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)

Talkback

Hello, Walter Görlitz. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 07:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 07:26, 11 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)