User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2010-12

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Thank you! How do we get started? Which references should be removed? I'll giver it a try, I guess. Armorbearer777 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have written up s nice little Christian Metal Radio Section.. Here goes, I hope it lasts.. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are so many other great Christian Metal radio shows and podcasts these day! More coming out all the time. I think it is AWESOME! The more the merrier says I! But I tried to highlight the ones who are recognized as the main pioneers and other notable shows, for their substance and originality if not always for their popularity. Perhaps one day Christian Metal Radio may be able to stand on it's own. That's about all I think I should ad for now. What do you think?Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

hi walter

RE; List of GUI testing tools. Lists are used in Wikipedia to organize information, and for internal navigation. Lists contain internally linked terms and thus serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. Lists do not exist for the purpose of linking external websites. Each "article" entry within a list has its own content, citations or "official" links, therefore External links within "list of..'s" serve no encyclopedic funtion and fails WP:NOTLINKFARM.--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Larry Norman

Hi Walter,

I note that we are ping ponging on the Emil Nikolaisen claim.

I don't know who wrote that Emil was majorly inspired by Garden, nor why they didn't cite any references.

What I was trying to do, because the entry had "citation needed" next to it was to show at least that Emil is a fan. I figured that gets us one step closer....

Would it not be better then if we changed the sentence, so that instead of majorly inspired, it just says that Emil is an admirer of larry's music? That can be cited.

I didn't rewrite it because I'm new to editing wiki pages, and wasn't sure if that would be the correct etiquette.

What happens with other false information that is there, say with a citation that is untrue or incomplete?

For example, the page says that Randy was dating Nancy. The cited reference only says that Randy's girlfriend was Larry's sister; no mention of names.

Now Nancy herself says that they never dated.

Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NASL Country discussion

hi walter. thank you for you input. please come discuss this further on the NASL talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_American_Soccer_League_%282010%29#Country_league_is_based_in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.148.252 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Non regression test

I saw the non regression test speedy delete and posted a hangon. Just thought i'd ping you so you are aware. This is my first time working with speedy deletes, just thought I'd look around wikipedia a little. I am not totally familiar with policies and procedures for this sort of thing, and in general I dislike wikilawyering as I prefere to edit articles for content (something I wish I had more time for). My thoughts are on the articles talk page. Regards, CoolMike (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GUI Test Tools

Please stop removing Eggplant from the list of GUI Test tools. Over half the external links at the bottom of the page mention it, it's been around longer than Ranorex and has more users, and I've been a user of the product since it's introduction 8 years ago. I'm not trying to advertise the tool, it's a tool that everyone should have in their arsenal. Thanks for listening. Ajfisher2 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have an article while Ranorex does. Personally, I don't think either should be on the list as neither can demonstrate market share. It's not a tool that everyone should have in their arsenal. My mother doesn't need it. Web designers don't need it. There are lots of people who don't need it. You need it, and that's great for you, but Wikipedia isn't about you or me, but about information. Why not create a page for Eggplant and see if it survives. If it does, you can add a link to it on the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Baptism (Immersion/Submersion)

I'm sorry if I stepped on your turf with the baptism and immersion baptism edits. It was not my intention to get into a wiki-war over baptism.

My main concern about the "baptism" article was that the word "submersion" is used in the heading and article when submersion is not in common usage by theologians and dictionaries (in my own experience and quick research), and possibly misleading to casual encyclopedia readers who encounter the term "immersion" frequently. I have heard the term qualified as full immersion but very infrequently, "submersion." I was fairly confused when I first read the article and it referred to submersion, when most other sources I've had contact with call it "immersion" or sometimes "full immersion." Basically, I was concerned that others would be similarly confused by the term "submersion." Swampyank (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[1]We'll have to hope a vicious war doesn't break out between the immersionists and the submersionists. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy Stonehill..

If it is true, how can it be liable? The divorce is a matter of public record besides being common knowledge. I shall scan it in, upload it and then reference it. There is also no mention of the fact that Randy was also married to Larry Norman's wife. I think claiming god saved his daughter from spinal meningitis is a much more libelous statement than the fact that Randy has had a 3 year long affair and is now leaving Sandi due to his inability to maintain a faithful marriage.68.52.39.110 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it public record? Larry married Randy's ex-wife, not the as you suggest. This is the first I've heard of Randy and Sandi parting ways. I believe you're slandering. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Load testing

Hi Walter, thanks for the edits. Will surely use care with any material which goes in.

Dhiraj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiraj1984 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying

Please do not make assumptions, they're not nice either. Just because someone leaves a comment on my talk page does not mean that we are conversing. If you have a problem with the comments he/she leaves others, please adress it on that users talk page. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bro

I put allot of my heart into writing that radio section.. I hope I didn't step on your toes.. I like Pulse radio, but it is just not Intense Radio, HM Podcast of Full Armor of God Broadcast. Maybe we can make a bullet list.. I don;t know.. This all gets so draining to me, I don't know how you do it.. Be blessed and thanks for the oppertunity to write the Christian Metal Radio section on Christian Metal. But I just don't have it in me to battle this out.. I leave it to you cheif. By the way, do you have skype? email me if you can taskforce@fullarmorradio.com Armorbearer777 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on your talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I now seem to be under attack by Ridernyc, Franamax and another user Rubbersocks in retalliation to this Christian Metal Radio discussion. They seem have an aspect of chronnyism that links them together, possibly canvassing or even stealth canvassing. Any input you can give me would be much appreciated. Sorry for bailing out on the Christian Metal Radio discussion but it did not appear that it was going very well. It was getting very draining for me. One thing that I do agree with IhopeIcan143 about is the fact that there definately seems to be a rivalry between The Full Armor of God Broadcast & pulse radio, seemingly more on their end. I suspect possible stealth canvassing betweem fishermanD, IhopeIcan143, Ridernyc and Franamax. But how does one prove that? There definately seems to be a collaberation of sorts between them all. Anyway, please join my disscussion on the re-wright of Christian Metal Radio on my talk page, if you please. Also, there are NEW sources that should allow The Full Armor of God Broadcast to finally be able to have a stand alone article very soon. Once that is achived, it should be clear that the Christian Metal Radio segment on Christian Metal was never just a ploy to promote Full Armor, which is what these users are all implicating. Keep in touch! Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter, you seem to have Armorbearer's trust. Perhaps you can explain to him that he is not under attack, rather that several editors are making good-faith and polite attempts to help him undrstand and comply with site policy. Maybe also explain that on Wikipedia things don't always turn out exactly the way you want them and that doesn't mean that people hate you or are out to get you. I'd rather see this get resolved peacefully so that everyone can go back to editing articles, the alternative is considerably less desirable. Franamax (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, I closed this, hope that's what you wanted? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting of administrator's comments that contradict your comments on my talk page

I notice that you have reverted an administrator's request that you don't revert "warnings" on other editors' talk pages. It's very interesting that you have done this - especially in view of the claims you have made about this on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. You misunderstand the policy. Allow me to explain it to you. There are instances where blanking is specifically allowed. I applied that rule here after I read the admin's comment to my talk page. I believe it was a comment and not a warning template. You correctly applied the rule when I placed a WP:NPA on your talk page. However, in deleting the warning on your page, you again broke WP:NPA and so I reverted and placed the warning on your page, which is permitted in WP:BLANKING (restoring warnings). So the policy is you may delete warnings or comments of any type, although archiving is preferred, however warnings may be restored, I believe that there should be a good reason to do so. You even later commented on your talk page that you hadn't read the information in that warning. I believe that this is now resolved and I left the following on your talk page as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally read the the page about no personal attacks. I am not engaged in a campaign of incivility, abuse, harrassment, and stalking of you. Someone made several edits on the Reverend‎, a page on my watchlist and you reverted all of them. I then restored one edit that I felt was deleting distinctive information. You took offence to that and accused me of stalking. I tried to be civil on its talk page and you dropped into ad hominem attacks. I responded to the edits. You attacked me again personally. I then responded with comments on the content. I researched the matter and found that personal attacks are not permitted and placed the template here. This is what should be done. It was only a level-one warning. You commented again on me personally in your reverting of the comments as is permitted in specifically allowed and I restored the warning as is loosely permitted in that same guideline since you obviously had not taken WP:NPA to heart. You then attacked me again, on my talk page this time, and I placed a second level-one warning. You are most free to revert any warning placed on your talk page. It is your right and privilege. I will never place a warning on anyone's page unless I hope it has a corrective effect and as such, any warning should be investigated before being deleted.

Please, dear brother in Christ, I am not attacking you. You may feel that I am being uncivil, but I have never once in this debate uttered an uncivil word nor taken an unkind action toward you. I am not abusing, harassing, nor trying to provoke you, I am simply trying to teach you to be civil, non-abusive, and non-harassing when dealing with other editors. The edit war on the Reverend‎ article has ended and thanks to your work on that article, it's really shaping-up nicely. Thanks for your effort in improving that article and the many others on Wikipedia that you assist with. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Underoath

Dear Mr. Görlitz, thanks for your support and comments and my talk page as well as on the article's talk page. I simply feel that there is no reason to excise an important attribute about the band from the lead when most academic references mention it when introducing the band to an audience. The opposition has not mentioned a good reason to remove this fact. His quote actually supports why one should leave the adjective in the lead: "Christianity is the backbone of our lives." Thanks again for your comment! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Görlitz, there is a pending discussion here that you may be interested in. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful Dying Day

That page is not an edit war, or speculation. What happened there was an honest mistake, which has now been resolved. Your involvement is only making a mountain out of literally nothing. Thanks. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I just interpreted it as such. The user explained to me that that was actually the name of the new.. er.. whatever it was. Sorry for the confusion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, my edit was not vandalism. Please stop furthering the conflict that has already been resolved on the page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Shouldn't have hit the Rollback vandalism button. I have now followed-up on your talk page and have deleted the associated acts since they're not linked to articles (and there's no WP:V for the fact that they're associated). No need to split the one artist into a new section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It was placed on my talk page because the editor came to me, because I reverted it (for the same reason that you did). However, I do see what you are saying. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the topic. Thanks for the clarification, Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the one that started the Beautiful Dying Day page, and I have read 'A7' on how apparently this is not a relevant entry for Wikipedia, but I honestly don't understand how one so many other things that are on it are any more relevant that fall within the same criterion. Simply because you do not know about the subject would not mean it is not important; do you not agree? --Parkergreydeal (Talk) 22:15 (UTC)

Responded at User Talk:Parkergreydeal --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

NEW - "Christian Metal Radio" section for Christian Metal

I just went ahead and and Metal Pulse into this version, if for no other reason than to eliminated conflict. basically if we leave it out, they will just keep coming back to dipute it. I will try adding this condensed version back to the Christian Metal article now that things have calmed down. i hope this time there is no conflict. Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Christian Metal is very much a counterculture of the Christian music scene, it has never had any major corporate radio outlets, as opposed to the more accepted GMA associated Christian music formats. Christian Metal Radio can be hard to reference and even more difficult to establish notability for. Nevertheless, Christian Metal has remained culturally significant, primarily enduring the test of time through word of mouth and through the help of pioneering Christian Rock & Metal broadcasters. In spite of the lack of commercial radio support, Christian Metal broadcasters have managed to hit the airwaves on public radio, college radio, internet radio and in recent years through podcasting via the internet. As the new age of digital broadcasting technology becomes more accessible, the number of Christian Metal broadcasters is steadily increasing. Some of today's largest Non-commercial Christian Alternative radios stations such as RadioU, Call FM and Air1 have some Christian Metal programing late nights and on weekends. However, as a whole these larger stations generally stick to a mostly GMA Christian Music format. Other stations such as Almighty Metal Radio, Savage Rock Radio, Reign Radio, The Refinery Rock Radio, FuelRadio.fm and Blabber Jesus Radio have been able to maintain 24 hour Christian Metal formats through the promising medium of internet radio. Some notible Christian Metal Radio Shows & DJs incude: Jesus Solid Rock Show Hosted by Pastor Bob Beeman ('74 - '80), Intense Radio Founded in '95 by Pastor Bob Beeman and Sanctuary International, HM Podcast with HM Magazine founder & publisher Doug Van Pelt, The Full Armor of God Broadcast ('97 - present) with Bro Scotland Kubinski (A.K.A. Kuba "The Demon Slayer"), Radio U Hard Core ('02 - present) Hosted by Jaddeus Dempsey (A.K.A. "Jad"), The Nation of Rockwell ('03 - present) Hosted by Quinton Rockwell (A.K.A. "Q Rock") and Metal Pulse Radio ('07 - present) with Dale Hoffman (A.K.A. Fishing D).

Sorry about the criteria statement, I added that without signing it. I though it was a good idea, but can see why it may not have been. Sorry bro. Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps Roster

I added the Whitecaps website reference. Everything should be in order now - Thanks. Kasperone(talk) 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

SkyTrain

I added the articles to the new Category:Transportation in Burnaby, and some of them were already in other city-specific subcategories as well. They don't really need to be directly in Category:Transportation in Greater Vancouver at the same time as being in the subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad

A tag has been placed on Template:Vancouver Whitecaps 2010 squad requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Skillet Tours

On the Skillet touring section you made the valid point that festivals should not be mentioned as a)The section was about the tours that the band had done not festivals, and b) there were far too many festivals. However would it be okay if I made refferance to some of the headline acts that Skillet will perform with over the Summer at festivals, such as Godsmack, Rob Zombie, Three Days Grace and Daughtry? These shows will most probably be some of the biggest Skillet has done to date (both in terms of size and acts headlining) and thus deserves some mention. (116Rebel (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)).

Power Metal

Hi Walter, I believe the deletion made from the Power Metal section of the Christian Metal article was erroneous. The information I added previously was not repetitive, but was indeed new information (the only info there previously was seven years old!)...and the bio that was linked in place of my sentence was also from 2003. A number of other bands listed in this same section are given extended discography treatment...I don't believe that one sentence updating Theocracy's discography to the present is repetitive or unnecessary. Premsta (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This somehow got posted in the Christian Metal Radio post. I didn't want you to miss it, it sounds urgent. Forgive me for taking the liberty of editting your user page, but I only did it to help you bro. Armorbearer777 (talk) 09:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry Norman

Hi Walter

Just to let you know, I've reached out to smjwalsh asking him/her to discuss before making changes... obviously there are a wide range of opinions, so it's probably better we reach consensus first, for anything other than minor edits.

Regards

Matthewdjb (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was overzealous and was going off of an outdated precedent: you're right

Walter,

You're right, I was overzealous and had remembered an earlier version of the 2009 Canadian Championship page. Firstly, I'd been working on the kits and line-ups for the 2010 CONCACAF Champions League Finals, and when I saw the line-ups on the 2010 Canadian Championship page, I added the kits in the same format. Secondly, I was trying to imitate what was on the 2009 page, but I neglected to check the current appearance of the page: I went off memory alone, which was a mistake. What I had done was standard operating procedure for a final (see the articles on the UEFA Champions League final, Copa Libertadores finals, etc.), but you're right, they shouldn't be on the Canadian Championship article. I'm sorry to have made things more difficult for you. Thanks for straightening me out and take care!

TFCforever (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin intervention

I didn't want to make a fuss on the talk page for the article, but the person on the other side of the dispute was blocked. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume he means Talk:The Roxx Regime Demos. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, neither User:Amsaim nor User:Koavf have been blocked from editing and there are no block on the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks?

Really You called me arrogant, an idiot, and labeled my edits as vandalism—all of which are personal attacks. I am interested in seeing a diff where I made a personal attack against you. Please provide one on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No threats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What? You claimed that I made a personal attack against you—please show me a diff of that personal attack, or else I am forced to assume that it never happened. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You threatened me. Still haven't had any success in selecting or displaying revisions. They are present in the history if you want to remind yourself, but here is the text in question:

I will pursue the appropriate action. Do you understand?

This is the sort of behavior that will have you put on the Twinkle blacklist and if you continue name-calling, you are likely to face a more serious sanction.

The first being more blatant than the second. The second was a threat of "blacklisting" me. Something with which you're familiar for your previous actions. Again, please read all of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, particularly What is considered to be a personal attack?.

Your actions on The Roxx Regime Demos were, despite being banned from editing for two days for the same action, were uncalled for. I reverted them in the strongest possible way to make a statement. You then came to my talk page and threatened me. I reverted them as vandalism as well. I have that right on my talk page. I suggest that if you don't like being called-out on the carpet for your actions that you stop them. I don't mind taking whatever heat you throw my way for calling you a vandal.

We were trying to reach consensus on the article's talk page. If you wish to help us reach consensus, feel free to join us. If you don't want to help reach consensus, please don't make arbitrary changes to that article, particularly around the areas with which were are trying to come to consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope None of those are personal attacks in any way.

Then you truly don't understand. You threatened me and that is an attack according to What is considered to be a personal attack?.

And I've never been blacklisted for abusing Twinkle, so you're wrong on that count, too.

Never said you were blocked for using a tool I said you were banned for going into the The Roxx Regime Demos and edit warring. I should have said you were blocked for edit warring.

Furthermore, I was not threatening to blacklist you myself, as I cannot do that—I was merely pointing out that abusing Twinkle by fraudulently labeling someone else's good faith edits vandalism.

If you had good faith, it certainly didn't show. The edit history on the page is evidence of that.

I suggest you see here: Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Blacklisting. Since you do not understand what constitutes a personal attack,

Again, you're wrong. I fully and completely understand it. I also understand what I did was an attack against you. I also know that you still don't recognize what you did was an attack.

I suggest you read this as well: Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F.

I fully understand.

Also, I was not banned, but blocked.

Sorry. Blocked, Banned. Abusive behaviour should result in a punitive response. You got yours for that previous action. I'm sorry I miscontrued your punishment.

Again, you may want to read WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK. Honestly, this exchange is a complete mess

says the one who is making it a mess just as much as I am

and it shows that you are not sufficiently familiar with the definitions of vandalism, personal attacks, blocks, bans, civility, or a host of other basic terms on Wikipedia.

I understand enough to know that I've never had punitive action taken against me for my behaviour. Can you say the same?

That having been said, you definitely know better than to call someone an idiot and you surely also know that it is not going to be tolerated. If you're ready to be more civil, I'll happily collaborate with you.

Feel free. We are discussing the matter now and have commented on your action and labelled it as inappropriate and moved on.

If not, I will ignore you. And if you persist in making false accusations about me and undermining my ability to contribute to Wikipedia, I will seek the intervention of an admin as that becomes necessary. This is all very simple, and I hope that you can abide by it in the future. This is a "threat" only to the extent that it is predicated on you disobeying the very simple ground rules for Wikipedia; if you place nice, there is nothing threatening about that at all. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't a threat at all. It was a discussion.

Your threat: I will pursue the appropriate action. Do you understand?

How this could have been a discussion: "Please don't do this again. It's inappropriate. What did I do to get you so angry?". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your earlier comments, however were a threat. An unveiled threat. I trust you've learned how to reach consensus before making a major change that is currently under discussion. I trust that before you come back, you'll tuck your ego into your pocket and assume that others may actually know something. What's that called again? Oh yeah: assuming good faith. I'll have no problems labelling your actions as inappropriate if you haven't. I do know what inappropriate behaviour is and I rarely stoop to that level when responding, but your actions merited a strong response. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No This is a colossal waste of time. If you think I made a personal attack against you, I suggest you ask an admin. It will be interesting to see what he says. If you think "Abusive behaviour should result in a punitive response" then I guess you think you should be punished for calling me an idiot, right? I guess we agree on one thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I will not elevate your actions to an admin because I trust you've learned from my response to your actions: you haven't been back to the article to make changes. Feel free to report my actions. As I've said before, it will be very easy to explain.

As it stands, I'm working with the editors to bring that article to consensus. If you don't want to participate, that's a loss to us. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Association Football competitions

Would you like to join Association Football competitions Kingjeff (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not a huge football fan. I really only follow two clubs, as my edits show. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are way too many soccer competitions in the world to take care of. Maybe you can take care of the USSF Division 2 competition pages along with their players. Kingjeff (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

An example of what you can do is something like 2005 USL First Division. This is clearly a stub-Class article whichbarely has anything. As a follower USF-2, you could work on these pages. Kingjeff (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yowza. Like I said, I'm not a huge footy fan and that seems like a bit of work. I'll see what I can do though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it shouldn't be done by 1 person. Do as much as you feel you can do. Kingjeff (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the project is off for the time being. Kingjeff (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Petra

Regarding this revision, whereas the who tag may have been appropriate, the citation needed tag was not. The material is cited later in the article so a citation in the lead is not required. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It was cited in the article, but not in the lede. Since the pragraphs were essentially at opposite ends of the article, it made sense to include it both locations using the name tag. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

Hi, about the vandalism reverts in this article: I usually do put a notice (one of those mainly) on the contributor's talk page. Sometimes I skip this if there are already some messages concerning vandalism on the page or if I think it could have been a good faith edit. But I'll try to be more consequent in future; getting vandals banned is hard work. --Jaellee (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Petra (band)

I wrote this on my talk page, but I'm not sure how all this works, so I'll paste it here too.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I would call it soft rock, but as I said, Petra over the course of 33 years and two dozen albums had one record that some considered too light. I'd say that's squarely within the confines of the very broad set of genres implied by the word "rock." At any rate, I think your most recent edit splits the difference well, and I'm happy to leave it there. Paa00a (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation Styles

Can we resolve this without having a fight over it? Your style is acceptable if you delete the free flowing references below it since one of them is not cited in the article and the other is cited in the in-line citation. I'm perfectly willing to go along with your style if you are willing to delete the primary source. Redfarmer (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The second reference is for the entire article. I asked you several times to explain which parts of the articled needed in-line citations. I explained that everything on the article was covered by the references. You told me that in-line citations are required for all articles (you have to hit a lot of articles up with that tag--you should get busy on that by the way). So I added one in the only part of the article where it made any sense to do so. Then you wanted to put a Notes section in to deal with the reference. I showed you that it's not necessary. Now you're telling me to delete a reference to the whole page for some new concept you're calling free-flowing references (notice the hyphen, which is correct in English). You've already admitted you know nothing about the subject and I'll state it plainly: the reference is for the contents on the entire article. It always has been.

And once again, you take it up on my talk page instead of the articles' pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the dispute is between the two of us, no other editors, and it would be inappropriate to have it on the talk page of the article. The two styles are footnoting and short refs. Footnoting allows the user to simply give full footnotes where appropriate and use the notes section as the references section. (See WP:FOOTNOTES). Note from this page there is stylistically no need to list all the references below the footnotes. The other is the style I have been referring to. If a source is used in the article, it should be cited using one of these styles. If it cannot be cited using one of these styles, it should not be in a reference section but rather a further reading section. If you are using another style I'm not aware of, please cite the link to that style. Redfarmer (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You apparently didn't read my commit comments or what I wrote above so let me state it plainly: I know that there are two ways to include references. The Notes section is new and most articles don't use it so I don't either. Please do what you want since you won't leave me alone until I do what you want. I suggest that for the sake of consistency, please add a Notes section to the remainder of the articles in the Wikipedia Albums project. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich Invitation

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke sehr. Es tut mir leid, aber ich weiß überhaupt nichts über München. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to know much. I'm sure you have the ability to work on the football articles. Kingjeff (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oba naa. : ) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Canadian Championship

The red color is traditionally used to indicate that team is not able to qualify to next round in small groups – I'm sure you've seen it many times through the football articles since almost every international tournament does have a group round. Because Canadian Championship is in first place the qualifying tournament to CONCACAF CL, I thought it's important to indicate that a club can't reach this goal. I should have provided the key to used colors though. Regarding the fb template – I have used the shortened version of it with no "qualification/relegation" column having in mind exactly the same purpose so I don't understand your argument here. —WiJG? 07:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day

Per WP:LEADCITE, references aren't necessary in article leads; the lead summarises information in the article body, and that information is already sourced. If you've some other issue with the article, please discuss it on the talk page first; WP:BRD should have guided you to do so after you were reverted the first time. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

They're not, but the problem is that the references given below are not complete and since they are the first instance of the term are where I tagged them. You have been incorrectly deleting additional changes to the article when you have been reverting the correct request. I have decided to stop having you delete my requests and have moved the requests to a place where you requested even though it's misleading to have it there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing there. You keep adding <small> tags to the references, which are not required. You also keep deleting a valid reference in the Lede.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mdash template

Just to be specific, the mdash template page recommends "no space before the template and one space after the template." I made a similar error with this before. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

I note you went to the talk pages of the only three (four? I don't recognise User:Izno) editors to ever voice an objection to the <small> formatting around ref template code. Both the one-sided nature of your appeal (vote stacking) and the tone of the message you left (campaigning) are an infringement on WP:CANVASS. Please be more neutral and fair in future. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't vote stacking, I was merely contacting a few of those who commented on your talk page in the initial time I had. Feel free to contact others at will. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All of whom side with you. As well, the note you left for them contained unfounded claims about my personal feelings. The former is vote stacking, the latter campaigning. A neutral, general note in one or more public locations would've been the appropriate course of action. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll contact everyone who commented on your talk page under that section, when I have time since you don't seem willing to do so. Besides, it's not a vote. It's consensus building. Feel free to provide a more neutral template for me to use, although I believe that you don't like the fact that I am removing your formatting preference. Here is the text as I posted it on the users' talk pages:

I have started to discover where User:Miesianiacal has added <small> tags around <ref> tags. The editor doesn't seems to like this. On one article he statedlong-standing on high-traffic article; please seek consensus to remove so I added a section on Talk:Prime Minister of Canada for that purpose. You have expressed concern about this in the past an thought that your input would be beneficial there as well.

Feel free to edit it to remove any perceived feelings or POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I looked at your talk page and found only the following users in that discussion thread:

• User:Gary King|User talk:Gary King
• User:Rrius|User talk:Rrius

I suppose you want me to follow the discussions mentioned in your talk page too. I suppose I can. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also found:

• User:Christopher Parham|User talk:Christopher Parham
• User:Epipelagic|User talk:Epipelagic
• User:Eubulides|User talk:Eubulides
• User:Gadget850|User talk:Gadget850
• User:Izno|User talk:Izno
• User:Jc3s5h|User talk:Jc3s5h
• User:MickMacNee|User talk:MickMacNee
• User:Ohms law|User talk:Ohms law
• User:Pmanderson|User talk:Pmanderson
• User:TheDJ|User talk:TheDJ

I will indicate which have already been notified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bold indicates that they have been contacted. Once you have provided me with an approved template, I will contact the others. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I can do that, I need to understand what it is you ultimately want to achieve with these efforts. I can't see why - or even that it's appropriate - to solicit input from those particular editors on a matter related to a page none have ever edited. If you want to address something beyond just that article, I'd think you should be doing so in another, more public forum. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to recuse myself of the implication that I was canvassing when I was merely contacting individuals who commented on the topic an ran out of time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Okay, I'll leave the ones with some good sources alone, but if you look at the Thousand Foot Krutch one you'll see I'm the one removing unsourced content there. And with Masters of Horror, how am I supposed to cite a source when the source is just "the episode itself"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, in the Masters of Horror ep all I did was rephrase the sentence to make it flow better. That and the TFK revert make me wonder: are you actually looking at my edits before reverting them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand. You don't like the fact that I continue to restore genres to bands after you delete them with no comment simply because they have no citation and you don't think they're nu metal, or whatever genre. In cases like this, it is appropriate to request for a citation before simply deleting them. In several cases, you also removed cited genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the good cited ones :p Like I say, I'll leave them. But wiki rules say anything unsourced can be removed, a genre with a 'cite' tag just means it's one that a wiki user wants in. You could add any genre in and put a 'cite' tag after it. I'll leave those ones alone for now though, we'll see if anything comes up. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To FC or not to FC

I was just applying the standard link piping convention we use across the soccer project, trying to maintain some semblance of consistency across the various infoboxes, templates and lists which mention the teams in question. It's really not a big deal. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Hi Walter,

• No "vendetta" on Calvary Chapel, that is a very strong word.
• On sourced information, I provided an audio recording of Chuck Smith, and the user identifying himself only as an IP address decided to delete it -- twice, citing Verifiability. Unfortunately, he has not provided any reason, other than Verifiability. An audio recording of Chuck Smith certainly seems like a "Verifiable" entity. Please explain this.
• On the fact that dates don't need to be updated for NPOV. I didn't know, so thanks for the information. From LtWin's comment, NPOV date is supposed to show how long the page has been in dispute. That makes sense. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the voice reference to the page. Smith discussed a misinterpretation of something about Hal Lindsay, but I could not find good references for that. Sliceofmiami (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary

I enjoyed this one. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrospectives

Compilation albums Compilation albums include retrospectives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day

I've just found this diff in which Miesianiacal himself changed the format from "May 24" to "24 May" without due cause back in 2009. According to Wikipedia guidelines, formats cannot be changed without due cause, so it should be changed back for that reason alone. I've added these comments to the discussion page and ask that you re-join discussion in light of this apparent bias on Miesianiacal's part. Thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of issue-tracking systems

Regarding this edit, it's nothing to do with being "commercial", it's a spam entry, like the others he's added. There's no article about the issue tracking system - if you follow the link you see it redirects to an entry about a company. The same user has edit warred in attempting to restore his similarly misleading spam link in another article, and has made no attempt to engage with anyone. Greenman (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reversion on Ubuntu

Hey. Thanks for reverting the malformed additions to Wubi on the Ubuntu page. However, the change doesn't appear to be vandalism as marked. I'm not sure if this is a case of Wikipedia:Not_every_IP_is_a_vandal or just hitting the wrong button, but please try to assume good faith, even for new users. Thanks! :) Jess ^talk _cs 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

ScrumMaster

They can't make their minds up! I checked that (with the space) from CSM certificates on the office wall. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Enable e-mail?

Given the possible sensitivity of the script, I'd rather e-mail you the instructons. -- --JimWae (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thousand_Foot_Krutch. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. mono 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see how you might think that if it were not for the 24-hour rule. I have tried to engage the editor in a dialog. I understand what the anonymous editor is saying but itr's clearly WP:OR and does not meet WP:V --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and thank you for the warning. I assumed I was getting close. Next insertion I was going to tag the questionable statements and remove the reference back to wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Toni Kroos

If you want to look for a source if he's back at Bayern Munich, then check their website in the archive section. I know something is there about him coming back. Of course it would be as of July 1. Kingjeff (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for offering to help a new user learn to edit [2] - Philippe 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh. I don't know if I deserve it, but thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

They adding/deleting transfers before July 1 on Arsenal F.C.'s page. Kingjeff (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you help in watching the Arsenal F.C. page? People aren't getting it and I'm at my 3 reverts for a 24 hour period. Kingjeff (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Teitur Þórðarson

I think you'll find my edits to the aforementioned article were good-faith, and not vandalism. Thanks... Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 22:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I find all Vikings to be worse than vandals :)

Seriously, you have a single-issue and didn't bother to check before you made your change. If there was a button for mad a bad mistake I would have used it. The group who made the original change were Icelandic nationals and based on your first comment (making the same as other articles in the Icelandic project) it was clear that it was another imposition of that project's goals on the rest of English Wikipedia. The fact that you didn't discuss it made it appear as though you were trying to fly in under the radar at best or simply impose (as suggested above). I was heavy-handed t to attempt to prevent the issue for recurring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Vikings aren't all that bad ;)

That's okay, I just wanted an explanation because it wasn't intended to be vandalism at all. I just tried to align it with other Icelandic peoples' pages - without really examining any previous discussions, I'll admit. It's been returned to the discussed consensus and was easily reverted, so it's fine now. Hope I haven't wasted your time... Ը२ձւե๓ձռ¹⁷ 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of my best friends are vikings, well, Norwegians.

Not a waste of time. At one time Wikipedia made it difficult to move pages which was one of the reasons I was grumpy when I made the original changes. I was expecting a lot of problems. It was very simple actually. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:Unexplained change of image size on Whitecaps article

I apologize for not explaining my actions. I found the size of the Whitecaps FC (MLS) logo at 200 px to completely dominate the article. With further inspection into other MLS logos I found that very few if any reach the 200 px image size. I felt 150 px to be an appropriate size that gave the article a good balance. Again, I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Run34 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Kits v Uniforms

Hi Walter. I hope I'm doing this right as I've never wrote on someones page before. Anyway, with the changing of the term on the new Caps page(and hopefully merged with the previous one soon!). Uniforms aren't the proper term used in the sport of soccer, even if it's NA. Just because some people do it doesn't mean it's correct. The reason for use of uniform in the past was due to other NA sport influencing soccer. But things change and with the popularity of the sport ever so increasing with influence from the rest of the world, and immigrants the term kit is quite normal. I play the sport and everyone I know in that sport calls them kits not uniforms. There is plenty of use of the word kit in various news sites in Canada as well as some saying uniforms, but the term is now thankfully being widely used in Canada and you can see on the MLS site as well as the Whitecaps site that they use the term "kit". I've supplied some examples. Even Bob Lenarduzzi himself uses the term. Cheers! Harry

http://vancouvermls2011.com/news_and_events/archive/news06101001.aspx http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/vancouver-reveal-2011-kits-and-announce-bell-partnershipHarryzimm (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the same press-release. If you want to change it for every team club in N.A. feel free. Please keep Whitecaps as the last one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. mono 03:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup

I'm sorry with the SPAM tag, but the conversation in talk is for that reason to determine consensus and a few hours doesnt qualify as such. We've made recommendation (ive agreed to a suggestion as well), and that move was completely uncalled for.Lihaas (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not even attempted to discuss the facility, making demands is not a discussion. Read my text on the talk page, i have explicitly said let's come to an agreement, another editor made a recommendation and I accepted it pending a few more agreement (ie- not just the 2 of us), if you want to be construction then talk about the issues. We're as it is right on the verge of the consensus on the new idea. its better than an edit war.Lihaas (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor have you. All of the discussion is against. I did not originally remove your WP:SPAM additions to 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule, I simply cleaned-up the extra columns that were remaining. You added the material without consensus as four speak against it on the article's page, one neutral, and one in favour. Then on the project's talk page there is another who is strongly against. Most footballers aren't currently watching Wikipedia, they're watching Argentina v Nigeria. I doubt there will be much more discussion over then next forty minutes. In all, you added without consensus and it was removed as SPAM. You added it back without consensus and I removed it as SPAM. And I doubt your "source" meets WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine if they are not watching for the next 40 mins, but consensus is not build because "no one is around." That is a red herring. Anyway, see my post on the talk page that says 3-1 or any number is NOT ground for consensus either, not me, wikipedia says so.(Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right, consensus is five editors to one saying don't add it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

USSF D-2 Table

Regarding the table this week. Here is how I read the rules: the first tie-breaker is H2H points. If there is a 3- (or more) way tie then it's points per game vs the other 2 (or more) teams. Miami, Carolina and Portland have 13 points. Miami drew with Carolina and beat Portland, so they got 4 points in 2 games. Their H2H (per game) is 2. Carolina drew with both Miami and Portland. Their H2H (per game) is 1. Portland drew with Carolina and lost to Miami. Their H2H (per game) is 0.5. So, the order should be Miami, Carolina, Portland. So in the NASL table, Miami should be ahead of Carolina and Portland is indeed out of the playoff spots. Do you agree? DemonJuice (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I read it that this rule was applied between teams. So Caroline and Miami have drawn and so I looked at goal difference. Miami has defeated Portland twice (yipee) and so are ahead of them in the play-off race. I guess we'll see what the USSF D2 think when they update their standings. I'm sure it could go either way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It specifically says: "7. The first tiebreaker in a three-way tie is also head-to-head, but it is determined via points-per- game versus the other two teams." http://carolinarailhawks.com/uploads/assets/CAROLINA/2010MediaGuide/2010MediaGuidePages48-60.pdf DemonJuice (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Feel free to change the standings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what http://ussf.demosphere.com/Schedules/2010/20952154.html seems to state too. Good to know for future ties. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize I'm being super anal about that will change in a matter of days. I think I'm a bit OCD about these things but wanted to make sure I ran it by you first. DemonJuice (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, despite the fact that the official table agrees with me, the really super anal part of me now disagrees. Sure, in the overall table it's a 3-way tie but in the NASL table it's only a 2-way tie. Miami and Carolina drew in their only meeting so the tie-breaker should be goal difference. I'm blowing my own mind. ;) I kinda regret this entire thread. :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonJuice (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I looked at the NASL Conference and said "two-way tie" and put Carolina on top. Then I saw that for play-off placement...well, you get the picture. It also doesn't matter because

# it should change in a few days and,

# Portland is currently in 9th place either way you calculate it which makes me smile.

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps supporter, eh? I'm Timbers. ;) DemonJuice (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the 1978/9 season. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

List of date formats used in Canada

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Canada-related articles)#List of date formats used

Match in progress template

Please understand that I am not proposing that we encourage the updating of results, but rather that if we acknowledge that undoing the edits of the over-enthusiastic only results in edit-warring, and that there is no reliable way of preventing it, then we need to at least warn readers in a way that is quick to post, and clear even to the uninitiated, that the result is not final. Kevin McE (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Canada

I'm intrigued to know how it is that, as support for your revert, you point to the very clause I pointed to as reason against your revert. Care to explain? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You pointed to a clause? The rule of thumb clearly states what overlinking is, and it's certainly not overlinked.

• where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first

As it was before you removed the reference there were three links in the body copy and one in the infobox. The first in the body copy was in the lede. The second is at the start of the Qualifications and selection section, the section in question, and the final is in the Role and authority section. The Qualifications section is separated from the lede instance by the Origin of the office section and the majority of the lede. I'm not really sure why you think that this is overlinking. If you view the page at 1024 x 768, they're not even on the same screen page although it is almost immediately beside the link in the infobox at that point. So how do you think this is overlinking? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I did; right in my edit summary.

Your list of times the page is linked pretty much sums up how it's over-linked. But, whatever; I'm not going to expend a lot of energy over this. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's linked three times in the body. That's not overlinked. None of the links can be seen from each other when viewed at 1024 x 768. That's not overlinked. You still can't make the case that's it's overlinked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks for the WP:Spam education.

Greetings Walter. I was the author of the WP:Spam edit you just removed from the "test fixture" page. I've not contributed tons to Wikipedia before, and was not aware of the thorough distinction between spam and meaningful, informative contributions. I promise to study the WP:Spam policy before ever making such an edit again.

With all of the garbage on the internet these days, it is a horror to contemplate how useless Wikipedia would quickly become without the contributors such as yourself. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCHenningsgard (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I do have a question (in advance of reading the entire WP:Spam definition). I drew my belief that listing highly-specialized (if not outright obscure) vendors of little-known things to be meaningful research vectors from the page on automated test equipment. That page lists the very few "Typical Vendors", and it is not regarded as WP:Spam. What's the distinction between listing a few vendors there, and listing a few vendors on the "Test Fixture" page? Thanks in advance for your help understanding this. {RCHenningsgard (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)}

I don't watch that page, but thanks. I'll remove the spam from that page as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter, seriously, anybody trying to learn something about automated test equipment would really value those links! Surely there must be a level of obscurity in a technical field at which the threshold of labelling something as "spam" versus "obscure research-worthy information" would be reached. I propose that the "Typical Vendors" links on the ATE page easily meets that test, but before I write further on the question, I will go thoroughly study the WP:Spam policy.{RCHenningsgard (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)}

OK. Explain that to those who set-up the SPAM guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template: 2010 Group D

No problem ^^

-тнєѕαℓχ - tคlк - ¢σηтяιвυтισηѕ 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup - English language varieties

Hi, thanks for your comment. Please see English language varieties on my talk page for information and my resolution (which I do not purport to be final). Facts707 (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage

Hi Walter, you recently reverted my legitimate edit to 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, where I corrected the numbering of the Final Match (Match 64) and Match for third place (Match 63). But no worries, your reversion has since been corrected by Sonjaaa. I just wanted to let you know. Cheers. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 21:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup

If I come back for another round of cleanup in the near-future, I'll try to handle everything in one edit. Glad to know that the work was helpful. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup celebration image

I agree that it is a wonderful image. Unfortunately, it's contrived. It's a photoshopped creation of something that never happened. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia! --Elliskev 01:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup

The article is a general one and you and a few others seem to think it should contain intricate detail

• I agree fully that it needs to be general, but STRONG precedent is against you. You have proposed a discussion. Wait for a consensus. You already have at least 2 editors against you and no one supporting you. If you propose other sections be generalized (symbols, effects, etc.), I will support you.

There are article that contain the intricate detail that you seek.

• I am not looking for intricate details. The goalscorers and a link to the match are not intricate.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be a sports journal or news source.

• Thats why we link to the match report and not have our own.

Once again, stand down or I will file an official complaint. Await a consensus to be achieved through discussion. We are by no means pressed for time to have a perfect article. Patience.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add the intricate details in a general article. They are not required despite past precedence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA Schedule Page

Yeah, that was my error, I realized after. I just decided to leave it since it started within a half hour NEway, then you reverted it nine minutes beforehand. I undid it at the match start and started tracking the game score on that page

Someone apparently didn't like scoring updates with "in progress" and even removed the updated score in place of restoring "Match 50" - now THAT I thought unnecessary and didn't even see it until I updated 1-1 after Donovan's goal. CycloneGU (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

new kids on the block

I have learned several important things from this blocking experience. The most valuable is that according to Wikipedia:Reverting anything you undo or revert on an article constitutes a revert. I also found out that there is no clear definition of what obvious vandalism is, and it's left up to the admin to interpret. If you revert the work of four separate vandals within a a single twenty-four hour period, you could be found in violation of the WP:3RR. Alternately, if you revert the work of three vandals and some editor comes in and adds some information without a reliable source, or if he's thinking only of himself and not the community at large and you revert that, and then the editor decides to report you for violating the three revert rule, you could be blocked. Once you're blocked, you can't address the issues raised adequately and the guideline of Wikipedia:Assume good faith is out-the-door.

So now I'm not sure what I should do when vandals strike. Any suggestions would be appreciated, but not from admins because you have by-and-large lost my respect and admiration and I will either ignore or delete any comments you place on my talk page regarding this subject.

I trust that these thoughts do not bring the Wikipedia project into disrepute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Plural wikilinks

Thanks for the note regarding the proper way to link plurals in wikilinks, as indicated on the edit history of Stryper. I appreciate the heads up. Every little bit helps. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

??

Hi there WALTER, VASCO from Portugal here,

Really did not understand your reaction at this discussion (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#User:Zombie433). The last sub-section which i added, was clearly of no use to the discussion, it was just written out of frustration, i admit it but:

1 - User:Zombie433's English is appalling, as other users have attested to (using this same word), as appalling as my German would be if i attempted to write coherent stuff in articles, so i don't edit in that WP. Also, his level of (lack of) cooperation is beyond this world, hence my frustration most of the times (his lack of cooperation is also addressed to in the discussion, nothing i am making up).

2 - You immediately jumped to his defense, with the counter-effect of attacking me (since you said "compared to the current structure, Zombie's edit is not bad", then emphasized some words, i assume the words in black are my errors, failed to see at least ONE therein). On a related note, why do you took ofense to the word "sold"? Yes, i am fully aware that slavery has ended, but players are sold to teams for an amount of money or, in american sports, exchanged for other players (the PLAYER is sold, not the HUMAN BEING). The Major League Soccer reference really got me confused, maybe you could explain it to me...

Really, Walter, i would really appreciate some feedback, so that no bad stuff remains unsolved, and that we can have a good wiki-relationship, as i want with all the (well-intended) users.

Again, i apologize for any incovenience (even tough you are not directly involved in the situation which resulted in this), keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Convinced of? I will gladly explain and/or clarify any doubts that you may have, just ask - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Another editor which does not wish to converse with me, even when i apologize and act friendly...You said you were not convinced of something, i offer to clear out any doubts you might have - as i also have - also asking what did you mean by that MLS reference, really did not understand it, and zero response? OK (yes i see by your edits you have been busy with stuff from the 2010 FIFA World Cup, but i still three or four minutes to send some minor feedback would be not be a great deal in your "wiki-schedule").

OK, rest assured, will not bother you anymore, happy life and editing, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. I'm not convinced that this user needs to be monitored. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes Walter, i had already read that reply, thank you for that. Now, i understand what do you mean by "i am not convinced". Take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifa World Cup Squads

Hey Walter - are you certain of that? I've shifted the edit to the section later so at least it has less prominence... Gavinio (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage

The FIFA.com result is from the views of fans who simply vote for Honda because he is the most popular player from either squad. This page has expert views, but I am sorry for putting Morel's name, I meant to put Lucas Barrios as MoM. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow, that was a very pleasant surprise... thanks very much, glad you found it useful! Just hope that other editors agree that it's an improvement, as some are quite fond of wiki-syntax window-dressing. Time will tell, I guess. Knepflerle (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Minister-Präsident

Does Minister-Präsident mean Minister-President and Erste Minister mean Prime Minister or First Minister? Kingjeff (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the head of a German state in english would be Minister-President? Kingjeff (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: FC Bayern Munich

Some time ago i used a similare squad list on Halmstads BK and it was changed by another user back to the original, i took it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, where several other agreed on that the original was the better choice and i went along with the major opinion. If their is a new consensus that it will/should be used i would not mind using that style of squad list. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary worship music

Are you aware of this discussion?--Bhuck (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No because I don't follow the German wikiepdia discussions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

When making Interwiki-Links to the German Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you would follow the German Wikipedia discussions.--Bhuck (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be disregarding my suggestion of following the German Wikipedia discussion, perhaps you could explain to me the difference between the articles here in :en 1) Contemporary Christian music and 2) Contemporary worship music. Should "Contemporary worship music" include Buddhist chants of recent years, or is it only Christian music, and if so, why is it not considered to be Christian music, but instead more generally worship music of whatever faith?--Bhuck (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The term is exclusive to a form of Christian liturgical music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked about two terms and what the difference is, not about one term.--Bhuck (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

About billions and millions

In my edit on 2010 FIFA World Cup, I was thinking of WP:ENGVAR. I was not aware of the guideline WP:ORDINAL that you gave, that the short scale should be used, so your revert was justified (although not strictly necessary, because my edit still followed WP:ORDINAL). But in your edit summary, you mentioned an "accusation". I don't know who you think I was accusing of what, I was just trying to improve the article. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility Warning

Your comment on User talk:PeeJay2K3 was far from WP:CIVIL and rather unconstructive. You may be blocked if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be uncivil. User talk:PeeJay2K3 was uncivil in his comment which was linked-to on his talk page. Also, he did not assume good faith when he deleted some content. I was simply pointing out the discussion about adding the thing he removed. I have attempted to apologize. If that's not sufficient, I can't do any more. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, while the comment was a little off-colour, I didn't take any offence in it. I wasn't really using the site that much for a couple of weeks at the time, so I missed the discussions that went on. Sorry. – PeeJay 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I owe you a beer. Should have been nicer. Good to have you back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! – PeeJay 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

???

I saw your message on the talk. I don't see how my edits are unconstructive. All I did was to add Sneijder and Robben's name since they scored a goal! Gnayshkr3020 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many edits on that article in a short time. It was a different edit. I have removed the comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RE World Cup 2010

If you check the page history of the edit I reversed, USER John reasons for deleting my edit were 'nn'. I did not think this was a valid reason so I reversed his edit as vandalism. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

He used a lot of terms. I agree, the event was notable. had the goal been allowed it would have changed the outcome. It's a valid section but it's not fair to call another editor's changes "vandalism" when they're expressing an opinion. Had it gone on over several changes, I could see it though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Final

All it needed was for the section to be expanded a bit. Anyway, "crap" is a matter of opinion, and it doesn't really matter how many sections the image traverses. – PeeJay 21:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The section needed to be expanded? The expanded material is general information about the ball and not about the specific match ball, but whatever. If it looks like..., smells like.., it is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section needed to be expanded. There was plenty of information that could be included, and I've not even added all of the things I thought of yet. After all, since the Jo'bulani is just a gold-coloured version of the Jabulani, all of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Jabulani could equally be levelled at the Jo'bulani. – PeeJay 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is it's not specific to the final match. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In a way, you are right, but that is only because the Jo'bulani is simply a gold version of the Jabulani. Despite this, most of the information is still pertinent. Could you point out any specifics I have included that you think should be omitted? – PeeJay 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox log

You should look as Meisianiacal's (sp?) sandbox. Maybe you should do the equivalent to what he's doing. He seems downright like a disturbed personality; beware of him. Myself, I don't have time or patience for this kind of nonsense. Good luck with it. 204.174.87.223 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not worried about User:Miesianiacal/Sandbox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would never keep a hit list like that. This is my policy: Matthew 18:21–22. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

December Moonlight

I can take the "lesson advertisement" off the home page. Why should I be careful resizing photos? I would be interested to know this. Thank you! Carolynorth (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can take everything off the site that points back to my lessons if that would be the professional thing to do. I am not trying to advertise my lesson studio at all, not even in the slightest, by putting external links onto Wikipedia. I just was hoping to help get the word out about the site I am building - a site that I hope will help others to learn more about music. Thanks again! Carolynorth (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your construction criticism. I do appreciate it. I am going to go back onto the all the pages of my site and resize all the photos correctly, keeping the same dimension. I didn't realize it was noticeable; however, my site tools allow me to resize keeping the same dimensions, so I am going to do that to all of the photos. I'm also beginning to realize the importance of divorcing my studio information from the web site in general. I believe I will use another web address for the lessons and keep December Moonlight strictly a music information site. I will also be reading the Wikipedia guidelines a little more carefully, so that I can add external links to my site within the proper guidelines. Thanks again so much. I really appreciate all your help.Carolynorth (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have properly resized all the pics on the web site, and I'm grateful to you for that advice. You're right, it did make a huge difference. I have moved everything that has to do with my private music studio into the "Lesson Portal" section of the web site. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look around on the site and let me know if you think I might be able to now link some of my pages to Wikipedia pages? Any thoughts, advice, criticism, comments would be much appreciated. Carolynorth (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you

i would just like to thank you for representing our faith And doing so much for the newsboys page, look for a lot from me to! Glman99 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how much I've done, I usually just monitor for vandalism or addition of incorrect information. Glad to help where I can though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Hi Walter, I just wanted to note that I did not actually change the Calvary Chapel section regarding quotes from Rick Ross, other than copying more of the articles that were already referenced. When I read the articles, there were sections that were copied out of the article but were taken out of context. In the overall "Criticisms" section, I only tried to make it more readable by making each of the criticisms separate sections, instead of making a huge run on sequence of paragraphs. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that and I really shouldn't be blaming you. I haven't particularly liked the section. It's labelled "cult-like" and the accusation isn't really supported in the section nor is it appropriate for the group. The copyvio did have to be removed though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Double standards, much?

You certainly seem to be suffering from a severe case of double standards. Yes, we should leave articles as per the status quo until discussions are resolved, but according to you the only status quo is the one you created. Those articles were in the state I left them in for the ENTIRE tournament until some anon came along a couple of days ago. If anyone has ownership issues here, it's you. – PeeJay 18:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that they were in that state prior to your changes started. My mistake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think we both have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions, so I think now would be a good time to cease the curt attitude we both seem to adopt when speaking to each other, don't you? – PeeJay 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say sure, but that might be too curt. I think it's hard to communicate in summary comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Past members

I removed the "past members" in the infobox for Underoath a long time ago with the agreement that the listing was much to large. The band has been formed two times thus creating an ecessive array of listing. My decision to remove it was originally deemed adequate for the same reason why the reviews for the album infoboxes came to a consensus. Hope you understand. =) • GunMetal Angel 00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A better use of your time

Instead of sending me message after message, and if it's bugging you that much, wouldn't it be better for you to take the 5 mins to update the Whitecaps roster yourself? I'm currently having this thing called "a life" which has to take precedent over "the internet" now and again. I will get to it when I have the chance, just as I said I would. I have not had the chance yet. --JonBroxton (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What's bugging me is that you lied. You said you'd maintain the rosters and that's why we didn't need a template. I said I would only maintain the template. You had the time to respond here. Perhaps a better use of your time would be to keep your word. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I lied. I intentionally went out of my way to mess with you, mislead you, and make you do something you didn't want to do for my own sick amusement. I get off on the fact that you now have to cope with a slightly out of wikipedia page which, rather than updating yourself, you will not touch and instead have want to have an argument with someone on the internet. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Irony. We don't much of that around here. Please just fix the mess you made Jon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, please don't harass other editors. No-one "lied" to you, despite your claims to the contrary. The template was removed because it does not meet the requirements of the style guide or Wikipedia's accepted practice for articles. What you are threatening to do - adding a non-conforming format - would simply be removed yet again, and would likely be seen as a disruptive move on your part. That would not help the sitation at all. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

None of your statements are correct. I am not harassing editors. I am asking you and JonBroxton to do what was agree-upon when you decided that the Whitecaps roster template was deleted. It was my only condition for not allowing it to stand any longer. The template was being used in two articles and that's the minimum requirements for a template. It is accepted practice. The fact that you two are not maintaining your word to keep the separate tables up-to-date is more disruptive than creating a template that would be used and maintained. Instead of using your time to spin your side of the story I suggest you stop do what you promised. This could have easily been settled in April when I said I would maintain the rosters if they only had to be kept in two locations. I know you think you're justified in your actions, but you're not. I said that the lists would fall out of sync and they certainly have. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reece Brown

He's a member of the reserve team. – PeeJay 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is a link http://www.manutd.com/publish.sps?pagegid={061AD8F0-B618-4CC3-838C-A9AEA6B5217A}&teamid=437&section=playerProfile&bioid=93383 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.209.46 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Open source?

Where does WP:EL say anything about open source? - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenSource is implied in WP:LINKSPAM with the question: "Is the source a commercial one?". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's on Wikipedia:Spam, and is in a section about source solicitations which would not seem to apply to links to implementations. Compare with Wikipedia:External links, which has 'Lists of links to manufacturers' in the section 'Links normally to be avoided'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Except FOSS isn't a manufacturer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:External links/Amendment which ended with support but no strong conclusion. FOSS has always had an exception. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just raised it at Wikipedia talk:External links#Clarification on free open source external links. If we're confused about it, I'm sure others are as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup squads

I think FIFA made an error here. FIFA listed Vladimír Weiss with Manchester City, even though he was transferred in Jan 2010, played 13 games with Bolton (no league games with Manchester City), and was last with Bolton when the WC started. His FIFA profile 'Club History' also showed Weiss was last with Bolton:

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/players/player=313909/profile.html

Played last club game with Bolton:

http://www.footbalistic.com/players/2090/vladimir_weiss

Other players on transfers are listed with the transfer team, not the original team. For example Robinho (and many others):

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/players/player=194815/profile.html

If 'Club' is last club played for, it should be Bolton.

Zzsignup (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be better discussed on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Crystal

Hey, Walter, ya know what they say about people who assume things? But, I must admit that I assumed that it was a good link. I should have checked it first to make sure. But, you shouldn't accuse people of things like that. Musdan77 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote was How can you use a reference that's 404? This makes me wonder if you actually accessed it or assumed the information was there. I didn't accuse you of anything. Insinuation is not an accusation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And the issue was you offered-up her middle name so either you knew it or you looked at the link. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1) You make it sound like an insinuation is better than an accusation. They're both wrong—especially if you're a Christian. You should know better. 2) What I did was: went to her website and found out her middle name, then I saw that a link was already in the article, so I just it—instead of making another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended but you should have checked the reference. The fact that you didn't check the reference and used it to reference a new fact was incorrect procedure. Please be careful in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try. And you do the same. Be careful how you talk to people. Not just the words you use, but also use humility (Philippians 2:3). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LN

My posts are not vandalism, as I have stated previously. Please do as I have suggested and read the page on vandalism that you, yourself have linked to for further clarification. I find it objectionable that you continually refer to my edits as vandalism when they clearly are not, and I kindly ask you to stop doing this, and also stop threatening me with banning for articulating the wording of a sentence differently from you. None of the information I have contributed is factually incorrect. In fact, I have not changed any of the information in the statements presented, but have only worded the sentence in a way that I feel is better and more constructive.

That people have stated opinions is fine, but it does not make their claims factual. WP:V merely verifies that the statements can be atributed, not that the statements themselves are factual. "Some have described..." is clearly factually accurate - the alternative would be "All have described..." which is obviously not the case. Additionally, it seems important to you for a negative statement be the final one of the paragraph. In what way does that wording improve the article? By writing the sentence as I have the article is not harmed in any way, and is in fact improved. The facts are still there for people to read - none were removed. They should at least be presented in a manner that is more readable.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit to Michaelle Jean

You added a "citation needed" comment to my edit and commented on my neutrality regarding the edit. First, thank you for the guidance, as I am new to to editing wiki pages. Also, you are right, as a vegetarian/vegan I am probably biased against her stance regarding seal hunting. I tried my best to keep my observations regarding the incident factual and accurate, but may have gotten carried away by my personal views. For future edits , I will try to be as unbiased as possible and will add citations where I have them. Thanks again. AlexBehrman (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

Champions league tables

I really don't have anything against template you sent me. But if you look in the past seasons format I already put was used all the times. So I think it is more important that all the seasons have coherent look although personally I prefer using templates over wikitables. Nightfall87 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Madrid #19

Özil will be wearing 19 because Garay will be temporary deactivated; only 25 players are allowed on the roster. Before the transfer window closes, Madrid should been at 25 players. [3] The Madrid site does not look as if it will be valuable as a source this season; its info are not updated frequently and it is slow if at all. Raul17 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a newspaper a fansite? You guys do what you want. Garay is out for at least three months. Madrid is one player over the roster limit and Özil can not wear 26. If you think the source is unreliabl, fine. Say that. But you can not rely on the team site when Carvalho is still listed with no number!! Raul17 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until match-time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gametime roster

Madrid site roster

One of the reasons why the official site is not always the best source for infomation. Both are from the team site, yet the official roster has not changed or been updated yet. Again. I try to deal with facts not rumors and I do not read fansites. Now I see why Vasco and others get annoyed with you. You have to tone it down a notch. Raul17 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Özil's number

Walter, the Madrid site still has Özil wearing 26 eventhough he wore 19 in the first match. Does this mean that Madrid's wikipage has to revert Özil's number back to 26? Raul17 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I made no change as I understand that the source is bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

edit error at "Baptism"

My apology for inadvertent "save" instead of "preview"—the material was not yet readied for inclusion. Re: "essay", the necessary contrasts are indeed extensive, comprised almost entirely of substantiating quotations of the witnesses; but a true essay would have been a summary in detail of the material linked at end of footnote and could have easily been five times the length, discussing each quoted source in detail. It is not a neutral viewpoint to set forth a single hypothetical position in this article "Baptism" that even now is still disputed (as per the linked articles and their sources ref. current scholarly opinion), and thus the presentation of a current (continued) opposing view is necessary, and should be presented, for the information of the reader, and for a more balanced non-slanted presentation. It is placed in footnote to not disturb the original writer's argument, and to connote an alternate position that can legitimately be considered. The principles of Wikipedia insist on a neutral viewpoint. The position of the author of this paragraph section on the (unproven) primacy of the gospel of Mark is not neutral. Hermitstudy (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Internal links in footnotes

The footnotes to the article "Baptism" are full of internal links to articles in Wikipedia. (Many articles have them. The linked articles provide further external sources.) You have not apparently chosen to hit "undo" for any of those. Your particular reversion of the recent footnote in the article "Baptism" appears to be vandalism, and additionally it appears to be an attempt to keep information from the reader. This is serious. Hermitstudy (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The articles linked are not the primary source of the historical information on the position of early Christianity re: primacy of the gospel of Matthew, but are resources immediately accessible to the reader which offer more extended discussions of the primary sources, for which references to sources outside of Wikipedia are provided, and external links have been made to primary materials being used by the authors of those articles, to support those authors' arguments (or discussions, if you prefer, or presentations) in the articles. It is a kind of shorthand reference tool extensively used by researchers and authors in their works and in professional journals, citing the research of another who cites another researcher who cites a discussed source who quotes another (historical) witness. Primary example: Almost all of the linked names in the footnotes to "Baptism" are internal links to Wikipedia articles providing accessible information and biographies which are derived from sources outside of Wikipedia which quote other sources and cite additional materials supporting statements made about the individuals named. Reading about the content of a cited author's works is not the same as actually reading the works themselves. The consistency you demand would instead require the author(s) of those footnotes to directly cite the (sometimes extensive listing of) external resources, which those linked Wikipedia articles courteously provide. The "Baptism" article's footnote authors have not been held by you to that task, and they have done with the names (and other materials), which they accessed for the reader by internal links useful to them, what I did with the quotations and subjects of discussion to which I adverted in the original extensive footnote. It would seem that if they did not violate the WP:CIRCULAR by doing so, then I too did not violate it. This may be evidence of a personal bias on your part which militates against the possibility of neutrality, to which you have already graciously admitted, to others, above. Hermitstudy (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oezil, is officially listed as number 23, w

while the official team site may not always be the most accurate it has always been updated to reflect the actual squad numbers by the end of the transfer deadline as is required by Fifa. if you check the spanish version of the real madrid website, which offcourse is the main website being a spanish team, you will see that ozil is infact now number 23. i'd appreciate it if you read the wiki rules and realised that this site is supposed to be based on facts and therefore official team rosters from official team websites are more accurate than a picture from a match nearly a week ago. http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/es/1193040475259/Plantilla/1193040475259.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishpacerfan (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check the debate on the club talk page instead of re-discussing it on the player pages and editors' talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Madrid site (English vs Spanish)

I know this this is an English language wiki, but there will be times when the Spanish version will be sited by editors as a reference source because the English lacks the information. I prefer the Spanish-language site because it is more accurate. Last season, you would have sworn that Madrid only has Castilla has a reserve/youth team because the English site only covered Castilla and until last April, when the Juvenil A team when it qualified for the Copa de Campeones and Copa del Rey trying to win a triple!

Last season. I was in two possible revert/edit wars: Sergio Ramos being named as the fourth captain and Antonio Adán being assigned #25 for the Champions League matches. Only the Spanish version had any information about Sergio Ramos being named as a vice-captain. (By the way, I think that Diarra and Marcelo are the other vice-captains this season. Based on senority, Diarra is third and Gago, Higuaín and Marcelo are tied for fourth place with Marcelo wearing the captain's band while all three of those players were on the field.) The Adán info was later supported by the updated English site and was later rendered useless when both versions included him on the first team roster with #26 (which is incorrect by Rfef rules). I would also like to add that Ricardo Carvalho was assigned #2 by the Spanish site while the English version had him unassigned until its recent update. Thank you. Raul17 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia

I reverted your changes to The Chronicles of Narnia. The citation for 47 languages is located in The Series with the rest of the citations for those numbers. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you are just trying to keep the article reliable, we are not talking about some crackpot here. GoodKnight, in addition to being a respected authority on The Inklings, has compiled an extensive and verifiable list of translations. If this were in anyway controversial, then I would completely agree with your stance. But we are talking about self publishing a list of verifiable facts. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22GoodKnight%22%20narnia&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp#q=%22GoodKnight%22+narnia&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&ei=2yGGTKD-K4u4sQO994H3Bw&start=0&sa=N&fp=ac3b1f8641813cbe

Tim Be Told

Hi, it looks like you undid some of my edits to the page for Tim Be Told. After reviewing them, you falsely mis-labled them as "vandalism", and I don't appreciate that. It appeared that the tag was asking for verification, so I verified a couple of sources. Also, you obviously didn't review all of the edits. On top of "verifying sources", I removed "source needed" tags for information that was already sourced, as well as corrected invalid URLs.

I don't want to sound insulting, but I assume you looked at one edit, and removed everything. What you did was undo 100%, legitimate work. If you had an issue, I believe that the correct protocol is to inquire on the Talk Page, rather than undo edits and mislabel them as "vandalism". If you don't have any objection, I will redo what you arguably shouldn't have undone. I apologize if I sound rude, but I spent quite a while working on the verification, and it appears that someone carelessly discarded the work as if it was worthless. Maktesh (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

it as they were

Well these are the edits. You've got unexplained removal of maintenance templates, introduction of random text, vis: multiple instances of QuickiWiki Look Up, etc. What would you call it?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with errors, but whenever I make an edit, that text appears on a page. Not quite sure how to fix it, but if that's the case, any edits I make are "vandalism". If you read the comments, I explained my edits. I was personally verifying the sources in question, as well as removing "reference request" templates where the information was alread there. If I am unable to help verify those sources, how then will they be verified? I assumed that what was being asked was for someone to see if the sources given were reliable. You'll also notice that I corrected a few URLs that had some issues. Maktesh (talk)

Don't hit Save page. Every edit you make has QuickiWiki Look Up in it. You must know how that's happening. At the very least you can change browsers if it's a plugin. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what you said on my page, I removed those templates because I verified the sources. The template was questioning as to whether or not the reference was a reliable source or not, so I personally checked some of them out, and was able to verify them. Are only administrators allowed to do so? Maktesh (talk)

I uninstalled a wiki-editing plugin. I think it fixed the problem. Also, I've been editing Wikis for quite some time. I always preview, but it doesn't show up until "save" is clicked. Maktesh (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Hey there friend. I saw that you made an edit summary stating "Twitter may be used as a source when it is a primary source about the subject." I'm puzzled. WP:TWITTER specifically states to the contrary, that tweets are not acceptable. Precedence in various ANI discussions and whatnot have stated that social networking sites, MS, FB, Twitter, etc. are not to be used, since anybody can sign on, create an account, and claim that they are that specific person or celebrity making the posts. Heck, I've been impersonated once on MS and twice on Twitter. So, what are your thoughts here? Why do you think they are acceptable? Cindamuse (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What I have read and still read is "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Cross-reference with WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". Then you understand that Twitter may be used as a source when the source is the primary subject. "We are releasing our new album, Fallen Angel, on October 31" would be acceptable while "Our friends over at Spork told us that they are releasing their new album, Fallen Angel, on October 31" would not be.

Scrum Master

He doesn't "help fix problems", he "facilitates the resolution of impediments"? I read your explanation of your revert, I'm guessing from that (and your name) that English isn't your first language? Facilitate = help. Resolve = fix. Impediment = road block = problem. Or are you one of those Dilbert-boss types that just loves to use big words? In that case, I cannot help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsavage (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

if Resolve = Fix then why do they have two different entries in the dictionary. Their etymology are not at issue. Fix implies that the person had to implement some sort of repair where as resolve doesn't carry that contextual weight. And similarly Facilitate does not mean help. I will concede that for someone unfamiliar with the subtleties of the English language that impediment, road block, and problem could all seem identical, but they're not. So if you want a language in my native tongue, feel free to ask instead of assuming. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the role of the scrum master is not to fix broken chairs. The scrum master is there to find ways to keep a project going when something happens that stops it. In other words, he "facilitates the resolution of impediments". But dude, that's 14 syllables. To say that he "helps fix problems" gets the exact same idea across in 4 syllables. The only difference is that one sounds like it was written by a pretentious show-off trying to impress everyone with fancy words, and the other sounds like the writer was trying for clarity and simplicity. I'm surrounded by pretentious and fancy every day, and it drives me nuts. I was just trying to make the world a little bit clearer and simpler. You know, better. And ok, I'll go ahead and ask: what is your native language? And what does "a language in my native tongue" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsavage (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blaze (Christian rapper)

I'm afraid the IP is right. WP:CSD states: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. So your AIV report isn't valid; stop edit warring (I'll tell the IP too) and discuss, please. Airplaneman ✈ 22:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Your edit here actually runs contrary to the official style, as indicated in the Canada Gazette and the Governor General's website. Is there some contradicting Wikipedia policy? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/081201_gg_dion_en.pdf goes contrary to your assertion. I think it's optional and as such we should maintain correct Wikipedia capitalization. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry! I must be developing some kind of dyslexia as I thought, when looking at the diff of your edit, that you'd added capital "t"s to the "the"s. No, what you did was right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done the same on many occasions myself so i completely understand. WP:MOS see Use of "The" mid-sentence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I removed your recent request (diff) for a third opinion because, while WP:3O generally limits itself to disputes between two users, that issue involves one user who has edit-warred with several other editors and is currently blocked 24 hours for it. The user has repeated blanked his/her user talk page since May 2008, so it's likely that additional messages may be blanked as well. If you seek more feedback from the wider editing community, or a more radical solution such as a longer block, you could try one of the other dispute resolution processes such as Requests for comment/User conduct. Good luck. – Athaenara ✉ 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When I placed the request, the dispute was just between me and another editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility

I'm sorry about my snide comment following your revert. However, if you're concerned about civility, Walter, you may want to follow your own advice; whatever you intended, "take the stick and walk away from the dead horse.." reads as a euphemistic way of accusing someone of being pointlessly obstinate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Misquoted WP:STICK. I should have just referenced it instead. What should have written was "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You've missed my point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. You missed mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point at all. You were insinuating that I was being uncivil by incorrectly referencing WP:STICK when you were beating a dead horse. I suppose that if you were making the point that you were not oblivious to it, yes I missed that point. If it was that I was being uncivil by pointing it out, I beg to differ. I was being rather civil. Consider all of the ways that this point could have been made and consider how I could have been more civil. Feel free to list them, on your own talk page.

I would also like to point out that you frequently refuse to accept it when others actually improve, or at least attempt to improve, the language of articles you watch. I wasn't making that latter point before, but I am now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are still missing my point: by accusing me of beating a dead horse, you assumed that your preferred version of the sentence was inarguably the superior one and therefore I was continuing a done debate only out of blind stubbornness. It was wholly presumptuous and mildly insulting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No M. This is now a dead horse. Two editors recognized that the grammar was better and you said "restore long-standing and in-line w/ other GG articles" and "leave what was fine and long-standing". It wasn't fine. It was awkward. It doesn't matter how long the bad grammar was in the article, the improvement is obvious. You never said it wasn't better just your insistence on having the GG articles be consistent. If you want consistency, change the other bad phrases to match the good one not the good one to match the bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Either sentence structure is acceptable. When there's no problem with the original, as partly evidenced by its long existence in the lead of an often edited article, there's no reason to change it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further, when an edit is immediately disputed, WP:BRD puts the onus on those who want the change to leave the original alone and find a consensus to make their desired change. Do you feel that none of that applies to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The current sentence structure is acceptable to people living in the 21st century. The previous sentence structure would have made Shakespeare happy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And there you go again being intentionally provocative. Either sentence structure is acceptable. And, once more: do you feel that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BRD don't apply to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alain Rochat

My mistake. I'd forgotten that Vancouver was an exception with the team keeping the history etc. Since Rochat will never play in the USL for VWFC, and will play in MLS in 2011, wouldn't it make sense to show him on the current VWFC MLS page rather than the USL one? I guess if the pages are merged it won't make musch difference... just wondered what your thoughts on the matter were. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

USSF D2, but I know what you mean. Actually, I think the MLS page should be merged into the USSF D2/USL one for reasons exactly like this. The USSF D2 club signed him and he will be playing for the MLS club. To solve the problem, why not put him in both locations? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be problematic since the MLS franchise doesn't currently have any signed players as their signings will all be handled by the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this discussion to talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC‎?--Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks so much for the barnstar! Yworo (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No thanks required. You deserve it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Choir and The Choir (disambiguation)

How do these look to you now? Even piped: The Choir. If you don't care for it, blank User:Walter Görlitz/monobook.js and User:Walter Görlitz/monobook.css. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, do you use AWB? bd2412 T 03:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't use AWB and The Choir is still highlighted in yellow as it is here. So I don't understand your point even more now. It sounds like you're afraid of change. "We've always done it this way and we don't need to change. Everyone else can do it the way we want them to even though it doesn't make any sense.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we've only started doing it this way in the past few months, after a great deal of trial and error. With close to a million incorrect links to fix, the most effective way to do it is with a program like AWB that loads up all links to a particular page. By excluding the tens of thousands of intentional links from this process, we save enough time that we are actually finally getting ahead of the curve. As long as there are disambiguation pages, there will be errant links to them, and we will need some means to avoid the distraction of those intentional links. Just look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. In just the past year, we've reduced disambig links from 1.3 million to just over 850,000. This is working. bd2412 T 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally the answer I've been looking for! Since AWB loads the links, it could be told to do so from a category or template that is included on the page instead of adding adding all these empty redirect disambiguation pages. It's just as much work as creating those redirect pages and far less obtrusive. I don't know why you're using such a cumbersome method that imposes on others. I'm sure somebody had a reason somewhere for this method, and "if it gets the job done"... . I know that Wikipedia isn't running out of space, but y'all should have found a way that didn't step on the toes of others. I'm sure that there will be many more days like today when someone will get annoyed and "fight back", wasting more of your time. But as long as you're prepared for that, more power to you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB is hardly the only route of entry for this issue. Let's walk through a typical example. On Pages that link to "The Choir", there are six current links (problem pages typically have ten times as many links, and are constantly accreting new links). All of these are, of course, erroneous, but one of them is intentional and is flagged as intentional, while another is intentional and not flagged as intentional. Can you tell which is which? bd2412 T 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No because I've turned the link colouring off, but I see that The Choir (disambiguation) is a redirect page without the colouring. Your tool could just as easily use a template or a category. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Even without the coloring you should still be able to tell, since it is based on the arrangement of incoming links on the page. The Choir (EP) intentionally links to The Choir, but a person trying to fix those links would not know it unless it was intentionally redirected like Choir (disambiguation) already does. For a page like John Smith, if the dozens of intentional incoming links did not redirect through John Smith (disambiguation), people trying to fix incorrect links would waste hours checking pages containing intentional links that could not be fixed. If you think this can be resolved with a template or a category, please demonstrate how. bd2412 T 05:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But with the colouring turned-on, The Choir also lights-up for me. And you could make any page light-up in any colour you wanted with templates and categories. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. How would a template or category enable a disambiguator looking at the list of pages that link to The Choir to know that the link contained in The Choir (EP) is intentional, and need not be checked? bd2412 T 05:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB would look at the category list and cross-reference all articles listed in the What links here page. No need for changing the page name to include (disambiguation) in a new page, the information is right there. When a page is checked a template could be added to indicate whatever information you want. It could even be made to flag a disambiguators list when the page is moved (thus invalidating the previous check). A bot could patrol pages of concern and if ambiguous links are added, or even any links are added or changed, another list could be added. Let the computers do the work, not your eyes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This would require the addition of a new template or category to every single page containing an intentional disambig link, and would be of no use to disambiguators who are working off the "what links here" lists themselves. Disambiguation must almost always be done by human eyes anyway, because a program can not tell, for example, whether a person linking to Mercury meant to link to Mercury (planet) or Mercury (element) or Mercury (god), or whether they actually meant to link to the disambig page itself. bd2412 T 05:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot could add and the What links here page could be coloured based on those templates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI

What happened with the SPI? Cindamuse (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

FYI, your post at the MoS popped up on my watchlist; I've had to refactor the post as we cannot interweave comments and replies in that manner. (It was very difficult to read.) None of the text was changed, and I have tested to make sure that the numbering was retained as well. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your convenience is not my concern, however when you change someone else's comments, you step over the line. I wanted it that way so I didn't have to number my responses to match his. Please put it back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, we can and should interweave comments. I've seen it done before and the last time I did it you also changed it without showing me a policy. I think it's a personal preference, but if there's a policy that's fine, show me and I'll try to get it changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the comments were not changed in any way, and the refactoring serves to ensure that the original post is readable. Interweaving is only appropriate in the case of a long comment (which the original is not) and with proper attribution. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So there's no policy and it's merely your personal preference that made this change to someone else's comments. Anyone who has been around the Internet since before the 90s and has used text-only email programs knows how to read that kind of message formatting. Please put it back now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Newsboys

Please note that I redirected several articles for members of this band for failing WP:GNG and/or WP:MUSIC. Being a member of a notable band does not make the indiviudal notable, and the lack of reliable sources also means the articles fail WP:GNG. Without addressing these concerns, the articles should not be restored. Being a member of two notable bands (ie, bands with wiki articles) may satisfy WP:MUSIC, but without reliable sources such articles would still fail GNG and so should remain a redirect. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

then feel free to nominate for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to go through an AfD. WP:MUSIC is quite clear that non-notable persons should redirect to the relevant band. Further, a single source is not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Nouse4aname (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the need is there because having sat for a long time this sort of arbitrary behaviour is capricious.

In your AFD you could suggest that it would better to have the existing articles redirect back to the band article. You acted without warning or discussion and you feel justified. I may be able provide additional sources when I am at home but as it is I have a job and I will not be able to address you demands until that time. So do what you want since you have policy on your side. However the AFD would permit editors to provide the required sources. I would like to remind you that there wasn't even a tag that there were no sources on any of the articles which, considering their age, should be the first step.

What many policy-imposers like you seem to forget is that each album is a WP:V source and the material about the artist is often contained it which then meets WP:GNG (the material is not self-published but published by RIAA member companies). Adding references to those albums that simply point back to the album is ridiculous. Their appearance on multiple albums. As such they marginally meet WP:BAND 5., 6., and 7. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The albums are that of the band, and not the individual members and thus establish notability for the band and not the individuals. Nowhere on wikipedia does it suggest that recording an album establishes individual notability for band members (and why should it?). The lack of unreferenced tags does not stop a non notable, unreferenced article from being redirected as per WP:MUSIC and is by no means a prerequisite of establishing a redirect. The fact that wikipedia demands reliably sourced articles is sufficient enough motive for such sources to be added - the consequence of not doing so is a page being redirected. Redirecting an article for failing WP:MUSIC does not require discussion or warning. The warning is that WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG need to be satisifed in order for an article to remain. Failure to satisfy such notability requirements results in articles being appropriately redirected. If you have access to sources that establish notability for the members that is not reliant upon their membership of the band, then great. If these sources only discuss the various members in the context of the band, then they do not establish individual notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, you seem to confuse the notability of the band with notability of the members. The band released the albums, and thus it is the band that gains notability from them - notability is not inherited, and thus the band members are not inherently notable through having released albums as part of a notable band. Criteri 6 refers again to a band gaining notability if two of its members are individually notable. Again, the band satisfies criteria 7 but the individual members do not. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I understood before this conversation began. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal, and WP:ELNO

Hello Walter,

I notice that you removed the external link that I added to the Arsenal wikipedia page.

I am a new contributor and I thought in good faith that the information linked to would be of interest to users of this page, not available anywhere else on the web, and too extensive to include within the Arsenal page.

I had a look at the WP-ELNO link that you referenced as the reason for removing my amendment but I would really appreciate if you could tell me which of the guidelines my edit violated. I am sorry if this is obvious to you - as I say I am new so may have done something that is not acceptable through ignorance - so please educate me if this is the case !!!!

If it is not correct, is there an alternative way you would recommend for me to make the information available to Arsenal fans.

Thanks

Tim Richardson

Tim8008 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO. Your site appears to be a blogs, personal web page, or most fansite. That's against item 11. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying promptly, Walter.

And thanks for putting on a subject header - I apologise for not doing that myself in the first place.

I chose to put a link directly to the Arsenal page within the site and so I can see how it could have seemed like a fansite. The home page www.free.elements.com shows the full scope of the site

I had a look at the definition of a fansite and I think that the information provided is too wide to fit that description. (it's definitely not a blog or personal web page).

The purpose of the site is to provide detailed information on goals scorers in the 4 major European leagues from their inception to present time. I don't know if it is of relevance but the site is 5 1/2 years old and gets consulted by an average of a bit over 400 unique users per day.

I'd like to put the edit back in but I don't want to get into a squabble so I'd like to know if you think it's alright for me to do that, having looked over the site.

Please let me know your view.

Thanks,

Tim

Tim8008 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the front page as well. It looked to me like a conglomeration of information either by a single individual (personal web page) or by a small group (an open wiki or fan site). You don't have to rest on my word though. Look at the discussion page associated with WP:ELNO and create a new section and ask for a ruling from those who care about such things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Walter, this website can in no way be regarded as a reliable source. As such it falls foul of our external links policy and am in the process of reverting all these link additions. _wjemather^bigissue 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: My opinion is that a web site made by an industrious individual over five and half years is a noble endeavour, but doesn't change the fact that it's probably still just a hobby site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite. An awful lot of time and effort goes into this kind of data acquisition, but unfortunately it cannot be considered anything but, as you say, a hobby site. _wjemather^bigissue 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

Just in case I made a couple of userboxes that might interest you: User:Koavf/Userboxes/Mennonite and User:Koavf/Userboxes/Anabaptist. If not, then please ignore this message. If you'd like to respond, please do so on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Immersion baptism

I was thinking of making a general Request for Comment on Swampyank's reversal but I see that, while you undid Tb's later change, you seemed to accept Swampyank's edit. Do you? Or did it escape your notice? Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

it escaped my notice. The RfC would probably be a good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You might be more capable than I of phrasing the RfC. Is there some hope that you might do it? Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I sir, am not a diplomat. You are more capable in this area. I fear that mine would introduce greater POV than is required. If you still feel that I would be a a good choice, I will endeavour to do my best. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that I am a better diplomat. I will not insist. However, I don't have time just now and probably will not until tomorrow. So, if you do decide to do something, I will be happy. Esoglou (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you did right in deleting Tb's coat-trailing from here. He really is spoiling for a fight. The discussion pages (and the article pages too) on Baptism and Immersion Baptism are not broad enough for him: so he extends the combat to here and - what you may not have noticed - to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, with a supplement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/General_Forum. I have answered there. You may perhaps consider it better not to respond at all. Esoglou (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

unexplained removal of referenced content

There's been some confusion at Bug tracking system. You undid someone's addition of a sentence, describing it as unexplained removal of referenced content. Actually, it was your edit that was unexplained removal of referenced content, namely, the content that had just been added.--greenrd (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I made an error. Thanks for fixing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ekici

That's all fine, as long as the info is moved somehwere else in the article. Rather than delete it, you should do that, or leave it, as I think the rules for leads are more relaxed for stub articles. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete any cited information from the article, only one word about having Turkish heritage. If someone wants to add that in the body or a following paragraph, with WP:V sources (preferably in English), it should be added there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nuremburg profile cites it perfectly, as does the link from the Turkish Football Federation. It's over-zealous to remove it. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish-Munich was a dumb error on my part. I considered "of Turkish heritage", but the source is clear in listing 2 nationalities, if you click to tab 2 of the image [4] ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a mistake. I've made worse. I was just bringing it to your attention.

The image is a good source. It's in a temp directory though. Haven't looked through the rest of the roster. I don't see the tabs, but that may be due to my Flash blocker.

I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and I suspect that will raise some ire until calm heads prevail. I'll stay out of it now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Modes of baptism

I don't understand what you mean by "I don't know of any paedobaptist denominations that even suggest that immersion or submersion should be considered, even for adult baptism." Is this quotation of any help to you? - "Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1239). The Eastern Orthodox Church baptizes babies by threefold total immersion - something the babies generally do not find pleasant. With adults or older children, I have seen partial immersion practised in Africa, with a Greek Orthodox bishop (who stood on the bank) pouring water on people standing only about knee-deep in the water of an irrigation canal, after which those baptized were told to hunker down in the water, which added little more than the wetting of their behinds. This confirmed for me what the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says, when it states that partial immersion is still practised in the Eastern Church. I don't have the same certainty that this form of baptism by partial immersion is also practised in the Russian tradition (as in the Greek) within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That is helpful. Again my exposure is primarily limited to the denominations I mentioned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, I have seen that you already knew about the Greek Orthodox practice for baptizing adults. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Only via the film, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Yes, the reviews for albums should be placed into a "reception" section with the box included, but you're not supposed to remove them entirely from the article unless you're willing to place all those reviews from the infobox into a review box. • GunMetal Angel 05:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wish I could find the other album where the reviews were removed and not included in the body of the article. Thanks for clarifying. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Act of Depression‎ and Cries of the Past

Exactly which valid source are you referring to? No one has provided the HM source (which even the origianl editor only ever claimed said the album contained "traces of black metal"... nowhere near enough for the genre box), and I'm yet to see anything else. The Encyclopedia of CCM link didn't actually lead to a source, so is clearly not reliable. I am further confused by your talk page comment that there are sources claiming the band are "black metal", when you appear to be adding "unblack" or "deathcore". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. First HM magazine is a source on metal and hard music. Second, which Wikipedia guideline are you referring to that requires that source have to be specific to a genre. And third, there's no link to the Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music because it's a book. It is a WP:RS desipie not being on the web. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So what's the quote? What is the wording in the book? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

responded at Talk:Cries of the Past‎. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Whitecaps

Thanks for the heads up! I just noticed it was in the Portland Timbers template, so it seemed it would be adequate. Twwalter (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, don't be disruptive. I'm well aware of your sympathies with regard to a merged history, but this has nothing to do with it. The template heading clearly says "Major League Soccer", and refers to the seasons the team plays in the MLS. In Vancouver's case, there is only one such season. If you want to include the other seasons, I have no issue with that, but they must be in the correct place. Why not copy what the Portland template has, instead of insisting on what is now a misleading template that suggests the 'Caps have been playing in the MLS since 1974? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And I know your position as well. Why not stop trying to change something you have very little exposure to instead of trying to push your agenda? It's not a misleading template when it's reflecting the franchise's history. I know you think you're right in your misleading position, but I can't do anything to change the Whitecaps history any more than you can change the Timbers'. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Walter, there is no POV involved here. It is not a dispute about how to attribute the history of the team, it is simply this: the template sub-heading says "Major League Soccer" and has a section title for "seasons". The Whitecaps have yet to play a season in MLS. Look at Portland's template, which also lists seasons back to the '70s. That template correctly separates MLS seasons from the other ones. THIS IS NOT POV, and I hardly think you're about to claim that the 'Caps inaugural season in the NASL should count as an MLS season. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I also see that rather than fix it, you removed the information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The information - a string of years, only one link at that - was removed because the template did not have an appropriate field for them and they were presenting misleading information. There's no rationale for your reverts, because they simply restored the incorrect data. I have now built the appropriate section, although some of the data may need revising (honours, leagues, etc.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't misleading information to anyone except you. I will be changing your changes when I'm not as angry as I am now and when I'm not as tired either. Putting all of the previous years of the franchise's history into a single block is no better than what was there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it not misleading? The heading says "Major League Soccer", the row heading says "Seasons". What is a reader going to think when they see the list starting at 1974? Look at the Portland template, which is where the remodelled version comes from, if you have issues with it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouija Board Criticism

Hi, I noticed that at some point you edited and showed an interest in the Criticism section of the Ouija article. Unfortunately, there are people strongly trying to surpress this information for some reason. I felt that it was of interest, well sourced and an important topic and tried to make a seperate page out of it. The same day I did this, it was posted for deletion. Fast work. Here is the deletion page discussion if you are still interested in the subject. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ouija_Board_Criticism. Dwain (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

List of GUI Testing Tools

Hi,

I don't particularly mind - or care - that you removed the addition I entered. I was just going by the noted request - "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." I don't have any relationship with the vendor or software in question and don't feel I should create a page for the product as I have no experience of it. I just thought this might be a useful addition. Oh well. Seashorewiki (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

However lists on Wikipedia have to have follow the rules. In short, articles have to exists and RoutineBot doesn't have an article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't. I guess you're going to have your plate full with removing other such references to non-existent articles on other pages. Might I first draw your attention to the Porsche page with similar egregious non-links? Seashorewiki (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

But I'm not interested in Porsches. I'm barely interested in VWs =). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. :-/ Seashorewiki (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Codendi

Hi Walter,

I noticed that the Codendi article has disappeared as well was its mention in the table "comparaison of issue tracking". I am very disapointed about that and really don't understdand why the article of this software is so controversial whereas there are many and many articles about other softwares even written by their editors. Could you please explain me why there is such a problem and how can I remdey about it. Thanks you very much for your response, Cheers - ManonM (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello !Could you give me an anwser on my message please ? I can not manage to have a clear explanation of the reason of the deletion of the article about Codendi and don't know how to make it better. Thanks for your feedback and advices.ManonM —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure how I can help. There are WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Apparently, the article you wanted to have created didn't meet that criteria. I don't think I had anything to do with the removal of the article, I just removed the link to it in the list when there wasn't an article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blessthefall

Please actually give sources when you're claiming that there are sources. Because many internet goers have complained about the lack of Christian lyrics on Witness. Yet I see no one calling that particular album Christian. Also, instruments in the members section is for what they do live. If he does keys and synth for albums, then those should be listed in the album article. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 12:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• http://lmpmagazine.com/2010/05/04/blessthefall-interview/
• http://www.shotmonster.com/interviews/blessthefall.html
• http://heavymetal.about.com/od/b/fr/blessthefall-witness.htm
• http://itunes.apple.com/ca/artist/blessthefall/id202971163

So we don't exclusively label them as a Christian band, they are a Christian band, even if only for historical reasons.

This discussion should have been on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Source 1: "we started off as a christian band and everything." Very past tense.
• Source 2: "So while all the members of the band are Christian, the guys don't want to be pigeonholed as a "Christian" band." Speaks for itself.
• Source 3: The word "Christian" isn't even in the review. Seeing similar articles does not count, at all.
• Source 4: That entire article was written in or before 2008.
• So yeah, they aren't a Christian band anymore, as very clearly stated in source 2. Please don't revert this again, or it will be considered vandalism. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 12:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Source 3 "See More About: * blessthefall * metalcore * christian metal..."

Source 4 also indicates that they're a Christian metal band.

They're still Christians. They're still a Christian metal band. Show me one source that says "we are not a Christian metal band". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Dude, when a band specifically states that they "don't want to be pigeonholed as a Christian band." Source 3 is extremely weak, and you obviously completely ignored my point on source 4, seeing as that whole article was about His Last Walk, and is no longer accurate as it is not RECENT. The lyrics "I'm right here, bitch!" aren't exactly Christian, and there aren't references to Christianity. A source stating their genre under "see more" as Christian metal is completely unreliable, as it is most likely just a tag. If it was stated in the article itself, this would be a different conversation. I'm serious, you're going to start being considered a vandal unless you give a reliable RECENT source (meaning post-Witness). --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 23:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

So if Buddy Holly specifically stated that he didn't want to be pigeon-holed as a Rockabilly band, would it change the fact. Stop being so obtuse. You're already a vandal because you don't have a source to remove the genre. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Question at the Albums Project

It's too bad you haven't gotten more response to your question from a few weeks ago, but I have responded to the best of my ability. This was your question about The Way (album). Here's a quick link. Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving Delirious?

Hi, as noted in the edit summary the naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Bands, albums and songs. Regards memphisto 17:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple songs called "Deeper" - Deeper (Delirious? song) and Deeper (Boss song). This is also why I have made Deeper (song) a disambiguation page. memphisto 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps

Walter, regardless of whether or not you agree with the 2011 team being in a stand-alone article, it is ridiculous to insist that we cannot even link to that article. Is there really a need to act that way? I've self-reverted back to the edit immediately prior to my initial change, and now deeply regret trying to improve it as it was certainly not worth the grief. You can add the page to your WP:OWN collection. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether you agree or not, the only reason that it has a stand-alone article is because you insist that it should exist. There is no reason to continue this charade. You are also showing ownership behaviour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid assumptions; you could simply have asked instead of leaving the snarky comment. The date change was the result of copying the comment you deleted, and forgetting that the script I run to adjust UTC to local time was running. Nothing more, nothing less. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ozil

Can I bang that guy's head against the wall please? Is it *really* such a complicated issue? I don't understand how he is misinterpreting the guideline so wildly. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

he has a valid point though. That single article indicates that Özil‎ carried a Turkish passport until 2007. I don't know if it was his choice to have it in the first place. There's a long history of cooperation between Germany and Turkey. My great, great grandfather was a military advisor to the Ottomans. However, I'm opposed to nationalism and would rather remove nationality from the lede. Anyhow, all nationality is removed from the lede now, and I've asked WP:MOSBIO types to comment. Perhaps we can have someone else offer an opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Immersion baptism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Walter Görlitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thanks you for blocking both editors involved. I have removed that article from my watch list and will stop monitoring the changes to that article. I am active on a number of other articles and projects. I let my emotions get away from me. I stopped editing the article as soon as I realized I had violated WP:3RR. Regardless of the outcome, I would like to thank you for dealing even-handedly with both editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Fair enough. Nice to have a sincere unblock request once in a while. Consider it time served. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll check with the blocking administrator regarding your appeal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps article merge discussion

I would like to start off by saying that I agree with you that the Whitecaps articles should be merged, but I'm not certain that the way that you're going about it is ever going to spark any change. First I would suggest that you become more engaged in discussion with other editors who are engaged in the topic of MLS and formulate a cohesive argument, and notify them when a merger discussion is taking place. You can do that under Wikipedia rules. Second, I would also research the Wikipedia rules regarding corporate mergers and how they're handled, bc I'm pretty certain that this can also fall under that designation. Anyway, I'd be happy to assist your efforts. Please let me know the next time another discussion takes place so that I can be a part of it. Unak78 (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

North American Soccer League (2010) Name Change

Name Change: Hey Walter, perhaps you will know more about this than I do, but I believe the North American Soccer League (2010) entry should no longer require the "2010" tag and should be the primary article to pop up when "North American Soccer League" is searched in Wikipedia, rather than the now-dissolved NASL of 1968-1985. If nothing else, a search of "North American Soccer League" should lead to a disambiguation page to allow users to select. Considering the new NASL has been sanctioned by the USSF as D-2 for 2011, it is the main entry people will be looking for. How would you go about doing this and, if you decide to make the changes yourself, please let me know how it can be done for my own knowledge. Thanks Fhurion (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:North American Soccer League (2010) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SydWaterways

FYI - see edit & edit. Jeepday (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)