User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2011-06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: G. Craige Lewis

I added citations to article. How many links does an article need before it is no longer considered an orphan? I honestly need your help with that question. Thanks.Aliveangles (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs links to articles, not editors' talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I got ya. Thanks!Aliveangles (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It needs to be linked-to from other articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PlantUML add


I've just create the PlantUML article. Is it possible to restore your change from List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantuml (talkcontribs) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The product doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets talk Whitecaps

Walter, if you'll humor me, I'd like to discuss Whitecaps history with you. Ultimately I hope what we chat about can resolve the issue of when exactly the Vancouver team playing in MLS was founded (because I consider that important)...but also along the way I'd like to learn more about general history of the Whitecaps that has become so controversial here. First off I was wondering if you'd be willing share your views on this with me. I was never really apart of the original discussion to merge or keep separate the D2 and MLS Whitecaps articles and some of your stronger points can get lost amongst the extensive discussion that took place. You'd liked to see the D2 and MLS Caps to be referred to as the same club because you see it as a league change and nothing more, correct? Do you feel the NASL Whitecaps are the very same club as the D2 Whitecaps or two different entities that share a name? Just wanted to get some obvious points out of the way before we hopefully talk about this some more. Thanks! --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I assume you're just not interested in discussing this? --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Pretty much. Regardless of my opinion, there is a editor of North American football articles who will impose his will on the articles. European leagues have many precedents where the clubs have changed ownership after financial ruin and they retain the club name and history, but the precedent for MLS leagues are that they are new legal entities and that seems to be more important. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty because I'm sure it's a tiring issue. I really do hope these lineages and founding dates are resolved one day because I find their accuracy pretty important. I've done what research I can on the topic but I'm no Vancouverite and I'm certainly not a life-long Whitecaps fan who might be in a better position to know such things. I've come to the conclusion that there are at least two indisputably separate incarnations of the Whitecaps: the NASL Whitecaps and the modern day MLS Whitecaps via the 86ers. Studying archived websites and newspaper reports, I really cannot see a clear connection between NASL Caps and 86ers/Caps other than a shared name and - initally - a few players (which is really just circumstantial). But starting with the 86ers to present day, there is a real year-to-year linage and ownership succession. According to early USL Whitecaps websites, they note the symbolic history shared with the NASL but claimed their current club started as the 86ers. They even get into listing previous owners by name. Now if there is a greater connection between the NASL and D2 Whitecaps, I would love some greater incite. Is there something more connecting the two? I'm sure there is a lot from that era that simply cannot be found on the web.
As for connecting the MLS Whitecaps to their D2 incarnation, I generally agree with your position. If ownership, club structure, management, etc. are essentially all carried over (as the Whitecaps claim it to be), I do not see why the MLS team is suddenly seen as a new entity. It's an established club becoming a new franchise in a different league, no? For me the single entity nature of MLS is irrelevant. Because MLS investors own a share of every team, does that mean a preexisting club can't be brought into the fold and become jointly owned as well? Where do those that claim every new team is a new legal entity draw their rule from? I feel like if we cite our sources, ask those who hold differing opinions to as well, and engage in a civil conversation, some sort of real progress can be drawn from all this. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There are more connections between the NASL Whitecaps and the 86ers. Most of the back-room staff stayed with the new club. The owner, and some of the coaching staff all departed. The current owner had to buy the name back from the NASL owner, which I'm sure you've read. Very much like the story of European clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Early archived Whitecaps websites do refer to the 86ers (and therefore themselves) as a new "club" so I do find that gap in history pretty confusing. Is just similar back-room staff years later enough to constitute them being the same? I'm just coming into this with an open mind and going by what I read so I definitely do not mean to incite an argument. Are there sources from that time period that you draw from? These are definitely points worth citing. And separate from all this, I'll assume you don't dispute much with what I said concerning MLS connections. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the break between the NASL and 86ers years is clear. The 86ers had the spirit of the former club, they were more of the remnants of the Whitecaps going in a new direction. The crowds were much smaller as was the payroll. I don't agree with a break between the USL and MLS Whitecaps though. However, I'm not planning on starting that debate again since I seem to be in the minority. As soon as someone mentions that they're the same Sounders and Timbers editors show up and start to tell us we're wrong. What they really mean to say is that their teams are not the same and so it's not fair for Vancouver to call themselves the same club even though there's much more evidence that they are. The only things that indicates that they're a different club is the MLS single entity legal structure. I am convinced that if the MLS experiment ends the Whitecaps will continue in one way or another. They are also at the fore in breaking down some of the rules such as the MLS holding the player contracts rather than the clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Whitecaps have 1974 on the back of their jerseys. It's on the top of the collar. Can't find a picture on-line. This is a Canadian championship match, so I'll have to watch in the next MLS match. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that 1974 has always been on the back - not just for the NCC. Unfortunately I think it will be easy to argue the current club is simply "adopting" the history of the older one (like how the new Cosmos aren't really the new Cosmos). We'd probably need something more to really verify this if it was true. Even if they claim the history for themselves now, at one point in time they didn't so it still remains debatable for some. Convincing others of a NASL-86ers connection will be tough. I think it will be easier to argue USL-MLS connection. Points like MLS' single entity are moot. There is precedent for independent clubs joining a single entity league in other sports (like the modern day Arena Football League). That point - along with the very clear ownership and front office succession - should make for a more convincing argument for the time being. The original discussion on the USL Whitecaps page mostly took place before they had their full-fledge website and played their first game. I think revisiting this issue could be worthwhile. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Back of jersey pic --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

What are your thoughts on requesting semi-protection until July 1? Erikeltic (Talk) 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the request can be made, but I suspect that response may be that it's being handled by existing editors. I can make the application if you would like. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I just made it. Hopefully this will curb some of these anonymous edits. Erikeltic (Talk) 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup

I don't want to be revert warring, but the reference doesn't actually support the allegiation made (it just mentions "odd vote patterns"), and it seems to be a blog entry (judging from the e-mail address at the end). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Boundary-value analysis, Merger proposal

Please can you close the stale merge proposal at Talk:Boundary-value analysis#Merger proposal. These proposals should be dealt with in a month or so, not left lying around for more than two years: apart from anything else the proposal will tend to inhibit further editing. Clearly the result will be "no merge". Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to close it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will do it "soon", when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Walter, what the hell are you talking about? The guy added some info to the page. I deleted it saying "broke the link/relevance" - meaning that it broke the link citation context, and I didn't think it was relevant. There are recentism issues, it wasn't his pro debut, so I was WP:BOLD and took it out because I din't think there was an improvement to the article. If that's "page ownership" then by your standards no-one would ever edit a page again. If you want it back, go ahead and put it back, but quit accusing me of shit I didn't do. You've done it far too many times already and I'm getting sick of it. JonBroxton (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. He inserted it between the citation and the material it cited. That broke the link and the new information was not relevant to citation. Then you come back and remove the information because it's not important. Just remove it the first time with the second reason. It just avoids confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle rollback (again)

Walter, Fences&Windows mentioned this in passing at WT:WikiProject Football, I just wanted to give you a proper warning here. If you continue to use Twinkle to revert edits which are vandalism, it will be removed. This kind of thing is entirely inappropriate and needlessly bitey (regardless of context), especially when you don't appear to have a policy to back up your edit, despite your insistence on the user's talkpage (using WP:VAND as a backup policy to deal with edits you don't like is poor form). Last time I removed your Twinkle access, everybody agreed you'd misused it, you only got it back because you seemed to understand that. Every further abuse, such as the one linked to, is just proving that wrong, I'd much prefer if you'd prove it right. This is just a warning, but please take note, and try to improve your communication, especially with newer users. Calling them vandals and edit warring as if you own the article is not helping in that regard. Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I responded to this but Wikipedia went down afterwards. You are assuming that I was not acting in good faith. There is a policy that matches should not be updated. The editor in question has been warned several times not to break that policy. The editor refuses to discuss the issue and so I politely warn the user and then apply harsher measures. Is there a problem with this?
The fact that a few other editors have taken offence to this informal policy of the football group has essentially stopped this process until a new consensus has been reached. This is correct procedure isn't it?
Once the discussion ends on the football page, we will take it to the next level.
If you continue to hound me, I will be forced to take action. It is particularly disturbing that you don't assume good faith on my part when you accuse me of doing the same to others.
Are you hounding me or is this a good faith discussion you're entering into? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't own any articles. You should know that's not possible. I don't even act like it. My actions on that article were a reflection of the informal policy of the football group who are overseers of all football-related articles. If they have a problem with my actions, they should address me directly. If you have a problem with me acting in that capacity, I believe that you should take that up with the rest of the group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about when I point you to OWN. The WikiProject are not "overseers" of football articles, and they certainly are not free to make up policy as they see fit, the wider community needs to be involved as well. In any case, maybe you should take some responsibility for your own actions rather than hiding behind the rest of the WikiProject. There is no "capacity" to act within, the project is not some kind of authoritarian regime, in future stick to actual policy and consensus, not what a small subset of users with similar biases thinks. I bring that up with you because it is again not the project's responsibility to make sure that you follow real consensus rather than them - it is yours.
No of course I'm not hounding you, I came across this through a completely different channel than following you around, I have absolutely no desire to follow you around. In fact, when I first came across this issue of adding scores to the articles at half time (about a week ago), I didn't even recognise your name at first. The claim that I am hounding you is ludicrous and completely off topic. Please consider that maybe the problem is yourself, and address that rather than throwing out wild attacks at those who bring up the problem.
I don't see how I'm not assuming good faith. Do you still think that the user's edits were vandalism, as is clearly defined at WP:VAND? (After all, this is what you called them). And what is this other policy you talk about, which I haven't yet seen you explicitly link to? Yes there is a problem applying "harser" measures, if they involve lying (even accidentally) about what the user's edits constitute. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh. So if Wikipedians are not overseers that guide projects then I can safely ignore you. Thanks for the enlightening conversation. I did nothing wrong. I acted in good faith and did not abuse my privileges with Twinkle. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Funny, but I didn't say anything like that. I said the WikiProject are not overseers, meaning, they do not, as a group, have any extra power than from the rest of the community. Wikipedians as a whole could, however, be considered overseers of articles. The point I was making is that the WikiProject doesn't have any special authority over other editors, as you seemed to think it did.
The edit was not vandalism, you called it vandalism. That. Is. Wrong. Do that again and you will have your Twinkle access removed, okay? You've done this before, and got another chance, I'm giving you yet another chance here, try not to waste it. I'm not saying you weren't acting in good faith, if I thought that you weren't, I wouldn't waste my time coming here and trying to talk to you. However, there comes a point when good faith is no longer a substitute for competence. I'm warning you here, that if you continue to misuse Twinkle that your access will be removed by me. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then that is up to you, but it's not making your case look any better. I note you have not pointed me towards the policy, and have not explained how the vandalism policy applied to the edit you reverted, so my only conclusion can be that your edit was not supported by policy. If you want to clarify that please feel free to do so (although if you could try doing that without sarcasm, it would be much appreciated, since that sort of petty lashing out is really not doing much for either of us, in the long run). - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
As I perceived it at the time, it was vandalism and so I was right to use Twinkle the way I did. I will continue to treat perceived vandalism as such. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I perceived it as a correct action. I'm sure I could find many other editors who perceive it as a correct action. Three editors to date perceive it as an incorrect action. Seems that we're in a grey area and so the stick your waiving at me is a bit too large for the situation. The fact that I'm actually discussing whether it's a correct action or not speaks volumes. Feel free to join that discussion, but the on on this talk page is over as far as I'm concerned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
You're actually discussing are you? Is that what "I can safely ignore you", and "the matter is closed" was all about? It is not a "grey area" if that was vandalism or not, what is the grey area is if we wanted the scores there. Whatever the case maybe regarding that, it does not change the fact that the edit you reverted as vandalism was not vandalism. How does it make any difference if we discuss it here or there? The issue I am discussing with you here is about your own behaviour, your talk page is the correct place for that. The issue of you repeatedly using Twinkle to incorrectly accuse others of vandalism and edit war is distinct from the issue of if we want to include scores at half-time. Please answer my questions: Are you saying that Ajj1192 was acting in bad faith with the intent to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Can you please point me towards the policy you kept talking about on their talk page and here? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not discussing the issue of whether what I did was vandalism or not with you. You're not willing to discuss anything. You're only willing to dictate terms.
As it stands, it was a good faith edit and I had no intention of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia.
As it stands, i was interpreting the rules of Wikipedia as I understood them at the time. The fact that this is under debate means it is a grey area. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. Good day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to discuss, could you please answer the questions? I don't disagree that you were acting in good faith, or that you had no intention of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. I've never said you did, or weren't. It is not under debate if the edit was vandalism: it is under debate if the edit was correct or not. And that is the grey area, again, this is distinct from if it was vandalism. Would you agree with me on that? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ajj1192 refused, and probably continues to refuse to discuss his edits after repeated warnings to comply with a policy. His edits indicate a disregard for that policy. What would you call that? The only thing I can tell you is that my action was done in good faith based on the policies as I perceived them at the time and I did not abuse Twinkle at that time. Since your primary claim is that I don't know what vandalism is explain these edits

And if you feel so inclined, look at all of the other edits made with twinkle since your warnings in April. See how often I used it "incorrectly" as you perceive as opposed to how many times I used it correctly. I acted in good faith on that one edit on the Champion's League article even if you don't think I did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So if I make three good blocks I can block you? No, obviously not. This is not to say however that you do not do good work, and I appreciate that, but it is not a license to ignore issues. Anyway, it's apparent that you're not willing to discuss this seriously with me. Please see this ANI thread. Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


Joseph Widney went from this [1] to this [2] with my trimming. Collect (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Widney almost got to "good article" level after the trimming! On this one, I removed a lot of blockquotes and stuff which is there because someone found it and put it in <g> rather than looking to make it a "biography". Anyway - down 20K and your turn. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

edit war?

not sure how you perceive adding an RS as edit warring. It's not helpful to make such accusations. Are you disputing the sources that are provided? Do you require more? if so please state your case on the article talk page and I will address your concerns. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply commenting that you've made more that three edits in twenty-four hours to change that term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, and I am simply commenting that it would be healthier to discuss the change i made before accusing me of warring, the decision was based on common usage of the term in question.
For example
"minimal music" v "minimalist music," common usage survey based on search hits.
google -> 872000 to 217000
google books -> 10400 to 2870
google scholar -> 1010 to 596
JSTOR -> 212 TO 126
Perspectives of New Music (journal sample) -> 15 to 5

--Semitransgenic (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not an accusation, it's an observation. Yuo have been edit warring on the article, and the term is just one part of it.
On Wikipedia the article is minimalist music, and I agree that's what it should be called. That's what my professors made reference to. So Unless you get the article changed, I suggest that you take your so-called (which is the correct spelling of it) minimal music and introduce it to the editors of that article rather than fighting on the periphery of the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? John Adams. Aaargh! JonBroxton (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC) <-- minimalist joke.

2011 Stanley Cup riot

I agree with your edit summary here. But that does not explain why you restored the content. Beyond the fact that these may be minors, naming them here runs afoul of WP:BLP. It is not our place to participate in cyber-vigilantism directly, nor is it our place to spread the word of websites dedicated to the same. And, since we both agree that it is illegal to give the names of minors charged with crimes, and there is a good possibility we may do so in this case, I have again removed that content. Please do not restore. Resolute 03:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You may agree with the summary, but you don't understand it. They cannot be minors if they are named. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No, they can be named until the point they are charged with a crime. But this is not withstanding the fact that Wikipedia should not be the place to permanently shame otherwise non-notable individuals. Resolute 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No they can't, although one minor asked that the publication ban be lifted so that he could apologize. Any media outlet that publishes the name of a minor can be sued and all of the names are from media outlets. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek primacy/Language of the New Testament

Hi. In answer to your question and revert. The reason for moving from Greek primacy to Language of the New Testament is that the content was generic material about the language of the New Testament rather than any specific relation to "Greek primacy" which in scholarly texts means dominance of Hellenistic culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in Wikipedia since 2007 is a neologism coined by advocates of the Peshitta for the mainstream academic consensus that the language of the New Testament is Greek. If you have a look at the two articles the reason for the material to be on Language of the New Testament should I hope become clearer. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearer? I'm concerned that you're editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, I hope it's clearer that no content has been lost, just moved. And I'm not editing the article Greek primacy your revert is still there, but I commented on talk:Greek primacy. Can you be a bit more specific about your concern? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Ps. I note that you have also reverted the mainwikilink in the Language paragraph on New Testament so I have commented on Talk:New Testament. I perhaps could/should have simply moved "Greek primacy" to "Language of the New Testament" but it would have meant deleting the socio-historical Hellenism content. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Clearer is not correct usage. More clear is. I will respond at the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, you are correcting my English? You couldn't possibly be wrong could you? A grammar of the English language Edward Archibald Allen, William John Hawkins - 1903 "Some adjectives may be compared in both ways : clearer or more clear. Another way of comparing adjectives is by means of the adverbs less and least : less beautiful, least beautiful" In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Complaining about your use of 1903 English in 2011. It's not wrong. I understand what it means, it just sounds stilted and wrong.
And then there's the creation of an article rather than improving an existing one, and then insisting on its use over the existing one. But that's another issue altogether. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You could actually have apologised instead of justifying yourself. Unless you're an ESL teacher, what sounds "stilted" to you may not be the standard for English speakers worldwide. FWIW 2,750,000 Google book hits for "clearer" compared to 649,000 for "more clear" and a couple of ESL blogs suggest that no great sin has been committed by use of "clearer". As regards Talk:Greek_primacy#Rename.3F what am I supposed to say. Do you disagree with the move to Language of the New Testament? Do you want it moved back? Do you think it should have been moved first en toto, and then the unrelated Greek hellenistic material pasted back over the redirect? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And you could learn to use modern grammar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Ubuntu releases

Thanks for fixing up the lead para in this article. I think my change was an improvement over what was there, but your change was even better! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your change was far more important. I didn't even think about it until you mentioned it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There you go - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Weird isn't it? I really don't know what that guy's issue is. I mean, I understand the need to keep on top of image licensing issues, but it takes less time to add the FUR than it does to template the image, remove it from the page, and notify the uploader. It would be so much easier for him to simply correct the licensing, especially when the image is clearly relevant to the page in question, as it was on the Canadian Championship page. Oh, well... JonBroxton (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Skillet (band) edit

Hello, I saw your recent edit to Skillet (band). Why was this edit reverted? Sure, the linking was incorrect (should have been to Comatose Comes Alive and Awake and Remixed EP), but the intentions were there to add the two albums. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because EPs and live albums are generally only added to main discographies, not discography sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

G. Craige Lewis

Why did you remove the DVD release information I placed on the page. You can go to the OFFICIAL EX Ministries website RIGHT NOW and see that the information I provided was Accurate. Also, why can't I put his official Twitter page on his external links because if you look at MANY other bio's, their twitters are in their external links. BiggKhrisco (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for an explanation other than the one I gave in the edit summary: "future events should not be listed as they may not occur. Feel free to post once completed."? It's the only one I have to offer. It's standard practice not to include future events for this very reason. At the most, this blatant advertisement for the filming of the DVD should be made in the prose section rather than in the list of other DVD titles because there is no release date for the DVD, only for its filming. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Walter, I don't know where you got your MOS from, but I had just read the Manual of Style (lead section) as well as the Manual of Style (biographies), and they both say that the full name should go in the lead/lede. And that's why I changed it that way. And a good example would be the Elvis Presley article. Now personally, I don't agree with it, but if we're going to go according to MOS, then that's the way.

And, from my experience, a paragraph for a bio should never begin with "He" (or She) but should be the last name.

Also, Andrae was/is definitely a gospel musician. Before (and after) he became a pioneer in CCM, he was one of the main influences in what would become known as contemporary gospel. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I though that the lede was the sentence you changed away. And for the record, Andraé is primarily gospel, but was influential in the Jesus Music scene and one of the early contemporary Christian music artists. And, yes, very influential in the creation of contemporary gospel.
However, my main objection was the imposition of the "conversion" phrase. Theologically, a Roman Catholic can't become a Christian as a result of a personal event any more than a Lutheran, Presbyterian, or any other group that practices infant baptism. So I threw the baby out with the bath water. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, Carman probably was raised Catholic as most Italians in New Jersey are. But, if that's the case, then the bio should say that. But, the way it is now works for me. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I remember hearing the Catholic thing in a live recording or something, so I don't have a ref...even the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music doesn't have a reference for it. It does mention Roman Catholic in the Carman article, but only in relationship to John Michael Talbot. The EoCCM does state, "In 1976 he accepted Christ as his personal Savior at a Disneyland concert by Andraé Crouch." I think the bio section was lifted almost word for word from that paragraph of the book, but it's been sufficiently edited over time to no longer make it a copyright violation. The sections are in the same order anyhow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Ambox content.png

Hello Walter Görlitz,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Funny. The editor simply doesn't understand WP:ELNO and thinks that their page deserves to have social media links when it's not permitted. Oh well. The page has been reported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand it quite well, but as Mtking said "WP:ELNO is a guideline and not a policy, as such it can be ignored", I could pursue this further by making my case on the talk page, but that's fine. The official site has the links, and if it's that big of a deal regarding social media in 2011, I'll let it go. I'm happy with the outcome. Boffo (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
You obviously don't since two other editors have shown you that you're wrong. You are such an arrogant fool it astounds me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, it's just a guideline, which can be brought up to concensus on the talk page, if I desired. You are wrong, but you will never admit it. Look at the complaints against you on your talk page, you have to archive it. Boffo (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Again, it's just a guideline that you don't understand any more than you understand how to spell the word consensus. Unfortunately, the weight of who is wrong is so overwhelmingly against you, yet you don't understand it.
There are so many complaints against me on this talk page because I make so many edits and occasionally get things wrong. However, in this instance I am standing on the side of the correct opinion. You, who make so few edits and don't understand anything shouldn't be lecturing me. Ever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Ckatz for bringing some sanity into this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Éowyn (band). 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. 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. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The other editor, was only blocked for 12 hours and was in clear violation of WP:ELNO. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct; but you've been blocked twice before. Do you think that's unfair? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm actually going away for a bit, but I encourage you to seek unblock via appeal via the {{unblock}} template. I am perfectly willing to be reversed by a single administrator on this issue if your reasoning sounds good to that admin. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfair, probably not, however I edit a lot of articles and thought this one was first edited on Sunday. I misjudged. The other editor was arguing against a guideline and refused to discuss. I think that reverting their last edit would be fair though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sunday! I don't even know what day it is today. Two days ago was Saturday. Today is Monday. Argh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Walter Görlitz (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Apparently first edit was 2011-06-26T08:52:21 and second 2011-06-27T17:51:14. The next two followed shortly after. So technically, not four edits in 24 hours. I was also engaged in discussion. Would appreciate the block lifted or at least shortened.

Decline reason:

3RR is not a requirement for blocking. Whether or not you were engaged in discussion does not alter the fact that you were edit warring. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

If you would like, I can amend your block log to state the block was for edit warring, not 3RR violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Jaci Velásquez

A tag has been placed on Template:Jaci Velásquez 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) 04:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaci Velasquez

Sorry, you have reason. I fix errors in whenever I see, but this time I was wrong. Thank you for already having done the motions, you could say for me to fix them. OffsBlink (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)