here as well. GauchoDude (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You wanted WP:ELN

You posted to the talk page of our guideline, you wanted the noticeboard, I've moved it there. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RFK Stadium

Dear Gorlitz,

I don't remember the exact edit I made regarding Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, but if it was in relation to sporting events in Washington, D.C., and specifically the Washington Redskins football team, you can be assured that the edit was correct and offered updated information or corrected something that was factually incorrect.

I am a native of Washington, D.C., a lifelong fan of Washington-area sports, and I work as a professional journalist and editor, as well as a fact-checker for a prominent series of sports publications.

I rarely make changes to Wikipedia, but when I do I can assure you that the facts will be correct. I daresay, if you know nothing about the Redskins or the history of RFK Stadium or Washington, D.C., sports, then you probably shouldn't be monkeying around with other person's good-faith changes.

If you'd like to forward me the page in question, and notate the change, I'd very much like to review it.

Thanks,

Brady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.173.48 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RFK Stadium

Dear Gorlitz,

I don't remember the exact edit I made regarding Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, but if it was in relation to sporting events in Washington, D.C., and specifically the Washington Redskins football team, you can be assured that the edit was correct and offered updated information or corrected something that was factually incorrect.

I am a native of Washington, D.C., a lifelong fan of Washington-area sports, and I work as a professional journalist and editor, as well as a fact-checker for a prominent series of sports publications.

I rarely make changes to Wikipedia, but when I do I can assure you that the facts will be correct. I daresay, if you know nothing about the Redskins or the history of RFK Stadium or Washington, D.C., sports, then you probably shouldn't be monkeying around with other person's good-faith changes.

If you'd like to forward me the page in question, and notate the change, I'd very much like to review it.

Thanks,

Brady

68.53.173.48 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_Görlitz/Archived_Talk_to_2012-04&oldid=476575923"