User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2014-12

Happy New Year Walter Görlitz!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Walter Görlitz: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, HotHat (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I just hope your year of editing ahead will be great!HotHat (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Head over to my talk-page when you get a minute. I'd like your opinion on something. Thanks. -Creativewill (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi there WG, AL here,

per this message you sent this Brazilian person (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:186.225.12.36), can you please enlighten me on how is he cleaning up player articles? Seems to me (i could be wrong though, hence my messaging you) he's not cleaning up anything, merely creating unnecessary box spacings and similar. In Juan Bernat, for example, he has overlinked the intro twice (you reverted him now) and destroyed the player position wikilink twice (it's Defender (association football)#Full-back, he goes and removes the dash, just because).

Happy 2014, from Portugal --AL (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the thank you I left or the warning I left right after? The editor is really not helping, but I recognized the editor as Brazilian and really did not expect any further interaction with the editor. Also, many of the edits did some good. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maximilian_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=589082850 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Knoche&diff=prev&oldid=589082805 updated stats. And https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Leipertz&diff=prev&oldid=589086336 made some improvements. I'll take some good with the bad. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your question at the very beginning of your reply, i meant the first message (the "thank you"). Thanks for the reply, keep it up --AL (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What?

I just added a category to the page. Something's wrong. – Michael (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability

So the EP Summer Happiness charted on two Billboard charts and was even reviewed by Jesus Freak Hideout, and you thought it was not notable enough and nominated it for deletion? You can now tell by my creation of David Crowder Band discography that it has charted.HotHat (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just recreated it!HotHat (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I loved your edit to the navbox template.HotHat (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It takes a real man of an editor to admit when they have made a mistake, and you did with respect to this article by the edit summary.HotHat (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If you want to comment, go here to do so.HotHat (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Sports aka beIN Sports

If you actually took the time to do some research, you would've find out the Al Jazeera Sports was renamed beIN Sports. in the beginning of this month. As such, I will revert your edit as the info was actually correct. JDamanWP (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you took the time to explain that it would solve the problem. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've included an article from al Arabiya on the respective articles you targeted, so as to avoid future confusion. I didn't think that there was actually going to be any sort of confusion, because AJS/BIS is quite a famous and popular sports broadcaster around the globe. Thank you. JDamanWP (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi. I'm trying to avoid another edit war with a certain editor and would like to properly get content restored to an article. Could you comment on whether it'd be appropriate to do so at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That last edit

There was an instance of vandalism that had been reverted by ClueBot (or some other bot), but still showed up on the page. Apparently, for some reason, it needed user interaction for the edit to appear, and the empty space was the best thing I could think of. --Asmetr (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That was in relation to this edit. Anon edit happened at 2014-01-24T14:56:40‎ and ClueBot got to it at 2014-01-24T14:56:44‎. You must have seen the diff before ClueBot got to it and tried to revert it after ClueBot did. I just removed the comment. Not a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Involving Eleventyseven

Could we please discuss these changes to all the notes on their album pages?

I work hard to research them and have corresponded with Matt Langston himself on some. I'm on his Street Team and know much of what there is to know about the band. When I see my notes gone without any explanation/discussion in the "Talk" pages.....I get a little unnerved.

I literally only edit/care about Eleventyseven and Twenty One Pilots. Those are the only two bands/anything I work on extensively, on Wikipedia. To see hours of work and research gone without a good discussion.....is uncouth.RhettGedies (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course we can discuss them. We should probably do it on the band article's talk page rather than here though. Before we go there though I should mention two things:

1. I only tagged the material as trivial and unreferenced. Another editor removed that material. I can't prevent other editors from doing that and I won't get into an edit war over over material I already think isn't appropriate.
2. By stating that you're on Langston's street team, that means you may be in a conflict of interest. You can be blocked for that sort of editing if you don't provide references to support your additions and keep all discussion neutral.

As long as you understand those two issues and are happy to move forward with them in mind, I'm happy to keep discussing how to fix this material. Since you've stated that you have researched the material, you should be able to provide the sources so this is extremely promising. I am of the opinion that editors with close ties to a subject are often able to provide invaluable content to Wikipedia and don't mind working with you to make those articles better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. :) We can talk on each Eleventy albums page if that's alright. Should I restore the edits and then we discuss them? Or just discuss them. (Btw: I can tell you, on my honor as a fellow Christ Follower, that I have not put in any biased info. My whole point of being on Wikipedia is to suck out all the juice/facts out about a band....and make sure the general public has access to that knowledge when looking at their articles.)RhettGedies (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talking at talk:Eleventyseven may be easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted and am ready for a returning statement. :) RhettGedies (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Church Clothes 2

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, Walter. I respect your editing and consider you a style expert, and would appreciate it if you might contribute your third opinion on Talk:Simeon Jackson regarding a style and content dispute. Thank you. Nonc01 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps

Why exactly do we have Montreal Impact (1992–2011) and Montreal Impact along with Vancouver Whitecaps FC and Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010)? Kingjeff (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because a few editors are of the opinion that they're completely separate entities from the former clubs of the same name. There is some support for that in that MLS is actually the owner of the player contracts and not the individual teams. There's also a law suit related to the single-entity ownership that is used in the league (every team is an owner of the league and the league owns every team). However, each team operates its own academies and the Impact, Whitecaps, Sounders and Timbers all had development programmes before they joined MLS. I can also confirm that the front offices of the Whitecaps had no change. Same address. Same staff, although they hired more staff when they entered MLS. So it's really been a battle with a few vocal editors and one legal case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Every team is an owner of the league and the league owns every team." What exactly does this mean and what is Joey Saputo relationship to the Impact and MLSE to Toronto FC if they're not the owners of their respective clubs? Kingjeff (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Every team is an .... That's the actual, legal league structure. In other words, when you buy an MLS franchise, you become a league owner. That was not a typo. You are not a team owner but an owner of the league. Each of the 19 team owners are owners of the league.

Conversely, each team is run by its franchisee. Saputo, MLSE, Red Bull, etc. are all franchisees and they run local operations respectively in Montreal, Toronto and New York City. I don't know of any other league that operates that way on a legal basis, although NASL may, but I don't know enough about that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ottawa Fury FC season

I noticed that you have edited the Ottawa Fury FC article. I have started the 2014 Ottawa Fury FC season. Kingjeff (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean you're in the capital region? I cannot believe that Soccer Canada is forcing the Fury to have a play-off against the Eddies to see who gets to play the MLS sides. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not in the capital region. According to this season's Canadian Championship Wikipedia article, there is a two–leg tie in April. There are five teams in the competition and the format must change. I also don't wish to start a discussion on if it should be with FC or without. I simply added it because the NASL team article has the FC in it. Kingjeff (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I saw the information about the upcoming tournament. NASL teams play a two-legged tie. Winner advances to play last year's MLS points winner (or was that winner of last year's series?) in a two-legged tie while the other two MLS teams play a two-legged tie. The winners of each advance to the finals. It's not Pokal, but it will have to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Ottawa/Edmonton winner faces the defending champions; which would be Montreal. Kingjeff (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Startropic1

I don't think the user isn't new. If you check his contributions, then you'll see that not one of his edits are on an actual article and are based on reporting incidents and user talk pages. He knew where to report five years ago. I started a sockpuppet case on him. Kingjeff (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the edits were primarily used for administrative reports, but I'm not sure that the editor is a puppet master or even a sock. Editors can edit when logged-out and even if they have accounts, don't need to use them for editing. Let's see what happens with the investigation though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a puppet master or a sock. I'm not even entirely sure what these terms are referring to. I just don't usually bother logging in for most things on Wikipedia. First you make (false) assumptions about the information I add, and now you make (false) assumptions about me. Learn to check your own facts and stop relying on assumptions. Startropic1 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

More bad logic Startropic1. How can you claim to not be something if you don't know what that thing is?

Add to that your statement that I made false assumptions about the information you added. I did no such thing. The material is self-published and so does not meet WP:RS.

Please take a moment to read what I wrote. It starts with "I noticed" and ends with "investigation though." Nowhere in there do I accuse you of anything. Nowhere in there do I make assumptions about you. Nowhere in there do I impugn your character. I make a statement that your "edits were primarily used for administrative reports". At the time, that was the account's primary use. The first edit was at User talk:Efnet baseball2. The next six were at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Then almost five years of inactivity and two on my talk page and three reporting me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. So nine of twelve edits were for administrative reports. That seems to be an honest interpretation of your behaviour. In the rest of my edit above, I simply state facts and essentially defend you to the editor.

I will ignore the rest of your comments about checking facts as they make no sense since I have just shown you that my facts do not need checking, but the facts of at least one editor here certainly do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems I misread this section in regards to who actually wrote which portion of it. Perhaps you should remove this from your talk page so no more unnecessary issues arise due to erroneous third parties, (as good as their intentions may have been.) Startropic1 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the discussion and your responses above. The "third-party" started the discussion and it was you who entered that conversation, which technically makes you the third party. And seriously, stop talking about others and assuming what their motivations may or may not be. The only motivations you should be discussing are your own: not mine, not Kingjeff, not Di Sabatino, not Flemming. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The SPI has concluded and as I suspected, editing while logged-out is not a violation. It obviously creates security issues for the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CHP / Reimer

I'm sorry - but since a man who's led the party for 13 years does not have a separate article, my enthusiasm for one for Reimer is misplaced, and I believe the added detail should be in the CHP article, and the Reimer article should be deleted. GBC (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ron Grey didn't meet WP:N or WP:GNG. There wasn't sufficient press about him. I think I've found sufficient for Reimer, but if it's rejected, his article will have to be deleted as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Canada

Walter, I've blocked B. Fairbairn for 48 hours. However, your comment on the talk page ("Do not change the image again or add any other images to this article without gaining consensus. I reverted your last edit as vandalism and will continue to do so if no one else gets to it first.") could lead to you being blocked if you have an opportunity to carry it out. I can understand your frustration, but just because an editor defies consensus across multiple articles doesn't mean their edits are "vandalism" and is not an edit warring exemption. I don't want to see you get in trouble over something like that. Reporting the problem to the administrative noticeboards is fine, but edit warring, even in these circumstances, is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I will strike that statement because, "even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Walter, I finally realized there were messages in my discussion area - it was not a case of me ignoring you, it's just that somehow my alert had gotten turned off.

I'll leave Canada and Mexico alone as you obviously very strongly feel there should be American politicians on the pages rather than on US-Canada Relations and US-Mexico Relations pages where they are more appropriate. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked because of your approach on multiple articles and now you think that you can negotiate with one editor about this on one article? Come to consensus on all articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what I think. Stop making assumptions and stop trying to lecture me. Try to be mature about this and try to let it go. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I never stated what you were thinking. I'm sorry that you think I'm lecturing you. I have let this go as it was two weeks ago and totally forgot about it until you responded here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Silver City

Hey Walter, just wanted to post this so you don't think I'm undoing your edits. I meant to leave a note that I was still working on sourcing the Silver City (album) page, but it didn't go through upon second glance. Anyway, JFH updated their review page, as it wasn't supposed to be listed as a "reader review." I'm still digging up sources. It just bugged me that the page was still being redlinked. Peace. —Maktesh ^(talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona

Greetings sir.

I added the Catalan portal to FCB as they are tagged as belonging to that project on the talk page. I was in no way intending to push that they are only Catalan and not Spanish, which was why I kept the Spain portal. But sorry anyway if I caused a problem. The Almightey Drill (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Kari Jobe Wikipedia Page and Majestic.

Hello,

In reply to your talk about conflict of interest, I can assure you that I will only be posting information about Kari that contains no opinions of mine, only facts about her and her music. Also, please know that even though my account username is, KariJobeSource, this account used by only one person. Infact, all of Kari Jobe Source is managed by one person, and that is me.

Also I have received the track listing for Kari's upcoming album, Majestic (Live), and I was wondering, I am authorized to make a page for the album? Do I have to get permission from anyone to make a page for the album, or do I just make it? The page would contain a short description about the album, who produced it, some of the writers on it, and the track list. Please also know that the track list is official. I received it from Kari's label.

Thanks, KariJobeSource (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not that the material you're adding is unsourced and I'm afraid that your close association with the subject may leave you with the impression that rules of providing reliable sources does not apply. It certainly does. I am not an editor who cares about official representatives providing well-sourced material for articles, but I do care about editors of any kind providing material that has no sources. Feel free to create an article about the album, but only if it's already a notable album and not just because it's an album. The criteria for notability are clear and should be followed for upcoming albums as well as existing albums. A track list alone is not enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you might have wanted to give a link to the notability guideline for albums rather than the WikiProject. Killiondude (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Serbian White Eagles

Hi Walter, I noteced this tag of yours. I don´t edit that article, but I am familiarised with Serbia and Serbian football. I personally don´t mind removing that part from the article, however, the club official website does use both languages (main page) and in the Serbian language they do call the club that way as written there (see here). Now, a minor remark, you said "transliteration", but there isn´t any transliteration found there. Serbian language is digraphic and uses both, Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. So the Latin version is not a transliteration, but just Serbian. In all wikipedia articles, Serbian is allways correctly written in its Cyrillic and Latin forms, just as there. The club official website has the Serbian version only in Cyrillic, but that doesn´t mean much, it could have happend to be in Serbian Latin, it was just a website choice. FkpCascais (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "transliteration" (or not, in this case) issue, for instance, I am not sure if you noteced, but all Serbian players have the [] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help) template after their name in the lede. Exemple Nemanja Matić. For those cases we have allways the specific "Serbian Cyrillic" template (instead of just [] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: no text (help)) preciselly because all we need is the Cyrillic version afterwords, as the Serbian Latin is already found in the article title. "Nemanja Matić" is Serbian Latin scrypt, not a transliteration. However, when we have a non-Serbian title and we want to add Serbian language version afterwords, we allways use both, Cyrillic and Latin Serbian language versions, exemple Serbian Army. I am just telling you this so you know and don´t think that Serbian Latin is a transliteration of Serbian Cyrillic. Serbian is one of the rare digraphic languages in the world, so it needs allways to have the 2 alphabets written here on Wikipedia in those cases. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Bizzle (Same Love)

Walter, I noticed yesterday you reverted an addition of mine on the Bizzle page because it was too long. I accept that, but I do not like the way you edited it, ending it with the statement that he "maintains that he is not a homophobe." I think there has to be some explanation as to why he says this, or else it seems kind of silly: after all, it appears that he wrote a song bashing gays, and yet "he maintains that he is not a homophobe." It comes across as almost comedic.

I would like to add an explanation why he says this based upon his interview. If I add this, will you undo it? Also, there is a grammatical problem which needs fixing which I would like to fix. My fix is in brackets below: "Bizzle has reported that he has received death threats because of the song [; consequently, he] created a website that chronicles the backlash against him."

Also, I'd like to add a link to the Web site mentioned in this sentence. I did it before but it was removed. Why?

Thanks, ToppDogg10458 (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)ToppDogg10458

I didn't actually revert it, I just took out the extended quote because it was too long.

What you had was

Despite his critics, Bizzle maintained that he was not a homophobe. "You would have to really show me what I said that leads you to believe that I’m scared of you which is what a homophobe is," he said in an interview. When asked about the role of gay people in the media, he added, "I’d like to see an opposing view be honored and respected. I want to see the manipulation come to an end. ... if you don’t agree with me then you hate me, but if you love me then you have to agree with what I do. That’s manipulation as well, and I’m not with the manipulation."

The extended quotes were unnecessary and the details are in the reference.

I'm sorry you didn't (or possibly don't) like that, but I think the statement meet WP:NPOV. If a reader wants to see more, there's the reference, right? Nothing more needs to be said. Nothing at all. The whole section is too long as it stands and you're piling more verbiage onto an already bloated section. In fact, I decided to edit it even harder now that I've looked at it again. Much of what was "referenced" wasn't supported by the references. Many of the references were WP:PRIMARY sources. This entire section must remain neutral and your writing didn't allow for that. It also broke several elements of the Manual of Style. I extended that sentence a bit, but remove a lot of content.

Feel free to take this to WP:ANI to complain about my editing. I'd be happy to defend myself there.

Oh, and the big, yellow edit notice at the top of the page says "If you're here to tell me about an edit of yours that I reverted, please explain why it should be included on the article's talk page." Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for help and aid on issue regarding Twenty One Pilots

Hello Walter,

I know we've butted friendly heads on Eleventyseven and The Jellyrox, but I now call upon your aid for a matter close to my heart.

Twenty One Pilots is a American alternative group from Ohio. They are Christians but their band is not a Christian project by any means. They fall into the category of "believers making music" (as I called them), such as Owl City, Creed, Switchfoot, and Paramore to name a few.

Me and my buddy, MYS77 composed a little two sentence thing addressing the bands faith-base to be in the article about two to three months ago.

"Although many of their songs contain allusions to Christian theology and have messages (even if implied) about God, and all members of the band (past and present) are Christians, Twenty One Pilots is not considered a Christian band."

However, just this past week, we have had a person bucking it and threatening to report us for "religious bias and falsity." We are seeing no reason for this offensive move besides "anti-religious sentiments" (not drawing any conclusions yet though). Anyways, the person, as we have pointed out, is picking a fight with hundreds of other artists then as well then if what he says is true.

We have done nothing wrong and are with WP guidelines. The person has offered little to no evidence to back their claims and just continue to omit the paragraph everytime we try to put it back into the article.

So we ask you to aid us in our efforts and help us. If you could, just read the Talk Page for the article, the revision history and the actual paragraph, and see what you can do/if this needs to be turned into a full-blown discussion page.

Blessings in Christ, RhettGedies (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just took five minutes and compiled a bit of evidence. If you could review it. :) RhettGedies (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think? RhettGedies (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter, Did you see the new development on the page? Someone added some stuff that makes things look.....messy. Check the "Talk" too when you get a chance. :)

RhettGedies (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard

Hi there WG, AL "here",

per the notification i have just saw i received, i fail to see where was i mentioned here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=next&oldid=596789776#User:B._Fairbairn_reported_by_User:Walter_G.C3.B6rlitz_.28Result:_.29). Just a glitch, maybe?

Attentively, happy week --AL (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes. I'm not even sure where you were mentioned. I'll see what I can do to find and fix it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes I received a similar notice. How odd. Startropic1 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I received a message that you "mentioned me" on the edit warring discussion page, but I can't find my username anywhere around 23-Feb edited in by you, so I don't know what it's about. GBC (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I only reported B. Fairbairn. I don't recall mentioning you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

How can I show you the message I received? I can't upload an image to your talk page. GBC (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

All capitals

Are we allowed to have titles like SKATERS (band)?HotHat (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It might have to be proper case and then we indicate it's stylized as SKATERS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Deletion Notice Question

Would moving the Compact Favorites article to a more specific "Compact Favorites (Steve Camp album" be sufficient, or would more be required to prevent the deletion of the article? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought about that. You know that Sparrow released Compact Favorites for Sheila Walsh and Resurrection Band and I recall others were available. Their reasoning was that didn't think that releasing the back catalogue for these artists to CD was cost effective. The compilations were not pushed hard and I don't recall reviews for any of them. I debated suggesting that we create an article about that topic, but I don't even think that could be supported with sources, and that's why I added the PROD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article creation

I was just wondering if you think it might be a good idea to create an article on The Phantom Tollbooth or not?HotHat (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

They are listed in the "other periodicals and underground newspapers" section of sources in the Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music. In other words, it's not a primary source there. If other sources discuss it, and you have sufficient material to prove notability, go for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Steve Taylor

Being a SPS, it's not exactly big time RS, but Belmont University wrote of Steve being guest speaker at a September 13, 2011 "Musicpreneur Sessions" seminar: "As a film student Steve wrote and directed the comedy shorts Joe’s Distributing (1980) and Baby Talk (1982), then hit the road for a year as director and co-writer for the musical comedy troupe Jeremiah People." So yes, he did write and direct shorts before 1996, and he did put together a documentary on England’s Greenbelt Festival in 1989. Down Under The Big Top is referred to as a long-form Newsboys comedy, not a "mini-movie".

We need not argue about the minutiae of the man's life. Even if not his first screenplay, Big Top was his first long form... and his doing "features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Might be worth including in the Taylor bio. Just sayin'...

I apologize that we have been bumping heads. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You are contradicting a RS when you say it's not a mini-movie. I'll trust the RS instead of you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The best definition I can find for minimovie (outside of a then-amateur being quoted n RS when mis-using the term) is "A short amateur film", and expansion on the concept of Long Form film at long form vs short form Let's discuss instead a suitable redirect target and not argue semantics or term usage with someone with an established film record and knowledge. It could best to redirect to the writer/director/producer Steve Taylor, and worth a sourced mention in The Newsboys. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That might be a good call. The editor who added the direct to VHS work had added several other items of questionable notability, which is why I nominated this rather than delete it outright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A bold redirect of those with questionable notability is reasonable, and such can be undone if notability is established or taken to AFD if the redirect is challenged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Plus One band page

I have been listening to this band from the beginning. The reason why I did all that changing is because you or someone else obviously did no research at all. They didn't get together until 1999 and they disbanded in 2004. Their album The Promise came out in 2000, Obvious came out in 2002, Christmas in 2002, and Exodus out in 2003. Your years and dates are all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.56.22 (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We need reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that there was another anonymous editor who made the edits that you were reverting manually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cross Rhythms

I made this to display their rating methodology more accurately. So, what do you think?HotHat (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks good. The filled-in ones are smaller than the open ones though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This is so the white can bracket the black ones, and show how many. I tried the bigger one but it all gets meshed up together. So, I had to use the tad bit smaller one with some space.HotHat (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps

What's wrong with piping out the FC? Kingjeff (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That was the agreed-upon solution to distinguish the MLS club with the previous incarnation(s). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

But this isn't the article title. It's still linked to the article of the MLS teams. Kingjeff (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But that's the convention. MLS Club is always Vancouver Whitecaps FC while the earlier incarnations are always Vancouver Whitecaps. The fact that their marketing team also insists on using FC as part of their name either with the city name or just Whitecaps FC is immaterial and the convention on Wikipedia predates their actual appearance in MLS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Which policy or guideline is this part of? Kingjeff (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't either of those. It was a discussion about whether the then-existing Whitecaps article should continue to encompass the material related to the MLS side or not, hence convention. Some people have subsequently argued, using common name, for other North American soccer teams to use "FC" or in one case "SC" in their name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

But how does this apply to whether we pipe out the FC or not? Any differences would still be in the relevant articles. Kingjeff (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Simply convention and common name. The link is the same as would be the inverse with FC Bayern Munich, Arsenal F.C., etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

But this rule really isn't applied to European clubs. Or I just haven't seen it applied. The closest I've seen is WP:KARLSRUHER. But even then it says "obviously in article prose, a shortened name can be used, once the proper name has been established, to make the text flow more easily. Equally in tables where there is a lack of space, abbreviations can be used, but this is rare on Wikipedia." The thing I'm struggling through is why it would apply to a link in a club season article for an MLS club. We're not even talking about the name of the article itself, just a link to the article. Where can I find this discussion? Kingjeff (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I know it isn't applied to them as their common names usually omit the FC. That's why I said inverse of those teams.

You can find the discussion where I said, either the FC or the USL club article archives where we were discussing naming. You'll also notice that all of the player articles use, or should use, FC. The previous season articles for TFC and Montreal use FC. The Canadian Championship articles use FC. As for Seattle's use of the FC, go ask on their talk page and let them know I sent you. They're the ones who started this stupid convention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup

You're an asset to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your edits.--RidiQLus (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

speedy deletion of scrumban

Oh, and i see the scrumban page i edited is marked for speedy deletion and that if i wanted to protest that to click and a link was givne. but the link didn't take me to the scrumban page, but to the scrum page (scrumban got redirected).

Can you tell me how i can protest the speedy deletion of the scrumban page? I can add more information if need be, but right now wikipedia is providing woefully inaccurate information on what scrumban is. Is it possible to find the who wrote that originally? (the one ont he scrum page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alshall (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused.

• You removed content from the Scrum article at 2014-03-22T23:51:59
• I warned you for unexplained removal of content at 2014-03-23T00:02:07
• Notice was made on your page regarding the speedy deletion at 2014-03-23T00:37:38
• Article was deleted and a redirect was left in its place at 2014-03-23T01:06:30

So I don't see how your removal of content at 2014-03-22T23:51:59 could in any way be confused with contesting a speedy deletion of an article, since the speedy deletion nomination wasn't made until 2014-03-23T00:37:38 more than forty-five minutes later and the redirect to the scrum article wasn't in-place until seventy-five minutes after your removal of the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on your editing history, I can't comprehend how you plan to do anything productive in the near future, particularly when you misrepresented your actions above. If you're serious about creating a scrumban article, you should read Wikipedia:Starting an article and create the page in your user space. When you think it's ready to be promoted to main space, request a review of it. Then ask how to move it once another editor has signed-off on the quality of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Openoffice

Torai lies here [1] --- he works for IBM in Ireland. This is why hae has done all the edits to Openoffice.95.172.31.34 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

First, unless you have some proof that he works for IBM in Ireland on a project related to OO, saying that he lied may be over-the-top. It's not clear why, if he does, he doesn't understand some of the development metaphors used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

NYCFC

Hi WG. I didn't want to weigh in on the article itself because I'm neutral as to which version is shown, but I just wanted to point out that the use of the full version "New York City Football Club" IS supported. It wasn't on the original announcement, but it's all over the official website if you look in the right places. Take, for example, their careers page, or their announcement of some VPs, plus if you look down the bottom of any page you can see the copyright info is written thusly: "© New York City Football Club, LLC 2014". It probably ought to be written in the full version to match the format of most football club articles (and for that matter, it only makes sense to use the full version, not an abbreviation, in the leading paragraph), but as I said, I'm really not that fussed either way. Just wanted to clear it all up, that's all. Falastur2 ^Talk 20:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Curious. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Marc Bartra

Hi there WG, AL "here",

kind TPS opinion now: i don't think User:Gringoladomenega has any nationalistic agenda going on, because i AGREE with him and i don't have any agenda. Please bear with me: the infobox says he's SPANISH, the intro says he's SPANISH, the beginning of club career is only stating the region in which he was born (part of Spain yes sir, but we don't have to be mentioning the country ALL THE TIME, do we?).

I really am trying my best to reach compromises everywhere, but could not care too much anymore if i reach out or not, am leaving WP after the 2014 FIFA World Cup with 100% of certainty, you people battle it out without me afterwards...

Happy week, from Portugal --AL (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Several of the editor's other edits were specifically pushing a Catalonian POV. One edit alone doesn't show this, but thanks for reminding me to watch my POV and avoid personal attacks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Also, i think i have accidentally reverted you because i was improving late club career and also adding a better ref for his statistics chart (TRANSFERMARKT.com is not deemed reliable), then an edit conflict occurred and i reinserted my stuff again after copy/pasting. Like i said in my summary, please write SPAIN again if it's so quintessential, i won't budge (don't know what Gringo'll do, don't think for him), but i leave you with this reasoning man: Wayne Rooney's article, the first line in his CLUB CAREER section reads "Born in Croxteth, Liverpool", not "Born in Croxteth, Liverpool, England".

Therefore, why should Bartra's first line in club career end with "Spain" and not "Catalonia"? Makes ZERO sense to me. Happy ones again --AL (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

footballbox_collapsible templates

You realized that the footballbox collapsible template violates MOS:COLLAPSE. Kingjeff (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that. It also matches previous seasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I know it has it in previous seasons. But what might be good is to have a table that looks similar to the footballbox_collapsible template, but without it being collapsible. Kingjeff (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just involved in another discussion about COLLAPSE and it's not hiding key content and so I don't believe that it is violating COLLAPSE. Was there a discussion about that somewhere? The template itself has not been tagged and there's nothing at Template talk:Football box collapsible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd ask at the footy project since you've left some doubt in my mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It states, " Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." You would have to put all the information in the prose except for match number, opponent, city, and date for MOS:COLLAPSE not to apply. Kingjeff (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention that at the football project talk. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I wasted your time

My apologizes you had to waste your time in deleting my article Trey Lyles. I mistakenly published it when I meant to preview what I had completed. I later realized That the information I had gathered was to insufficient to even develop a complete article. So I knew it was just a matter of time before it would be speedily deleted. Again sorry for your time.Gamemaster eleven (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: 2009/2002 UEFA Champions League Final

(Undid revision 602460369 by Buckhorns (talk) We do not display logos or crests on kits on English Wikipedia, particularly if one without is present)

No issue with reverting the change. Based on your statement, it appears the 2002 UEFA Champions League Final (Real Madrid vs. Bayer Leverkusen) does not comply with that standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckhorns (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

Hey Walter, I'm here to ask for a favor of yours. I don't know if you edit articles about heavy metal on regular basis, but regardless, would you been interested in giving Megadeth a peer review? I'm intending to bring the article to FA and your input will be very appreciated. You can make comments about anything you think will improve the quality of the article here. Kind regards.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look later. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Cookies!

		Cookies!
		Mz7 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I feel like editors should give WikiLove much more often; Wikipedia seems to grow more and more serious as time moves on. Thank you for your contributions to this wonderful online compendium of human knowledge, Walter Görlitz! To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Saturday Rock Action deletion

Hello,

First off I want to say that if this is in the wrong place, my apologies. I'm not quite sure I understand the "talk" feature yet. The reason I'm writing this is to find out why the page for SRA I made is being requested for deletion and how the information I presented was "not notable" and worthy of deletion. The article is not large, but I've seen others smaller that stay and have less facts. If there is something that needed to be changed then I have no problem with that, but I'd like to know in case I can save the page and time I spent making it.

Thank you for reading and I hope this can be fixed. AdamWyatt (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability for an album is defined at WP:NALBUMS. Sources for Christian albums can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. The Jesus Freak Hideout review was added by a reader, not a professional reviewer. It would need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It would need at least one review, and ideally multiple (sources), to meet the criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So if an album doesn't have a professional review to go with it it cannot be added? If that's the case then why is Crazy Love and Gloria (both by Hawk Nelson) are able to be up? The cold facts for the album are all correct. I copied it all off my CD I bought from one of the band members. What is the "criteria" other than a few reviews? The link in your reply shows the trustworthy review sites but I didn't see anything else. If what I need is in there I didn't catch on. Sorry if I'm missing the issue with this. All I wanted to do was post the facts about that album because it's not very reliable on other sites because they don't have the physical disc. I want to be an asset here (especially in the music/film department) so if you could show me where to find the requirements in this it'd be much appreciated.

Thanks again,

AdamWyatt (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the easiest way of inclusion. WP:NALBUMS details the criteria. If it gets a lot of press, it might meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article creation

I worked heavily on Majestic, which if you have time, please have a scrub of it for any weaknesses.HotHat (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you,HotHat (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Welcome to the New my editing friend.HotHat (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikki Laoye

Greetings Gorlitz, I only tried to help out on the Nikki Laoye article. There are way too many images on that page. The way you have the article isn't bad. I still want to know, why do you think that left images are not a good idea? Versace1608 (Talk) 00:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many images. It was your changes that convinced me to make some others. Thanks. I hope that my comments didn't come across as criticism, I'm sorry if you interpreted them that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You did the right thing Gorlitz. I don't have a problem with the changes you made. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Article stuff

Hey, Why don't you come down to Rivers in the Wasteland? By the way, I put it back to the correct article title and added some more information.HotHat (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked it out before I went to bed yesterday. I was curious why you created a new article when one existed although where you placed it was the correct location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Shadow Weaver not notable?

I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind the notability tag on the Choir's latest release, Shadow Weaver. Granted, the article went up on the day the album was officially released, but given 1) the band's stature in contemporary Christian music, specifically the alternative genre, 2) the fact the band is still active, touring and with a heavy online following (highlighted by their overwhelmingly successful Kickstarter campaign)... it just seems odd. I'm sure there will be reviews of this record forthcoming, as there always are for a Choir release, so I'm not sure what's not "notable" about a popular indie band's latest effort. It's like saying that Tears for Fears' latest record isn't notable because they haven't released something in years and their greatest popularity was in the Eighties. I'm just trying to understand the thinking here. It seems a little premature. TARDIS (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read that. And the Christian music notability article. I don't see how Shadow Weaver falls outside of those parameters. TARDIS (talk)

Then my trying to explain it to you won't help, but I'll try: It is not yet widely covered by the press and the one source that isn't self-published is trivial coverage of it. Most of the albums by the band do not meet notability criteria and so perhaps if I had them deleted you'd see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP article

I fixed the Jessa Anderson article with sources.

As I Lay Dying

Hello there. Regarding the hiatus year of As I Lay Dying, I am in agreement with you that the band was inactive since 2013 due to the Tim Lambesis situation, but it wasn't until April of this year that the band released an official announcement of their hiatus (and firing of 3 other members with the exception of Tim and Jordan). For this reason, I feel it should say 2000-2014. I did not revert your previous edit since I do not want to engage in an edit war, and instead thought we could discuss it. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)TheSickBehemoth

MLS Stadium Map

Hey Walter...Does the MLS stadium map look any different to you? Are the names a font size larger or the map gotten bigger? I was looking at other maps I work on and the maps have gotten bigger along with the fonts, which cause the names to overlap each other. From what I can tell, this has been going on for about a week. Roberto221 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it does look bigger. There was a style change a few weeks ago and all formatting was changed. This could be a side-effect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I quoted the wrong source

In the article Supporters' group I include the list of football teams with most supporters (only local fans and doesn't football teams with most fans) on Facebook, but amiss I quoted the wrong source, the correct source should be this: http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-pages/sport/country/turkey/ and in this way my edits on Galatasaray S.K. (football) and on Fenerbahçe S.K. (football) are correct too! Mgaprbr (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes more sense then, but I don't know that this new source is RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Francesca Battistelli's new album

I got If We're Honest under control now.HotHat (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw the changes but they were in two pairs and so I couldn't thank you for them. I looked at each one individually and thanked you for the one I thought was best. Thanks again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See, I wanted to wait till I had two highly reputable reviews before delving into the article, which CCM Magazine and New Release Tuesday are of that standard.HotHat (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Rinehart's

I found out their real names and birth dates and places, just go to Needtobreathe and see if it looks okay.HotHat (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What lead me to do this is Billboard charts where it said W. Rinehart and N. Rinehart. SourceHotHat (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a mystery no more.HotHat (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, BMI purports their names to be Nathaniel and William.HotHat (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize for wasting your time on the "If We're Honest" page. I just found the talk page on "If We're Honest", reading why you changed my review. I understand now why yours is correct. And I also would like to apologize for coming off as rude, mean, and/or snarky. Again, I am very sorry for wasting your time. Have a nice day. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic

you didn't waste my time, you learned some of the crazy rules and arcane ways of editing and you certainly didn't come off as rude, but thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Tour

Would this The Birmingham News source help to show that it's not promotion?HotHat (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Each show would have to be referenced individually. Don't sweat it though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Eventually, if they have sourcing then I will source them all. I am chilling out, which I have no problem if it gets deleted because I got it saved in my user space for further expansion.HotHat (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Bugigy, Lighthouse & Track+ edit

Good Morning M. Görlitz,

Your name sounds german but I don't know whether your speaking german – so I'm trying to write in english ;) On wednesday I enlarged the list of "comparison of issue tracking systems" where I enlarged three systems (Bugify, Lighthouse & Track+). Unfortunately you edited the list right afterwards. So, I wanted to know why you deleted my entries? I can nearly understand that you deleted my reference-link because you might think that it would have been an add-link – what it isn't. There are a lot of systems listed which use references for prove. So why shouldn't I? M. Görlitz, I would appreciate to get an answer or explication from you. Best regards, Cordula Holzapfel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holzaepfelchen (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed your additions because that article only includes products that have articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So, Mr. Görlitz I wanted to inform you, that the software "Track+" I added to the list actually has got an article in the german Wikipedia; which I linked when I added it to the list. Nevertheless I asked Wikipedia to get the permission for the translation of the article into english. Track+ is a big company which operates in Europe, the US and also in Asia. So, normally, if the translation is done I could enlarge the list, couldn't I ?

Thank you for your answer.

Provided that it meets Notability guidelines, the article should stand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Cuzão

If you continue to revert all my edits as chase mode, I will take measures to terminate it. Gringoladomenega (talk) 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega

Hi there WG, AL "here",

more regarding your run-in(s) with this user, he messaged me and now i (try to) mediate. I won't comment on the several aspects or your current state of affairs, only this one: he tells me that you have been reverting him for adding Javier Mascherano is a central defender, and he is 100% correct in that contribution.

Don't know if you follow football (imagine you do, thus more suprising your reversions), but Mascherano has been playing as defender these last two years not 80% of the time, not 90%, but... 100% of the games! I don't know if he also plays as a defender for Argentina, but with FC Barcelona he is a defender, period, hence Mr. Gringo should be allowed to add to the article too.

I repeat, i don't know what your other cause(s) of concern regarding this user may be, so i will not comment on those. Happy editing/weekend, from Portugal --AL (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's having run-ins with everyone on that article. I just happen to be the first one there.

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/mascherano states he's a midfielder. Find a source to back your opinion.

I repeat, I don't know why you're taking sides without sources, so don't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just watching games man, Mascherano is a defender. I give up man, i'm an alcoholic with too much time on my hands, but i'm not taking sides, only trying to help, i see that is not enough. May peace abound, i'm leaving on 12 JULY. Kind regards --AL (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Great. You're a RS now. I'll let the football project know that. Until you leave, expect a lot of reliance on your opinion. If you don't like that, then you should consider using existing reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

First things first: sorry if my message yesterday wandered off a bit (without insults of course), was feeling kind of down (and under the influence as well), won't happen again; 2 - yes, the link you show above has Mascherano playing as a midfielder, that's because the website has to go with ONLY ONE position, and they chose midfielder because he played there the first eight or nine years of his career, now he's a defender, so we can say he's both, lots of players have two positions (have a look for instance at Domiciano Cavém and see how many he has); 3 - i'm a RS? Sorry don't follow, what does that mean, as well as the rest of the sentence please? I have a feeling you're lashing out at me all the way from "Great" to "reliable sources", am i in the right? 4 - returning to Mascherano only having one position in the club's web, Adriano Correia could/should have DEFENDER/MIDFIELDER in his playing position, but Barcelona chose the former because that's where he has been playing mostly for them, and in the last years overall.

Sources for Mascherano being also a defender? Here they are: http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1936678.html, http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1734812.html, http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/88/spain/2012/04/01/3006274/guardiola-mascherano-has-been-an-unimaginably-good-signing. Maybe i'm not a reliable source (just wikibrowsed what RS is, thus i'm absolutely flabbergasted as to why you reacted like that, taunting me when i think i was polite, a bit exaggerated with those accounts of my personal life, but polite, i NEVER said i am infallible), but surely UEFA.com is no?

I have conveyed more of your concerns to Gringo, and have also inserted the same sources see above for his (other) player position in the article's talk page. Signing off for the moment --AL (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And the position parameter only has one position as well so that 1:1 correlation works well.

I responded the way I did because you were coming off as though you were a RS and so I treated you the way I would anyone else who did that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks for being prompt and sincere. --AL (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Players on loan

Is there a rule that players on loan must have "on loan from" in the current club section in the infobox football biography like Denis Cheryshev & Tomás Mejías's page? If this is the case, then someone should update the info box template because it seems that clutters the box and theres no need to have the loan in the year by year section. Thanks1 Raul17 (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I would ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, but it's usually done as an arrow and stating "(loan)". David Beckham is an article that comes to mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's the norm. However, it seems that any player on loan will have his current team then "(on loan from Team B)". That added infomation clutters the box and the reader will know said player is on loan in the opening paragraph and the year by year career list. Thanks again! Raul17 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Óscar Plano

Personal information
Full name	Óscar Plano Pedreño
Date of birth	(1991-02-02) 2 February 1991
Place of birth	Madrid, Spain
Height	1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)
Position(s)	Forward
Team information
Current team	Alcorcón (loan from Real Madrid)
Number	9
Youth career
2001–2002	Móstoles
2002–2010	Real Madrid
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2010–2011	Real Madrid C	34	(11)
2011–	Real Madrid B	60	(7)
2013–2014	→ Alcorcón (loan)	22	(2)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals, correct as of 13 April 2014

As a software tester, I find it redundant to have both and would argue that only one or the other should be used or ideally a stylized arrow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Raul17 (talk) 03:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If We're Honest Target Disc

Hello again. :) I had a question about the If We're Honest (Target bonus disc 2). Should I edit it as a separate disc, or leave it as the reference of Target's website? Thank you very much. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic

Not sure. Ask on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bart Millard

I have got it sourced now, and I went and got the archived url for other blp information. I just want to thank you for helping me become a better editor.HotHat (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. This past weekend, as I was reviewing a few of your edits, I was thinking how glad I am that you stuck around and that Wikipedia is a better place because of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HotHat has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Re:April 2014

Simple mistake on my part, the punctuation was to keep things grammatically correct and if I posted it wrong then oops my bad, no reason to remove it just fix it. It is worth noting that the album's back cover does say that it is "The truth in no particular order" as it is mentioned on the page:

Rimes also stated that the album "covers a range of emotions that I've experienced in my lifetime, from anger to love, from frustrations to letting go," as well as how her and co-producer, Darrell Brown, had "talked about telling that story in chronological order, but that didn't work sonically, so he said, ‘It's the truth…in no particular order.' And isn't that what life is about?"

The sentence may need reworded and that I can agree with but there needs to be a note somewhere that that is mentioned on the album. Maybe something along the lines 'that statement "The truth in no particular order" is quoted on the back of the album cover.' My reply would not show up so I decided to post here. 184.58.24.163 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Derek Webb

Mr Görlitz, you are continually reverting edits that include relevant information on Derek Webb's page. Specifically, Webb claiming responsibility for the events that led to his divorce. Including this information is properly sourced and does not violate Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. Do you have a personal interest in Webb that is causing you to engage in conflict of interest editing?

Examples of other pages in this category with similarly supported materials that have not been removed: Michael English (singer)#Scandal Sandi Patty#Divorce — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.47.208 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No COI. Never met the man. The difference between Enlish and Patti are that there are well-published facts about those situations. There are none related to Webb at this point. Since you keep adding material back into the article that is unreferenced by the "references" I should ask what your relationship to the subjects is and if you've read WP:BLP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page for not meeting notability guidelines

You recently had a small consensus to delete Load Impact's page due to insufficient notable coverage. However, the search for coverage must have been limited to the first page of a Google search. Load Impact has recently been featured is such notable media as SD Times, ProgrammableWeb, Tools Journal, Government Technology, D-Zone, Info-Q, The Next Web, App Developer Magazine, Dr.Dobbs, etc. And that's just the last six months. According to the General Notability Guidelines the coverage must be "significant", "reliable" and "independent", all of which they are. Is this not sufficient notable coverage for a stand-alone page? The guidelines also state that: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." VanessaMeyer (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

None are significant. Using your words, they do not sufficiently focus on the product. It has to be an in-depth discussion of the subject. Several discuss it in context of other tools. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Only one of those articles discusses it in context of other tools. Majority of the rest discuss new product features - in depth. Does that mean a page could be created about the company specifically and not the product? VanessaMeyer (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll offer my analysis of the sources.

• Load Impact releases plug-in for TeamCity build management and continuous integration server on SD Times Not even about the product but about a plug-in for it
• Measuring Traffic Load and API Requests per Second: An Interview with Load Impact on ProgrammableWeb, Not a RS, a blog. Discusses the product
• Cloud Based Performance Testing From Load Impact For Mobile Apps, APIs, Websites at Tools Journal. Five paragraphs so not significant coverage, but you're right that I misunderstood the title of the article at this point.
• Why Wasn't Healthcare.gov Load Tested? on Government Technology. Published by Ragnar Lonn, the CEO. How much did it cost you for that extended ad?
• D-Zone - not sure what's here, but I'm sure it's important and on-topic.
• Load Impact Adds Server-Side Metrics Collection to Cloud-Based Load Testing Tool on Info-Q. This is a discussion of a feature of the product.
• 5 free online tools for testing your website’s speed on The Next Web. This is certainly about five tools.
• Load Impact Releases Cloud-Based App Load Testing Software as a Service on App Developer Magazine. Another feature announcement.
• Load Impact Plug-In For TeamCity at Dr.Dobbs. Another feature announcement.

So in all, you're right, only one instance of multiple products in an article. As for a company page, none of the sources discuss the company at length either, so I would argue that it wouldn't meet the guidelines.

One more thing I would like to point out, I saw a few of these before I nominated the page for deletion, because I don't just look at the first page on Google as you suggested, but they didn't meet the requirements of good sources. But two other editors looked for sources and could not find any. One editor made an effort to support the product, but mentions don't make the cut. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Script bug

I notice your mentioning that the script was converting legitimate yyyy-mm-dd dates. This is to let you know that the problem has been fixed. regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they were legitimate, but the other editor complained. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it does seems that the guidelines endorse the manner of their inclusion in that article. Most people won't bat an eyelid if they get harmonised, but you unfortunately came across one that howled. C'est la vie! -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Adam Young, Andy Johnson, Anythony Johnson side projects

We seem to keep butting heads on this occasionally since a lot of the projects are old and their accounts have died in the past year or two.

I own all the tracks (literally all of them).

The only other place to find some of them is Tumblr (where people post them randomly), fan sites (that their sole purpose is to keep track of all the projects), and random YouTube videos that fans have posted.

I'm tempted to open up a SoundCloud account dedicated solely to posting the projects and their tracks. What say you?

RhettGedies (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Accessibility discussions

I would like to ask why you observe a negative, derogatory and often rude attitude when it comes to things which you disagree with? Its evident that you are a capable editor and more than capable of responding politely andassume good faith. However, when it comes to things like the recent Accessibility discussions you observe an attitude which is unhelpful and dilutes the discussion because you are rude to other editors and persist to not only be uncivil but show a lack of respect toward alternative view points. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community and yes there will be times when people disagree, but that doesn't mean you should disrespect or belittle others when they are trying to improve Wikipedia. Fair enough there is some issue around understanding the need of the proposed changes (yourself and a small minority of others are unconvinced of the importance of the changes) but everyone else in the discussion would be more inclined to listen to your point of view and we would probably progress further with developing mutual understanding if you were not so abrupt. I would like to think you would not just ignore this message and I am making an effort to extend an olive branch so that we can make future discussions about Accessibility are productive and focus on the actual changes rather than an incorrectly perceived cabal attitude from the other editors. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Please show me the empirical proof I have repeatedly asked for and you will gain my respect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal FC language used

As I said, and as you stated, Arsenal Football Club ARE a British football team and as such British English should be used, which is basically what you said on my talk page, which begs the question: Why did you revert the language to American English for a British sports team ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLWC1905 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What We Stand For

I just want to thank you for taking the time out to review my work.HotHat (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign

You can listen to the album on iTunes radio.HotHat (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Trouble Ticket Express

I do apologize, I was in the process of writing the page when you undid my edit to Comparison of help desk issue tracking software. Would you consider the need met? I will of course be adding to the Trouble Ticket Express article. jasondaemon (talk) 15:16, 9 May, 2014 (UTC)

Danke

Walter, ich hoffe ich kann dich so anreden. Ich kam auf deinen Namen, als ich Volunteer Marek's Seite las. Ich sah, dass er deinen Eintrag der Warnung vor edit warring geloescht hatte, wie andere, u.a. meinen selbigen Eintrag vom 7.Mai auch. Ich bin ihm auf Fiat money begegnet, wo er partout meine auch noch so kleine Aenderung nicht tolerieren will, sie nicht diskutiert, und keine Referenzen dafuer bringt. Am 7. Mai hat er mich 3x revertiert und 2 andere editoren auch , dh 5 reverts in meinen Augen. Ich habe ihn angezeigt, aber der administrator fand nichts dabei, sagte es seien consecutive edits. (hast du ja auch schon erlebt, wie ich auf deiner Benutzerseite sehe). Habe edit und Diskussion heute noch mal probiert, aber er wehrt sich mit haenden und fuessen. ein akademiker /oOekonom hilft ihm zufaelligerweise, scheuklappen fest angezogen.

Ich fand deine verteidigung des Eintrags auf Robert Lewandowski ueberzeugend, zum Glueck hattest du schuetzenhilfe/ unterstuetzung, sonst haette er vielleicht weiter gemacht! Tatsaechlich hat Marek aber 3 x revertiert.

Ich finde der Typ ist cholerisch, intolerant, unkonstruktiv, und macht vor Beleidigungen nicht halt (siehe die Diskussionsseite von fiat money). Es ist schade, dass solche Leute recht bekommen ... Er hat seit Jahren keinen Block mehr bekommen. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Request fulfilled

I put in a critical reception section on The Noise We Make album. I hope you have a great day.HotHat (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Marcus Haber

Hi, long standing consensus at WT:FOOTY has it that we are better not including divisions in the opening sentence of leads, as they often go without being updated once they change. I'll try find some past discussions in the archive later today. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The last time we discussed it the decision was just the opposite. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Zion

I made the article into a better specimen.HotHat (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Neon Steeple

You can listen to the album on iTunes Radio.HotHat (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We As Human page edits/changes

Hello! I appreciate your input on the We As Human page. Can you please tell me why the "We Love Music Awards" isn't credible and therefore removed from their achievements? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamnashville (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote was that they were not notable. They've only existed for two years now and only the sponsors and recipients of nominations write about the award. Unlike other awards, they're not currently recognizable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit...

But your edit is wrong. Actually, the track listing is official, and if you are doubting about the reference or the source, visit this page: No Other Name

Kppb12 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your edits, all of them were wrong. You remove material that was referenced. You added material with the reference, although you did have a link, you didn't provide it. Adding here is not helpful to those who are trying to edit the article. Feel free to improve your editing through observation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Hello WALTER,

i admit that, eight years later, i still don't know most of the guidelines and go mostly by "hunch". I am a passionate editor, but a very poor one technically.

That said, i profit from the moment to say i'll be leaving WP for good at the end of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. I can help with anything until that time comes though, just ask if you need.

Note: this very same message has been sent to Raul 17. Attentively --AL (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• TPS (even though you did not reply to my kind message here, dunno why, i think i was polite): i just visited Raul's page because he sent me a message warning i had messages there, and saw your comment below. He is not referring to YOU when he mentions Gringo, he's refererring to User:Gringoladomenega. --AL (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My name was linked on the page in that set of comments and I was looking for "Walter Görlitz" but didn't find it and saw the patch of names near the beginning and assumed that it was me. Instead I found it later by looking at the source. Still, you two should probably not discuss other editors at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i fail to follow. "...you two should probably not discuss other editors at all", which editor did i discuss improperly? --AL (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you discuss any editors? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You said "you two", meaning Raul and myself am i correct? If not, sorry. --AL (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now. You did mention me., but only in passing. I need more sleep. ----

Yes, i only mentioned you in the diff you showed above to say i sent you the same message i had just sent Raul, no aggressivenevess, rudeness or hidden agenda there i believe. No worries about the confusion, happens to the best --AL (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't add the citation earlier

On La Decima, I added it on Real Madrid's page now. Dwscomet (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Maher albums

I am nominating his first three albums for deletion, so go to Matt Maher's albums deletion debates to discuss.HotHat (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wertz albums

I have helped Rm w a vu, who created his non-notable albums, and you can go to that users talk page to see just how I did it.HotHat (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Stadiums/stadia

No issue with your change at UEFA Champions League, but are you sure that North American readers wouldn't understand the word "stadia" if they came across it? – PeeJay 16:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I wrote. I stated that most North Americans wouldn't understand it. Fans of the sport may, because of the way that televised broadcasts work here. However the casual reader likely would not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think so though? By all means use WP:COMMONALITY as a rationale, since "stadiums" is intelligible to anyone, but I happen to believe that North American readers have a bit more nous about them than to simply dismiss the word as unrecognisable. Except the ones who watch NASCAR. There's no hope for them. – PeeJay 17:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I do think so, yes, on both points (Latin loan words and NASCAR). As for unrecognizable, I agree that they might eventually come to understand the word, particularly in context, however it's not part of our cultural milieu. The various gridiron football league articles might offer more insight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

New artist

I just created the profile for V. Rose.HotHat (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverting IssueTrak

Would like some more information on why Issuetrak's page was deleted when I began adding detailed info to Comparison of Issue-Tracking Systems? Buffalo747 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are two separate issues. The first issue is that the link you were adding to Comparison of Issue-Tracking Systems was not to Issuetrak but to IssueTrak. Do you see the capitalization issue? Because IssueTrak was a deleted article, I removed it. Only products with articles on Wikipedia are added to that article.

I then checked to see what other edits you were making and noticed that you were editing Issuetrak. I recognized the capitalization difference and went to check that article. The problem here is that the article is in the wrong place and it still didn't have reliable sources that were independent of the company/product that discussed the product in sufficient detail. User Bonadea nominated for a speedy deletion while I was investigating. I decided simply to redirect it. Bonadea has now nominated the redirect for deletion as well.

At the root of this issue is that the product is not yet sufficiently notable. I would start with the AfD (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IssueTrak). If you want to create a new article, you might want to start with on in your user space (User:Buffalo747/IssueTrak and build it out until it meets WP:GNG or WP:PRODUCT and when you think it contains sufficient information to clearly demonstrate the notability of the product, request a review of the article. Once it passes that review, it can be moved to the correct location. Some of this is explained more clearly at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Fundamentally, the hill you have to climb to get this article created is slight steeper since the article has been deleted once (well, twice if you count the recent incorrectly titled one) and editors will be watching for recreation attempts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Genre warring

Walter, maybe you can keep an eye on 192.42.92.110. I've warned them for edit warring. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I've never seen the automatically generated summary of "rapidly changing content" on the anon's edits before. Scary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Accidental edit

Hi Walter. I accidentally undid your edit on David Vikla (date format). No idea how that happened...thought I was making a minor grammar edit. I tried to undo this edit but subsequent edits mean I can't. Cheers. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can bring us back from the edge of insanity. Thanks for the update. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Jason Gray

Thanks Walter. I have just finished my edits of the table separating the studio albums from the live ones and the EPs. You can go ahead now. I will not make further edits for now. Here also a dedication of a song I truly truly love of Jason Gray: "More Like Falling in Love" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh8MpeZz8no werldwayd (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

jason gray edits

Hi Walter, Thanks for your dedication to accurate and updated Christian music info on Wikipedia. I work for Jason's label, Centricity Music. Per Jason's request, I was attempting to remove things not pertinent to his career. I'm not great at this Wikipedia thing, in fact I'm probably using the wiki talk incorrectly as we speak. If you could email me, I would love to enlist your help in correcting some of this information as well as keeping it up to date. Thanks, alyssa@centricitymusic.com

68.52.16.9 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What edit war?

The guy has been deleting most of the page and I'm trying to restore back to the stable version. How can this be called a "edit war"? And I reverted his vandalism once, not three times. No, it's no "edit war", I'm just trying to stop the vandalism. He should be blocked immeaditely. MarcosPassos (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No. He's moved the material into sub-articles and linking to them. I have started a discussion about the venues section on the talk page. Feel free to join it and create new sections for other sections you have concerns about. Please don't just revert the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

He did not. He deleted the Fan Fest section and didn't not insert any link for the Fan Fest article. He has also deleted most o the Venues section without using the Talk page. He has also deleted things for no reason at all as you can you see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_FIFA_World_Cup&diff=611324907&oldid=611324585 MarcosPassos (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of the three edits you just reverted, [2] [3] and [4], none of them were related to that edit. And you might want to check what the actual definition of WP:VANDALISM is because I don't see the other editor making "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" by moving material into other articles and explaining his actions in the process. Perhaps WP:AGF would be a good read too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Gemini AfD

He tries to force you into defensive position and make it look like you are acting in bad faith. Engaging in discussion with him is unlikely to help. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But I must assume good faith. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Asmir Begovic is number 1 and Asmir Avdukic is number 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.205.141 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice

Hi,

I read your answer at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup, but thought we should stay on topic there and discuss the edit notice elsewhere (so I went here). Thanks for linking to Wikipedia:Editnotice, I had actually already started reading it and I think I know enough now. My plan is to create a template for this edit notice since it should be used on all the related articles and could be used on many similar articles in the future. A notice for live updates could be used on many pages. Unfortunately I do not have the rights myself to add the edit notice on the pages, but an request can be made for admin to add it.

One thing I am asking you about (if you know) is how I should do with expiry date of the template? Do you think it is possible to have that as a parameter to the template so that different pages can have different dates, when calling template. For example, it is not needed to show date after World cup has ended.

Does it sound like a good idea? I can show the template before adding it to see everyones opinion. QED237 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I just saw a edit notice that past expiry date as parameter, {{New release editnotice}}. QED237 (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

News to me! I had never seen a template with an expiry notice. I have added them to locations like my talk page and articles like List of Christian hip hop and rap artists, both of which do not require expiration dates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I saw it and in this case it seems like a good idea, since there is no need for the edit notice when there is no matches left. Great that you have done this before if I need help. How did you add your notices? I believe there are two ways, one by adding article name in the top row of Wikipedia:Editnotice#Creating editnotices or follow the steps at Wikipedia:Editnotice#How to request an editnotice if you are not an administrator, I believe I have to follow the second alternative since I am not admin. And did it take a lot of time for admin to respond to the request? QED237 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in on your conversation, but I wanted to keep the world cup page related to livescoring as Qed237 suggested, and this conversation was linked to. I added a edit notice to the world cup squads page yesterday, and an admin had responded to it within a day (roughly), so it shouldn't take long once you've created it. - 97rob (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, you are very welcome to join the discussion. And thanks for the info, how did you do your request, at template talk for the page? QED237 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw now how you made it. Good informative edit notice. QED237 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I went for a fairly nice notice, and it's been pretty successful I think, I've not reverted any of that type of edit since (other users might have). For the livescoring one, you might want to make it more authoritative though, and possibly mention blocking users if it continues. - 97rob (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I will try and do that, also link to the consensus in a good way and as you said mention possible consequenses. I am also considering an image as I have seen in other edit notices, a warning-triangle or even the read stop-hand or something like that. QED237 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the last general discussion on the topic, several editors were completely against blocks for those who add scores, but were OK with allowing blocks for edit warring by those who either try to keep scores out or who constantly restore them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have link for that discussion? All I know is that removing livescores is following consensus and those who dont follow consensus can be warned for disruptive editing. Several users have been warned and blocked in the past. QED237 (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 47 right at the top. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

OKay, I read most of it and to me it seems like many were interested in the policy but a few editors kept arguing it was not a good idea to have a policy for it. Livescoring is still not a good idea, and I will most likely revert and inform the editors. In the past I have dropped information on the editors talkpage about livescoring before warning them. QED237 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what I do to. And my comment on edit warring was intentional: in one editor continues to add scores while three (or more) editors remove those scores, the editor may be at the wrong end of a 3RR block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is very true but with risk of many editors adding livescores one could risk getting blocked myself for edit warring after reverting several other IP even if following consensus, which I dont like. That's why I am hoping edit notice and hidden comments will stop a few editors. QED237 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely if they're still going against consensus after being warned on their talk page, then the user adding scores is being disruptive, not the editor. Just make sure not to go past three reverts on a page, if you get to the limit post on the WT:FOOTY to find some more help. Hidden comments should help a little, but there's still a good chance that they just get ignored. If it's mainly IP/new users, then once we've had it happen for the first game, the pages can be semi-protected (am I right in thinking you have to wait for it to happen first, it can't be pre-empted?), which might help a bit. - 97rob (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it has to happen first (which it will). The same has happened on many other articles were livscores has been added. Even witthout taking livescores in consideration it will most likely be semi-protected due to IP's adding the scores the predict/want. QED237 (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen a couple like that already, but if we get more than a couple a day before the start of the world cup, that could probably be used as enough evidence to get the articles auto-protected. - 97rob (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:, @97rob:. I have now created a template for the editnotice {{Livescores editnotice}} with documentation, sandbox and testpage ({{Livescores editnotice/doc}}, {{Livescores editnotice/doc}} and {{Livescores editnotice/doc}}). I may have gone a little bit overboard and also created a category Category:Pages with Livescores editnotice. I did this to as all templates should have doc, sandbox and testcases (Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases) and many of the editnotice templates I saw had categories to keep track of them and were they are used. Please come with your opinions on the template before I/we put it up for use on the article (I can do that), because there might be some things I missed or needs to be change. For example I dont know if image is appropriate or if a warning triangle is better. This should probably be discussed on the talkpage of the template. As I said please voice your opinion, and If I dont hear anything in a day or two I will assume it looks okay and is ready for use. QED237 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Impressive. It looks good. I made one change to grammar but otherwise it's OK. You might also want to get some general approval at the footy project before rolling it out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It took me a while, there was a lot of different aspects to consider but I think the result is okay. Going to the footy project before using it is a good idea even if I am a bit scared it might get rejected and my work was for nothing. I guess I will do that tomorrow if/when I can find the time. At Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup an editor answered saying it might be good to include reason for why not add livescores (so editors can understand and stop adding scores), but I am afraid that if the notice gets to long editors wont read it and the info can be read in the consensus. But in general perhaps it is a good idea to mention why. What do you think? QED237 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's really good, I also made one change, so the background now goes behind the image, if that's alright. If anyone does ignore it, then we could have something prepared to post to their talk page with more details of why the ban exists, with the important links. It would have to be done fairly quickly after reverting to ensure they do stop. - 97rob (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That change is fine, I like it. Apperently the discussion at WT:FOOTY#Live scores, the next step? is not going so well. One editor misunderstood the use and one is heavily opposing (the same editor arguing a lot at "what wikipedia is not"). QED237 (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Artifex Pereo

I removed the Christian genre stuff right now to avoid getting slapped with the dreaded 3RR.HotHat (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At least you didn't nuke the refs, which was my other problem with the edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I never "nuke the refs" because they prove the information that I provide. By the way, I just got in touch with the people at Jesus Freak Hideout, New Release Tuesday and Indie Vision Music to make sure they know about the band not being a Christian one. So, they may not get coverage on those websites anymore.HotHat (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The only ones that I can see covering them in the future is HM and ChristCore.HotHat (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is what Mr. John DiBiase founder of Jesus Freak Hideout emailed me back "The label says: 'I am sure that they don't want to be classified as a Christian band. I don't think that wiki asks Cory if he is a Christian.'"HotHat (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what that means, but OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's like Switchfoot, they are a band of Christian's that sing inspirational songs, but are not a Christian band per se.HotHat (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go that far in relation to Switchfoot. They've changed their position quite frequently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Logos

Hi,

I turn to you since I believe you have way better knowledge regarding team kits (and logos) than me. I saw you reverting Rizky Iconia a few days ago, and when he inserted shirt with logo again a few days later I reverted back again. Now the editor also added kit to Chelsea F.C. and I believe those are wrong to, he does not seem to know about the logos despite edit summaries. Could you compose a good talkmessage with the info or what is next step? Start warning? Perhaps info is best first. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I just pointed him to the documentation at the template. I cannot force him to follow the advice though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, you did what you could, unfortunately he dont seem to listen and added same thing again. If you dont oppose next time I will start warning for disruptive beaviour since he continues despite being informed about the situation. QED237 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Mezut Ozil Nationality Issue, 2014

Hello,

Sorry if I've opened this to the wrong place.

I think we had some discussion about leaving out Mesut Özil's former Turkish citizenship/nationality from the Wikipedia page (this was some time ago, maybe year(s)?). I'd like to revive that discussion if you have time. I can't remember what we had discussed back then, but would gladly start from scratch. So I think that some information that is a significant part of a person's identity should be included in the page. Maybe something like "Turkish born German" or "Turkish-German born German", which ever is the factually right information, should be included in the page. I can't give an example right now, but I see this format frequently on Wikipedia. What do you think? Is it not weird that an important part of someone's personal history/identity is being left out? I don't think that the Kurdish/Turkish ethnic deal is a counter argument to this either, as one is a nationality, one is an ethnicity. I'm certainly not against pointing out he's of Kurdish descent, if there is a source we can cite on that. Also, I've seen improvement in the page, since now there's a Turkish pronunciation on the page, something which was weirdly unavailable before.

The fact that he's a Turkish-German is stated on the page now, which is also an improvement. But that it needed to have 4 citations to exist and that it is first able to appear at the near end of the page is strange.

I think, forgive me if I'm mistaken, that the reason why you're not in favour of pointing out his being of Turkish origin at the top of the page, is that you dislike nationalism. However, this comes across as the exact opposite. It looks like a German (by descent) Wikipedian dominating the realm of internet. I think you can find in yourself to understand this aspect to the topic. In the Turkish-German relationship, the Turkish part has always been the underdog. In my humble opinion, or rather my humble perception of the world, in such cases, the will of the 'underdogs' to seek their rights is widely accepted, and the will of the dominating party to reverse this is seen as 'nationalism', not the other way around. My choice of words may not have been good, but I think you can understand what I'm trying to explain. (I'm not particularly proud of the style/language of this paragraph, but I'm trying to define a previously undefined concept, or at least one that I don't know the name to. I hope I was able to explain properly.)

I also found an example where an ethnic identity is listed at the top of the page. The person has a nationality, and an unrelated ethnic background, both of which are listed. (example: Dani Rodrik) If you accept this format, the Özil page should list either Turkish or Kurdish, or Turkish-Kurdish, depending on which of these can be cited. If you don't accept this format, feel free to edit the mentioned page as well.

Here's another example where a possibly abandoned nationality/citizenship is listed in the "x-born y" (x and y being different nationalities) format. What is your opinion on applying this format to the Özil page? If you don't like this format, feel free to edit the page I mentioned as well. (example: Zsa Zsa Gabor)

I don't really know how to continue a discussion in this format, I'm assuming I'm going to have to come back to check here? If you move this question to somewhere else, please leave a notice.

Thank you for your time. ,--Utkun (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The agreement that was reached on the page was not to mention any nationality. However, that changed to the way it currently reads. I was not a part of that discussion but I agree with it. WP:BLP and WP:OPENPARA both state not to mention ethnicity in the lede. That means that both of the articles you've listed violate that.

As for my nationality, you'll see that I have edited similar articles where an Australian-born player who now represents Turkey does not mention Australia in the lede. A German-born player who represents the United States only mentions the US in the lede. Since I cannot control my heritage, I don't care how it comes across in this article: I am following Wikipedia guidelines for editing. I don't play nationalistic favouritism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't recheck the further talks on the page. I just saw your username in a completely different page and remember the topic, and wanted to revive it for improvement. As it comes to the nationality issue, it's a different topic. I was just underlining some of the aspects of our previous dispute. Thanks for pointing out the guidelines. However keep in mind that the Zsa Zsa Gabor article is probably about a former nationality, not ethnicity. Thanks for your time. By the way, I didn't mean to offend you by pointing out the editor's nationality argument. I hope we are in good understanding. I hope I didn't offend/annoy you the last time we spoke on this, I can't remember the details. Thanks for your time, and the quick reply. Also, I still think the guidelines are not 100% right, but that's obviously not a topic for our us to discuss.

--Utkun (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)--

Thanks for checking back, and no offence taken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Logos on kits

I noticed your discussion with Qed237 above about logos on kits, so I thought you were the right person to ask for help with a problem I'm having with them. The kit for croatia (e.g. at 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A) includes a nike logo, which I tried to remove at the original file File:Kit body croatia1415h.png, but every time I do the current version somehow still includes the nike logo, whilst the previous versions show up without it!? I was wondering if you'd be able to have a look at this and see if you could do anything about it, but otherwise the best course of action might be to upload a new image to a different file name, and just replace the information for the kit on the articles. Thanks - 97rob (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont see any logo now (I may be blind). @97rob: Did you update the article after you updated the commons image? Template and image updates dont take effect immediately if not page is purged. Every time a template is updated it goes in to a queue and the article with that template gets updated in a second,minute,hours,days... depending on the length of queue. Thats why when making changes like this you should make a Null edit on the article to see the changes (press edit and then save without making changes). QED237 (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because the logos are usually housed on Wikicommons and there are jurisdictions that they server that do not have the same copyright laws, they feel it's OK to have logos and crests on kits. That's why they show-up here. Essentially, you have to create a copy of the kit without a logo and with a slightly different name, because someone will always revert to the one with logo if it's been created with one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Qed237:Are you sure you can't see a logo, there's a small blue nike logo on the left side, on my screen? I'll probably just upload a new file to get it to work - thanks! - 97rob (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Charmaine

I have started here an article to get your opinion on her notability and the respective albums that she released. So, what do you think of the merits?HotHat (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IT hit a few of my buttons: WP:OPENPARA related to nationality and ethnicity. The born in US, lives in Aus should be referenced. I didn't read the refs, so it may be in there. http://www.cbn.com doesn't go where you expect it to. Looks like she meets GNG if not MUSICBIO, so flesh it out and move it to main space. Looks good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The CBN link goes to the main reviews page because it does not have an individual article on the review nor is it in the archives yet. So, I have to site the main page because the review is listed on that page, but you have to scroll down some to get to the review.HotHat (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They are trying to get it deleted at Charmaine and All About Jesus.HotHat (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Add to that Love Reality.HotHat (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

You have always been an invaluable asset to me on Wikipedia, and for that you need to be commended.HotHat (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi . I need your help

Hi , I'm from page Red (taylor swift album) and I tried to translate it to my language but I miss I had delete a reference of chart performance secsion so, I tried to undo t but i don't know how I saw you the last editor of this page so please help me undo it thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiaMonton (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Creation request

Hallo! I am a brand new editor on this encyclopedia and I have long noticed that many major clubs have a page detailing their results in Europe and that FC Bayern my beloved Red Giant does not. I am too new to know what I am doing and I researched you and saw that you do. Any help creating this article and helping me learn a bit would be greatly appreciated! Turn up for what dude? (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Might be better to bring that up on the club's talk page. Not really sure what it would entail, but it sounds feasible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Charmaine notable

Please take a look at AUTHOR, criterion No. 3 resonates loud-and-clear in Charmaine's case at the present moment-in-time because the reviews of her albums and now EP. Sorry, I had to bring you and 3family6 into this charade of a notability and reliable sources fight.HotHat (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, take a look at the charts that I put on her page.HotHat (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand Espanola because look here?HotHat (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if AUTHOR can be applied to musicians or if it only relates to other creative fields. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to suggest it, but with only one editor opposed to inclusion, it seems like we should let an admin close the debate, and I get the feeling it will be a keep. I don't understand Spanish, but that is a RS and a feature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

IssueTrak - Review & Consideration

Hi - Based on your feedback, I have reworked the IssueTrak article and have posted it for review. I would value your input in the review process. Thanks, Buffalo747 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Beitashour sandbox

Hey, I just noticed that the sandbox is still up despite the fact that the original page is no longer protected. Can you get rid of it? – Michael (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ian Christianson

Hello Walter Görlitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ian Christianson, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: While the subject obviously does not meet WP:NFOOTY or GNG, A7 is not appropriate. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Billboard name order

Walter, if that is the right name order, then why does Capital Kings (album), Collapsible Lung, and others, say otherwise? Just curious.

RhettGedies (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Then fix them too. You could always bring it up at the Christian music project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ciro Immobile

Italian (domestic) transfer windows actually opened. Many deals done in June to raise last minute profit for the financial year. Please read official statement of Juventus web site. He is officially a Juventus from 18 June 2014, but Juventus did not announce the German move yet, or collapsed. Matthew_hk tc 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's my understanding the England's window is open but they are the only European league that allows transfers after the final competitive match. I could be wrong of course. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Italian co-ownership deal has to be resolved before the deadline on 22 June or 25 June depends on which year. Matthew_hk tc 18:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit, i misread the announcement, Immobile went to Torino instead of Juventus, thus the German transfer may collapsed. Matthew_hk tc 19:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not this again.

I don't understand. You've seen the source being referenced right? You also know as well as I do what common usage is. I'm confused.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I saw a protracted edit war over this same situation about six months ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Height}} only allowed metres until we came along and successfully argued for it to allow centimetres, remember?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember that. You'll have to show me, because I looked yesterday and there was no consensus to display heights in multiple formats. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "display heights in multiple formats" means. Are you saying centimetres should be effectively banned and metres is the only acceptable format? I hope not because I'm already baffled enough. At Template_talk:Height/Archive_3#Straw_poll_on_units_of_measure_output_by_this_template it is said that we don't need perfect consistency. WP:TIES means that we should follow what is normally done in Canada for biographies of Canadians. I got the distinct impression from yourself and other Canadian editors that cm is the way to go. It certainly is for Australia (but so too UK and USA for that matter, if sources are not to be ignored.)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that, just as we have standards for many points of grammar and style we should have a standard here as well. Different agencies in Canada alternately use cm and m for height so there is no standard in Canada. I listed how a few leagues display heights and some teams do things their own ways. In short, I would prefer to see some sort of standardization rather than approaching things piecemeal. and while {{height|cm=175}} displays as 175 cm (5 ft 9 in), I would rather see articles as {{height|m=1.75}} or 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in) as that's how it's done on most articles. If you want to have both, let me know where the discussion is being held and I'll weigh-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Having both is where we already are, and what the closer of the discussion meant was that that's ok. We've moved away from the inexplicable enforcement of m that {{Height}} used to provide. I agree it would be nice to standardize on cm the way top-shelf sources do, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a sports stats blog. You say different "agencies" in Canada use metres. I'm not sure what this even means. Different government agencies? Common usage is centimetres. Anyway, on Wikipedia thousands of biography infoboxes already (rightly) display cm just as the sources do. If, as you say, you'd rather these were all changed to m (for the sake of a handful of editors' personal views on "consistency") then you've got an awful lot of work to do.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Brooks

Rather than have one of those annoying two-person conversations that dominate a wider discussion, I thought I'd ask you in the user space. And please don't think this is a dig at you in any way, it's a genuine question. I have to say that I'm completely baffled as to how you justify (to yourself) trying to take "German" out of Brook's intro. This is someone who was born, has lived his whole life and has spent his entire professional career in Germany, and has even represented a German national team. I can't work out your thought process that came to the conclusion that "German" should not be in there, and I'd be interested to find out how/why you justify this. Cheers, Number 57 22:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Because consensus has been that only the national team should be displayed in the opening sentence and leave the discussion of national allegiance to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite annoyed at the suggestions that I am somehow anti-German or pro-American or something else. I have no bias or POV other than to apply editing guidelines as I understand them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have clarified (as I wondered whether you might respond like this). I know you think this is a consensus, but what I'm interested in is how you justify agreeing with it. How do you see it and think "Yeah, that's a justified approach, I'll use that in arguments"? Number 57 22:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My pay grade on this wiki isn't high enough to think. = ) I'm actually opposed to listing nationality for most articles. It rarely affects what an article is about. Most band articles don't list nationality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a little disappointing - if there is a guideline/policy/consensus which is detrimental to the project, it needs challenging, not just accepting and promoting. This is everyone's pay grade! You shouldn't meekly go along with it if you don't agree with it or can't see how it's justified. And I agree with you about bands, but sportspeople are a different kettle of fish entirely. Number 57 22:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I know of sportspeople where it's a quagmire. For some in sports where there are foreign player quotas, non-national team players are encouraged to seek local citizenship to help reduce quotas. So the player is "American" or "Canadian" but they would never consider playing for that nation. In short, I'd rather see nationality completely removed from the lede and in its place state what national team(s) the player has represented. I would like to see a mandatory biography section for every BLP and leave discussion of birth, nationality and heritage to that. And then there are the Catalan separatists, Kurdish "nationals" and other similar problems. To me, nationality and their related discussions cause more problems than they cause. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the beer

You're welcome, Walter. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I do apologize for suggesting you were operating from a POV position. It's very clear to me that the article is taking it's cue from the footballer perspective that he's being identified as a team member and you were trying your best to make us all see that. It makes sense then that his team affiliation would come first, and then his nationality bit second. Thank you for being so gracious. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For persistence and good grace in your efforts to keep John Anthony Brooks in line with the WikiProject Football. Well done, Walter. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

ARIA Charts query

The archiveurl goes to a PANDORA file. This template requires a url whenever an archiveurl is used, however the current ARIA chart typically does not supply any usable information on the archived file. The original url e.g. here, provides "The page cannot be found" and no new information. Hence the url I used points to information on ARIA's charting (a link to current chart is available there). Unfortunately the on-line version of ARIA Reports only goes back to 2001 and earlier charting to 50+ (or component charts) are not readily available as far as I can tell.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

For You Are My World is your note referring to the archived copy? As indicated above the original url provides "page not found", do you prefer this? I don't like it but I'll change it over.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Height

Relevant discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height. GiantSnowman 08:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Side projects of Adam Young

Samcookie343 proceeded to reduce my hours of side project writing into a small few paragraph with italics errors as well as poor format. Can I reverse it within Wiki Guidelines and have your backing? Or is it better the way he has made it?

RhettGedies (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I would discuss first, but per WP:BRD, you could revert and then discuss too. He just added drums to Adams' article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this guy new to Wiki? He seems a little.....brash (if that's the word I'm thinking of).

RhettGedies (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

He's WP:BOLD, but I haven't checked his edit history to determine how new he is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

New artist notification

I have created and established the article Big Smo, for you to edit at your leisure Mr. Gorlitz.HotHat (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Country? I didn't realize they still made that. =) Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, they still make country and rap, but I was shocked to see country rap, wow!HotHat (talk) 06:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Me too. It seems to sell though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I sense album articles are in the works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are being worked on right now.HotHat (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am done with Kuntry Livin', but the others will not be done by me because one only charted once and the other for a lack of reviews. However, if someone else wants to they can be my guest at the party.HotHat (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Good night, I will talk to you later editor Walter Gorlitz, peace.HotHat (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion debates

I just nominated four MercyMe albums, one David Crowder Band album, and one Chris Tomlin album for deletion. These are the independent ones with little to no coverage.HotHat (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage (album) discussion

I replied to your comment on the talk page. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Would you mind giving your view on the latest discussion in Talk:Garbage_(band)#Genres? --Lpdte77 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

You seem very busy recently. I know I have been. How about a nice Cup of Tea to relax with? I hope you are a tea drinker at least a bit. ¿3family6 contribs 04:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more stuff

Dear editor Walter Görlitz, I just created Hope in Front of Me by Danny Gokey. On another note, I am thinking of putting up for deletion Southern Tracks and Carry Me Home by Third Day, but I am requesting your opinion on the matter first before I go ahead.HotHat (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on proposed move: National Holiday (Quebec) to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day

Hi, I noticed you were recently involved in editing what is now National Holiday (Quebec). I've made a proposal on the Talk page to move the article to Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. I hope you will have time to put in your opinion. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Garbage

Thanks for your input on the article on Garbage. I appreciate you taking the time for it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

New York City FC edit

I was only trying to get the table to be viewed properly. --Coppercanuck (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It's fixed now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Remixd

I fixed it per your suggestion, and you can look it over to see if anything needs to be corrected.HotHat (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Toronto Star

Do you believe that the Toronto Star is a tabloid? At least one or two editors are are accusing the Toronto Star as a tabloid on the Luis Suárez. Kingjeff (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a pure tabloid as it has holdings in Canadian Press Enterprises Inc. If the source is associated with an author, it would be acceptable. However, there are probably better sources related to Suárez. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

When I think of a tabloid, I think of something like the Bild. Kingjeff (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's probably Canada's closest equivalent of a tabloid, but it's still got some valid reporting. As I said, if you have a better source, use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Transfer window

The transfer window for English clubs has been open since the last match of the domestic season was played. This summary by Struway2 explains at well. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

After the Fire punctuation

Wow, I stand corrected regarding the comma/period use before quotations. That's so funny, because I was always taught to put commas and periods before the closing quotation! I guess all punctuation rules are subject to change though...

Skillet singles

Hey you seem to be very active with the Skillet discography page. On the singles list it has "Fire and Fury" and "Hard to Find" as singles. "What I Believe" for example, was introduced as a new single on Skillet's Facebook and website. However these others were not, and I have found no evidence online to prove that these are singles. Do you have any evidence to prove this? Cause without citations it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Thanks, Jacob102699 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

No clue. I often tag these but the tags are removed as well. Editors confuse "released as an advanced, downloadable song" with "single". This may be the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I will say "Fire and Fury" is on multiple Billboard charts, so this could be evidence. But often there are "other charted songs." Since we have no evidence of them being released as singles perhaps we should create a category "other charted songs" for that one, and remove the other one. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Jesus Is My Superhero

Article was deleted back in May 2013 but the DVD had a gold certificate from ARIA in 2006.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article for the CD was deleted. There was never an article for the DVD. Create an article for the. Unless you have a similar source for the CD, it still does not meet notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Super Strong God

Article was deleted back in May 2013 but the DVD had a gold certificate from ARIA in 2009.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Same as previous. DVD may have been certified, but if the CD wasn't.... Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying both of those. However, I don't think I'll be making any new Hillsong articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Of anyone, I think you’d be the best one to do it. Talk to @HotHat:. I’m sure that he would be able to assist you with some of the finer points.

And just to clarify, I don’t dislike Hillsong and the various bands, I’m concerned with improving the existing articles provided that they are notable. Once you get good at those, you might want to take a look at the Brazillian Diante do Trono albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I will help the editor, if my assistance is needed. I care about helping editors who want to work on music related articles and more importantly Christian music. By the way, the Diante do Trono album articles are in horrendous shape. If he gets good at the Hillsong stuff, then he should work on Bethel Music or Jesus Culture. I will not be creating anything because I don't want to deal with the asinine DYK malarkey anymore. I know a ton, so just ask me? I know it said that I have exited on my talk page, but that means I will be exiting article work for the foreseeable future.HotHat (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL!!! Funny.

--72.251.108.163 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC) I liked your comment on the Hunting Party talp page. I wasn't listening to music at the time. But it made me laugh. Question have you heard the new LP album? --72.251.108.163 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I haven't heard the new album. Soon. To be honest, you could be 100% right about the genres and you may actually be removing wrong genres and adding the right ones, but what we want is referenced ones. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Three Days Grace

Are you sure these edits are inaccurate? It appears there may be some truth to what the IPs are saying. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, but not when it removes Walst. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Walst plays bass, not keyboards/vocals, right? Perhaps that's all the IPs were trying to correct. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Brad Walst plays bass and has been with the band since the outset. Matt Walst performs lead vocals and plays rhythm guitar. I don't know what the case is, I've removed the information as unreferenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, well I apologize if I seem naggy, but what was wrong with the IP's edit, then? Evidently, it correctly replaced the unsourced material with sourced material. Shall we restore it? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It started with the unsourced addition and constant changing. He may be correct, but a reference would help. It was also the lack of explanation that was problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Surprise

You may want to ready my talk page.HotHat (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Stuff

I have been paid for some of my Christian music article with respect to this encyclopedia, and now with the new rules passed cannot do so anymore due to the disclosure source of those who have paid me and myself. I did everything with respect the article that I have created within the policies that I knew at the time. So, I must seek another source of income.HotHat (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to prove it.BLUE_DOG^TN 20:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Three Days Grace

Sorry... still had more to say. This appears to be sourced yet you still reverted it. Surely you see what I'm getting at; I'm not trying to pester or belittle you, I merely want to justify this IP's actions and make it clear there was no wrongdoing. I also see that you issued the user a final warning. The concerned edit is of course not vandalism at all, but furthermore please understand 4im warnings are appropriate for severe cases of vandalism and defamation only. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. You do understand that it was the lack of discussion and changing IPs. The former could be controlled. The latter may not be withing anon's control. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And the source may meet WP:V, but certainly not RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Bro, I'm not being unconstructive, I'm just trying to help out. I asked you for support as to why the band belongs in the Christian Music portal since they are not Christian anymore.SkaterLife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask, you reverted a section that clearly belonged and left an edit summary. Only add or remove projects that you're a member of or that are obviously wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in that edit summary I clearly said, can you give me a reference. Please double check before you accuse someone of being unconstructive.SkaterLife (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the edit summary is not discussing. Talk pages are discussing. Reading the article would have also answered your question. It's fine. You'll learn how to be a constructive editor eventually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I apologize. I should have read through more clearly.SkaterLife (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles (cont. from archive)

I found this on the forum boards of Skillet's website. It is not much for reliability as it is a forum, but is is a mention somewhere online of F&F being a single - this says relased in October. So iI say for now not necessarily cite this as it is a forum, but leave F&F on Wikipedia as a single, plus it has charted. http://skillet.com/boards/index.php?topic=22022.0 Hard to Find i think i will remove as a single cause I have found no such evidence like that about it being a single, plus it has not charted at all. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the best. It was released to Christian CHR formats, but without a charting source, it's not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I overhauled the Rise discography on Skillet discography with correct dates and chart info that was missing, and removed H2F. However there are some coding errors i guess and a few parts of the table are jacked up. I cant figure out what coding error I put in. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nvm figured it out. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that part of the request. Glad you got it figured out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hello! Could you run your WP:ENGVAR script on the List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies article, as well as the knockout stage article and the other group articles? Thanks in advance, Heymid (contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A user's causing a problem

A user with the name Dan56, keeps reverting edits on the Unapologetic page, there are ones that provides sources that the album uses R&B, dubstep and pop and he keeps reverting the edits and tells the users that they will be blocked for persistent vandalism, genre warring, etc, I'm not the only one who has picked up on his behavior and quite frankly I think it is unfair and he is not really a good Wikipedian, can you please help? 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvmeorHateme (talk • contribs)

It seems as though there was a poll on the talk page that was evenly split and the closing admin argued that consenus was weak toward excluding the genre. The real issue is that there is only one source to support that genre.

1. Find another reliable source
2. Add it to the music and lyrics section
3. Re-open the discussion on the talk page with the new source, but expect optimism and skepticism.

There's no need to edit war. While I don't agree with Dan56's approach—the editor should be opening a new discussion when new editors not involved in the earlier consensus discussion want to change the consensus—the editor is mostly correct in stating that a consensus exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back at me, I'll just do what you said; would you like an update? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a new discussion, can you have a look and see if it is OK please? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this user's complaint came soon after I had reverted the blocked @Lisa Bathgate:, who had been reverted and warned several times for edit/genre warring at articles like Unapologetic and A.K.A. (album), which LuvmeorHateme has also edited, I find this pretty dubious. It wouldn't be the first time either that socks tried to undermine this article's consensus (Talk:Unapologetic#Genre_change_poll). Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are solutions if you think there's sock-puppetry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind when I commented the other day about the other matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I just wanted to apologize in case I seemed at all defensive on the Hillsong articles. I was never trying to get in the way of your edits. I'm very new to the editing aspect of Wikipedia, and I generally have a hard time letting go. So you might understand why I tend to vote more in favor of keeping articles. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that I did not intend to frustrate you in any way. I'd like to help out more with Christian Music articles in particular. I'm willing to learn the ropes. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You did seem defensive, but it's understandable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How Great Is Our God

Hi, I want to bring your attention to this page. Talk:How Great Is Our God Thanks, The boss 1998 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

question

Obi Wan, have you considered enabling email? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have, but I have received personal threats twice, related to edits and blocks, and that is without it enabled, I don't think I want any more direct contact than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I've had problems with the email being enabled. Just thought it might be helpful right now. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Turning album articles into redirects

Please advise You should retain categories and add {{R from album}} to album redirects. Cf. WP:ALBUM. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notablity in comparison of issue tracking systems

For clarity sake can you please confirm if these products are notable or not: The Bug Genie, Teamwork and Axosoft. Thanks. —Jude Dread) — Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked close at the references for The Bug Genie and it looks like it may not be sufficiently notable. I'll have to investigate more closely. No clue what Teamwork is. Axosoft has won some awards and so it meets notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All I Can Say

I don't mean for this to become a contentious issue, but could you explain your edit here? The result of the first debate is stated as "no consensus". You nominated the first time and voted delete the second time, so it's obvious you're firmly in favor of this change, but it also puts your objectivity into question, considering your edit summary on the above. One merge vote the first time does not equal consensus. As the result of the second debate was "keep", I don't see how taking unilateral action to merge is appropriate here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First debate was me stating deleted and another saying merge. I'm not sure how Michig concluded that there was no consensus. And the recent discussion was that the material should be kept. All of that was honoured. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The first debate is practically irrelevant since there has been a second debate with a clearer result. And I wasn't aware that "keep" on an article deletion debate was interpreted as "merge". It might appear to an outside observer that you've chosen to interpret the debate in a way that is inconsistent with convention but happens to be more favorable to your position. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've caused you to break a pillar. All of the referenced information is present. the redirect was in-place. Nothing was lost in the merge except the album cover. I've self reverted, but don't believe that the article is in any way useful and have tagged it as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

question 2.0

What about that other thing. Did it go away, as well it should? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the ANI, yes. It was archived without action.

If you mean the 3RR breach I reported, it too appears to have passed into the night without action.

If you mean me enabling email, I don't have any plans to do it, no.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the ANI. Glad that went to archives. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Profile Interface Question

I apologize if this may seem like a silly question, but, how did you get your category boxes all neatly in a column on your profile page? I'd like to try to do that with mine. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all.

{| style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px"

Then create each box as if it was a table entry then close it with a

|}

You can always edit the page to look at the "source". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! How would I make them like table entries? Jair Crawford (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I edited your user page to incorporate. Feel free to revert or keep what you like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a TON! It looks great! Jair Crawford (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2002 FIFA World Cup

Regarding the capacities, I posted a reply earlier today. Let me know what your thoughts are. Arbero (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rookie Blue (season 5)

I removed the American dates. Its already in the ratings section, so that's unnecessary duplication. Notice how the Canadian airdates and ratings aren't in that section. 66.87.81.16 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that and your comment on the talk page there. It looks good. I would left-justify the table and reserve center for the ratings and other numbers, but it's fine the way it is too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing sources for a band's genre is best done in a section that discusses the band's style. The section should reference any genres. Vague references are frowned upon in these cases. Things like AllMusic's genre cloud, the list of genres without discussion about those genres, are not considered reliable sources as well. Alternately, and you'll see this in articles where editors don't have time to create a full section, you'll see the genres referenced in the infobox. That's not ideal since the infobox is supposed to summarize the prose of the article, not offer new material.

Similarly, a style and composition section for an album (or single) should discuss the genres for that album (or single), but you'll see infoboxes often containing referenced genres.

The genre warrior essay describes the behaviour of a genre warrior as one who goes to multiple articles and changes the genres listed there, usually without support and generally without explaining why. It's not like an edit war where it changes frequently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

August Burns Red genre

Where do I cite my sources?

August Burns Red are Progressive Metal because their album "Rescue and Restore" is described as Progressive Metal in it's respective Wikipedia article. Also, further down in the ABR article it is said that ABR can be labelled "Melodic Metalcore" so it seemed sensible to put it there. I was thinking about putting "Experimental Metal" in there too, because guitarist JB Brubaker does mention in interviews - and in the band's website bio - that the band are experimenting with different musical... Things.

Though you are correct - I cited no sources. I probably won't bother going back to it. I'm not good with stuff like this, but maybe even you could change the genre? I saw that you're interested in helping with Christian music articles and this is one article that I'm particularly interested in. It would be a favour.

P.S. I'm not a genre Warrior. Almost. As in, I'm not going to go and change it all back.Lokky000 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing sources for a band's genre is best done in a section that discusses the band's style. The section should reference any genres. Vague references are frowned upon in these cases. Things like AllMusic's genre cloud, the list of genres without discussion about those genres, are not considered reliable sources as well. Alternately, and you'll see this in articles where editors don't have time to create a full section, you'll see the genres referenced in the infobox. That's not ideal since the infobox is supposed to summarize the prose of the article, not offer new material.

Similarly, a style and composition section for an album (or single) should discuss the genres for that album (or single), but you'll see infoboxes often containing referenced genres.

The genre warrior essay describes the behaviour of a genre warrior as one who goes to multiple articles and changes the genres listed there, usually without support and generally without explaining why. It's not like an edit war where it changes frequently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Canada Politics Infobox

Is it acceptable to use the coat of arms on the Template:Politics of Canada infobox? Someone appears to have added it recently. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Which one? The copyrighted one? No. There's no fair use rationale for it there nor can one be made. The approximation? Why would you use that anywhere, and why there in particular? There are no copyright limitations for its use there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August Burns Red genre again

Ok, this is the second time someone has edited the ABR infobox and you've deleted their changes. Can I ask that if you're not happy with the way people are changing this, instead of just deleting it why don't you change it - properly - yourself. Lokky000 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Are the changes referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And to be fair, I have reverted genre changes at that article that have been undiscussed and unsupported more than twice. And Please don't delete material that I've already responded to. You may delete whatever you want on your talk page, but you're not permitted to do so on other talk pages, particularly if someone else has already engaged. with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles

I'm not putting this on article talk pages because it has to do with several articles. I added singles to the older Skillet albums. And you reverted saying it is not supported. Everything I put was out of Skillet discography. I'm assuming it's correct, but the singles are not cited on there either. So if they are not supported to be put on album articles, then why are they supported on the discography page? Jacob102699 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no references to support the singles and they should at least be tagged with {{citation needed}} on the discography article. I couldn't do that in the infobox, which would have been my preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shapeshifter

It has been reviewed by About.com (Chad Bowar), Revolver and Substream Magazine.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Then add them rather than simply restoring the poorly referenced article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye Aye Captain, I fulfilled your orders.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries References

You still haven't explained why out of 18 episodes, those four are special enough to need references. Also two of them are no good, which I keep telling you and you can't or won't see. Zap2it changed their website a few months ago, which means past/current links for episodes don't work anymore.

I've cut and pasted them here for you to see, since you are having trouble with that. Also, you can't use Zap2it for UK dates, it's an American website.

<ref name="zapit">{{cite web |url=http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/murdoch-mysteries/episode-guide/EP01014682 |title=TV Listings - Murdoch Mysteries: Episode Guide |work=Zap2it |publisher=Tribune Company |accessdate=February 16, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="zapit">{{cite web |url=http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/murdoch-mysteries/EP01014682?aid=zap2it |title=TV Listings - Murdoch Mysteries |work=Zap2it |publisher=Tribune Company |accessdate=March 3, 2014}}{{dead link|date=May 2014}}</ref>

The second Zap2it reference, is shown beside the UK airdate for episode seven.

24.203.254.134 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why out of 18 episodes only four have references. They should all have references. Removing the few that do means that you're moving further away from the goal rather than closer to it. And I have explained that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Software Testing Edits

Before you reverts the changes I made to the Software Testing introduction, I ask that you explain in what way you see the previous content as better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atester (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my edit notice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to your message to me about Anberlin's new album

Walter, I was messaged about how an edit I made to the Anberlin album, Lowborn conflicted with Wikipedia's neutral standpoint. I changed the article to read "American rock band" instead of "Christian rock band" seeing as that's what they're categorized as on every other related article. If you take a look at the main article for Anberlin, you'll see that there's an entire section where the lead singer of the band, Stephen Christian, even says "I definitely don't classify us as a christian band."

This wasn't an edit I made out of spite or anger. The band has stated that they feel being labeled a christian band is a misrepresentation of their music and I hope this can be fixed.

2601:B:8F00:812:78BA:8D37:4BE6:45D3 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was made out of spite or anger, but it was made.

I understand your concern and looking at the edit history of the article, the genres were added by the original editor. Neither the original edits nor the ones you're making are referenced. What the band wants is immaterial though. If they thought they were a disco-revival band, and critics thought that they were funk-fusion, we would have to rely on the critics if they were reliably sourced. Since there are no sources I think the best thing to do is remove the genres from the infobox and keep the lede the same as previous album articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rookie Blue (season 5)

Hi, Walter. I removed the verification tag from Rookie Blue (season 5)'s episode section. Myself, I usually remove the airdate references after any new episode airs, regardless of the past date. As for the summaries, these are usually added by viewers of the episode after they air. It's borderline original research but usually accepted, unless inaccurate. If you still wish to know the Canadian airdates for season five, please see here. Thank you. — Wyliepedia 09:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not about me, it's about PW:RS and WP:V. I will be restoring the tags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Then why not here, here, here, or here??? Or any of those listed at WP:TV's Featured Lists??? — Wyliepedia 13:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You should tag them. I don't watch those articles and I don't police Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not tagging all those articles, since, as this post began, I don't have a problem with past titles/dates/summaries. What I should do is mention RBS5's tag at its talkpage and see who is against it. However, since 75% of the other editors to the page have 10 or less edits (and most are IPs), I don't really care. I just came here as a courtesy to tell you about the revert and am finished with this conversation, as well as RBS5's remainder. — Wyliepedia 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kits and User:Rizky Iconia

Hi, this editor has refused warnings before and kept adding kits with logos. Then after your final warning in June he seemed to have stop but an IP wrote to him to stop again 4 August and now I saw today he has added kits with logos everywhere. Can you help me keep an eye on Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) and perhaps tell him to stop (or report/block). QED237 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm spending less time on Wikipedia these days. Perhaps the footy project will be able to offer support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hypercorrection?

Hi I see you left me a message about reverting my change to Plautdietsch language with reference to the etymology of Dutch / Deutsch - I have reverted back and added a reference to the Etymological Dictionary - in English-native countries this is something like 'common knowledge' so I was surprised it was not referenced here as 'German' has an altogether different meaning and Latin etymology so is a little obfuscating and inaccurate (though I have left it in)- however I note that you did not remove all the other insubstantiated statements in the article, so I wondered why you singled my (correct) addition out? Were you to do so there would be very little left on the page...Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)

While that may have been its origin, it doesn't carry that meaning today, but it's referenced so there's no need to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflink

plz reflink Reza Ghoochannejhad--FutbalTeamha (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please!

I think you have preconceit, because all I do, you wanna revert, please stop revert! --200.153.219.196 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I revert all bad edits, not because of bad editors. Please stop adding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:183.83.228.168, your comments regarding the edits I made

Yes I am new. The edit I made was to correct an error that the previous maker had made. the OP said a particular national park had Cheetahs, which have been extinct in the Indian Sub-continent for a while now. I then realized that the OP meant to say chital, but had used the spelling cheetal, which is perhaps wrong. I made the edit without logging in because I was in the middle of work and was lazy :P Er. I'm not sure I'm responding in the right way or anything. Forgive the newbieness. :) Thanks for the message. How should I have edited the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unwise fool (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit I warned you about. There's nothing about cheetahs, national parks or anything of the sort. I can excuse mistakes, but not deliberate damaging of articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

O Canada

Hi, please see Talk:O Canada#Category:Canadian anthems. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

2015 Pan American Games

Hi there. I've been following some of the Toronto Pam Am Games sites, and I've been getting the feeling their marketing department decided to use Wikipedia for their advertising. I corrected a ton of unsourced stuff today on the Venues of the 2015 Pan American and Parapan American Games. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We will enter into an agreement? This article is very important!

Man, I thought you have to bias, you want to undo an article of mine that it took me eight hours to build and is considered a good article by major editors of Wikipedia, we will enter into an agreement, but that article can not be deleted!

It's been almost a year since I created this article, why just now you want to delete it?

We will enter into an agreement? This article is very important! --189.47.81.218 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Updates to MLS tables before all matches

And I updated the final match too. Kingjeff (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting at O Canada

I recognize your authority about Canada articles of your "ultra hold rules" politics, but I can not guarantee you, that if you come to another districts, I wouldn't intervene. Thank you --ThecentreCZ (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have several points. I recognize that English is not your first language and so I'm assuming that the reason your comments here don't make complete sense to me may be because of that. So let me address what I think your concern is: this edit where I removed your addition of {{CAN}} to the Infobox:Infobox anthem on the O Canada article. If that's not the case, ignore this next section. You did see that when I reverted it I explained that it goes against WP:INFOBOXFLAG (part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons) and WP:OVERLINK (part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking). INFOBOXFLAG begins

"Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

"Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text."

I perceive that to mean that inserting a flag in an article about a national anthem is wrong, but I'd be glad for you to explain why you think it was right. It's clearly distracting though. I recognize that many non-English Wikipedia projects liberally insert flags, English Wikipedia doesn't. That MoS goes on to elaborate when it's acceptable, and this doesn't seem to meet the criteria. The fact that you selected a flag that also links to the nation is, as I understand it, a violation of OVERLINK, linking of "the names of major geographic features and locations", although I could see an argument for linking the nation, but not in the infobox. It is linked in the opening paragraph.

The second point is that I believe you've misrepresented my interest in the article. It's on my watchlist because it has been vandalized in the past, and as both a Canadian and musician, I understand the subject fairly well. It has nothing to do with an rules or politics that I have. This particular revert does have to with Wikipedia manuals of style and editing guidelines.

The third point is that I perceive a threat when you write, "I can not guarantee you, that if you come to another districts, I wouldn't intervene." I'm not entirely clear what that means, but would like to know before I comment further, however, if you don't take policies, guidelines and manuals of style into account when editing anywhere, you can expect to have your edits reverted. I will say that making any changes without supplying an edit summary is not good editing practice, and that's what you did in that instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

11

Well, I dont really read all specific guides on wiki, I just using common sense. Standard used on 90% national anthems pages is flagicon also instrumental version at country page. I do not understand why that version of anthem used for example at olympic games cant be used when its not vocal french or english which can privilige one official language.

User:ThecentreCZ 10:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't address the issues I raised and you raised a separate issue.

The primary issue I raised was that the edits I reverted didn't follow a MoS and a guideline for editing. I don't read all guidelines either, but when I am shown a guideline, I try to observe it and updated articles that I find that don't follow it. When I read your original statement, it sounded to me like you don't care about the guidelines and if I, or possibly anyone, tries to change a different article, you would not allow it. Instead, shouldn't you be apply them correctly to those articles you edit?

The new issue you raised is not up to me. You raised it here, but I don't recall removing an imbeded anthem from the article in question. I moved the issue you raised here to that article. I suggest you follow-up there. I don't know which Olympic games article you're talking about. I don't know which musical version you're talking about either, but if it's the US Navy version, I address my concerns with its use on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the template uses icons as examples so I've raised that issue at the template's documentation and at INFOBOXFLAG's talk page as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season

I noticed that you have reverted edits from Damnjim. I'm assuming that Damnjim is the same as 2.85.225.108 who had made edits within the last 24 hours. Not sure what you want to do about it. Kingjeff (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

All we can do is watch, revert, and discuss with the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In situations like this, it eventually becomes vandalism and eventually a block. Kingjeff (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hold Me Now (Red song)

I can't figure out what I did wrong in the info box that made it messed up. I was wondering if you could help me out here. Brobro264 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:All Things Are Possible

I've re-opened this discussion. I think that the creation of a dab page changes the discussion, so I am inviting the discussants to reconsider this move. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2014–15 FC Bayern Munich season (the second)

I'm not in agreement with you over the sourcing. If I don't see a source by a sentence in an article, I always assume it's not sourced. There is currently over 100 references in the article. Why should someone go searching for sources? The content is clearly on topic. It is expected that club season articles have prose and not just tables and templates. Please explain the fan page comment. The article is about Bayern's 2014–15 season. Therefore, the content should be about the matches and other stuff about the season. If this resembles a fan page, then maybe we should be deleting all club season articles. I don't see any type of promotion of the club or any favourtism towards the club. Everything has been kept neutral, as every article should be kept. Are you saying that the prose should only meet what the tables and templates say? Or what should be included or not be included? If the content is sourced, then the accuracy can't be challenged and only the notability can be discussed. What do you mean that the references are obvious? The only thing that should be obvious about a reference is it's credibility and if the content in the article is in the matching in the reference. Kingjeff (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I'll take the page to WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

How about we start with how is the article a fan page? I don't see any type of promotion of the club or any favourtism towards the club. So, I don't see how this can be called a fan page. Kingjeff (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Intricate, almost excessive, detail about events in the season including which players were left on or off the bench. Classic WP:FANCRUFT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand that only notable events or topics go into an article. Therefore, I thought it was notable. I'm not so sure that the definition of fancruft meets the definition at WP:FANCRUFT. The article is well–sourced, no OR. In fact is was less sourced after your edit. If a source is not by what it's sourcing, then there are editors that are going to assume that it's not sourced. If I see a reference after a period, I'm assuming that the reference it is sourcing is the sentence immediately before the period. There has been one or two editors who have been deleting unreferenced material in football–related articles just because it wasn't sourced. Do we really want to go back and search for sources for challenged material? If we source something right when it's added, it won't be challenged unless the source doesn't source the material. It can only be challenged based on it's notability. Kingjeff (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect a lot of input. The only editor that commented stated that my version of referencing was better.

As for cruft: you don't need to discuss as much information as you do. Summaries of matches and important off-field action is sufficient. The threshold should be recording what is encyclopedic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

In regard(s) to

You recently undid a correction I made on the page for Red letter edition. I changed the phrase "in regards to" to "in regard to." You undid the change with an edit summary that read "American English grammar. WP:ENGVAR." Please note that "in regards to" is not grammatically correct in any version of English; it's just a common mistake. "As regards" has an "s", but "in regard to" and "with regard to" do not. Here are some links to a few grammar pages (all of them American) to back me up:

• Grammar Guide #6: Regard vs. Regards - The Net Whisperer,
  
• Regard vs. regards - Grammarist,
  
• Grammar Girl: "In Regard To" Versus "In Regards To":: Quick and Dirty Tips ™,
  
• in regards to - Common Errors in English Usage
  

Please undo your undo when you get a chance, or let me if you've read this, and I can make the correction again. Thank you! Metrowestjp (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Stand corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please watch for new Christian music articles - possible block evasion

Hello Walter,

I would like to ask that you watch for new music articles, especially Christian music articles, that are created or significantly expanded. There is a possibility that HotHat is evading their block. An account called AdditionSubtraction started editing a few days after HotHat/Bluedogtn was blocked, and I noticed eerie similarities in their editing patterns. AS primarily edited tennis and music related articles, as HotHat/Bluedogtn did, and like those of HotHat, the music related edits and article creations consisted mostly of review quotations. Even further, there were similar grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. I brought these suspicions up to AS, and the first time they blanked their talk page, laid low with their editing for a few days, and then resumed editing. I brought these questions up again, and AS at first gave a very evasive response, before telling me when I pressed them further that they "are not the same person as those editors." I hope that this editor was telling the truth and all of this was just a coincidence, and I told them so. But I still have my suspicions. As of October 3, 2014, AS has "retired", and just a bit ago notified me of this, stressing that this decision was not related to my questioning. So that may be the end of things. But I'd still like you to keep an eye out on new music related articles, in particular Christian music and album articles, as well as expansions to review sections. It may be that HotHat, if indeed they are behind all this, might be starting yet another account in order to evade detection. Sorry to bother you with all of this, but I'd like some more eyes on this.

Thanks,

--¿3family6 _contribs 04:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure @3family6: I'll keep an eye out and hopefully this is nothing to be worried about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again!--¿3family6 _contribs 04:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Release the Panic: Recalibrated

Despite the lack of participation, I've closed the AfD as a redirect to the ban's main article in accordance to WP:NALBUMS. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 04:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tommy1933

I've raised this user at WP:AIV, you might want to add some comments. GiantSnowman 12:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just about to do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok (Tommy 13:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC))

RE: Articles for deletion/RIATest

Hi Walter,

I received your message about nominating RIATest article for deletion.

RIATest is a niche but known tool in its area (automated Flex testing). Here is for example an article about RIATest at Adobe Developer Connection: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/articles/flex-testing-with-riatest.html

I was wondering what other information on notability I could provide or in what other ways I could improve the article to help it stay on Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Tn3273 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It may be a niche tool, but it has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Also, the talkback template is to be left on the other editor's talk page when you respond to material you've left elsewhere. I've removed it since you're discussing here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Quota (EP)

Walter,

If you want me to add prose to the genre selection (in regards to the given sources), give me an album article that showcases what you want/are talking about and I'll look into molding the Quota EP's genre to look as such if I can.

RhettGedies (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• There are a few examples but I can't think of them. The Paradigm Shift and Invisible (U2 song) will have to be mediocre examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Asked

Hi, can you tell me how to move a page is not protected to semi-protected? Excuse me, cause a lot of people anonymously who aren't responsible for the editing. Thankyou. (Tommy 11:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC))

It's explained at Wikipedia:Page protection. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Linebreak

Hi,

I have seen you go around different pages fixing linebreaks with the edit summary replace all deprecated XHTML breaks with HTML 4 & 5 breaks and since I dont know that much about HTML (even if I am used to coding) I thought I should ask you about it.

The thing is that I have edited the linebreaks on many pages, especially when there has been different linebreaks on the same page so that the page is more consequent. In those cases I have always added and changed to <br /> but now I saw you changing to <br> so what is correct? I have read WP:LINEBREAK which is why I started as I did and it clearly states

Wikipedia currently renders HTML5 where <br> and <br /> are both valid. Normally HTML Tidy will convert a variety of versions of the break tag to <br /> including <br> and <br/> and some of the invalid forms like </br> and <br.>. This conversion does not work in a number of MediaWiki interface pages and can cause invalid HTML and problems rendering the page. Other wikis may not have HTML Tidy enabled, thus exported pages using an incorrect break tag will result in invalid HTML.

so to me it seems like we should use <br /> since all the others gets translated to that linebreak and when not HTML tidy enabled then translation may not work so it is best to use <br /> directly. Also both tags are valid in HTML5 so there is no reason for you to change a valid linebreak. QED237 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. The type with the slash is for the now deprecated XHTML. About ten years ago, the trend on the web was toward XHTML. It used a more logical and correct HTML formatting that included XML elements. The web, and I believe wikipedia, is now moving away from that format to HTML 5. The tools and standards have simply not caught up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung

Hi Walter, I would like to ask your opinion about the Persib Bandung article. As I said previously here, I have made a trimmed and corrected translated version of the article from the references mentioned there in my sandbox page here. I would like to know what you think about it.

I am also expecting some edit wars with some users, that I think you are also familiar, if I changed the real article with the one I made. How should I deal with the situation if the edit wars happened? Cheers!! MbahGondrong (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks OK. The statements appear to be referenced. I would request some review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and ask them to comment on it in light of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will ask reviews from the others. MbahGondrong (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the real article, lets see what will happen. MbahGondrong (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung 2

Hi , sorry Walter I know better here , because I am Indonesian , and I know very well about the Persib , and the article was all right . and also I hope you believe . and perhaps people who edit and delete him jealous because, one of which is affiliates of Persib. Thanks for the information. (AntiTheJakAremania (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

Glad to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thankyou AntiTheJakAremania (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Demon Hunter Discography

Hi Walter. I have something to ask about the music videos section. I realized that two "music videos" for the album Extremist, "Artificial Light" and "The Last One Alive," were not featured in the music videos section of the page. I was not sure if these two videos counted as lyric videos, or actual music videos, so I didn't add them to the template. I was hoping you could shed a little light on this. Thanks in advance. Brobro264 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the "reference" for all of the videos is that they exist on YouTube, and you just added that. Before that there wasn't even that. There's no charting information. If it's an official band video, I think that or a Vimeo link is enough. What's your take? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'll add them to it just for right now and if something goes wrong with them I'll just revert the edit. Thanks. Brobro264 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New York Derby

Sorry my ignorance of the difference between New York and New Jersey. I also had an edit conflict meaning I left the same edit summary twice. Bevo74 (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. New York is in the name. There are several other sports teams in that region that have rivalries. A fair bit has been bade about it on the articles, but until we know for certain what the information is, and how the new Cosmos team fits into the picture, it doesn't make sense to edit other documents. It will be interesting though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Asked

Hi, I want to ask, why is Arthur Irawan (footballer) there is no page in the search? Thankyou. (Tommy (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC))

I'm not sure what that means. he has an article: Arthur Irawan (footballer). If you mean "how long should it take for a newly created article to show in the search index?", I don't know. I suspect there's a process that runs periodically to deal with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that the article in question was a recreation of an article that had been deleted through an AfD. There are guidelines that govern the creation of articles. You should probably investigate those before you recreate an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User reviving not notable songs

Hello Walter. Old Time Music Fan revived the song Welcome Home (Sanitarium), which was a redirect to its parent album. I've clearly stated that the song fails WP:NSONG, on what he responded that "Wikipedia sucks" and that other Wikis worldwide have article on the song, which is a weak argument because they are mirroring the English edition. The article is poorly sourced with two refs, one of which is primarily source. Appreciate if you can assist on this one.--Retrohead (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The first time it was redirected, it was done without discussion. All subsequent redirects were done without discussion. Let's open the discussion at an AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib Bandung 3

Hi, why page like a Suphanburi F.C., Buriram United Chonburi F.C., Selangor FA, Johor Darul Takzim F.C. And many others, very longer, but there is no reliable source. Weird. (AntiTheJakAremania (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC))

Are you saying you'd like me to look at those articles and apply the same vigilance on them that I have done on the Persib Bandung article? I would be glad to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at them. Of the five you listed, two already had citation needed tags. I added it to the other three. That will be enough for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That 5 clubs was very little, many pages that do not sourced. Go unpunished. And if PERSIB not lie, there is source. And please please please don't undo or reverting. If you undo, i will undo again. And again. (AntiTheJakAremania (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC))

Yes, I understand your concern, but no one is punishing the Persib article or the club. We are keeping it in-line with WP:V and WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Persib rudeness

I was less polite. Because my emotions. Because Persib reverting and reverting.  (AntiTheJakAremania (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC))

Actually, the other editor is trying to improve the article in-line with WP:V and WP:RS and you're reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion on List of Christian rock bands

How can you reconcile this edit with this description from the list itself? "....this list includes artists who work in the Christian music industry as well as artists in the general market, whose lyrics reflect their Christian faith or where members are identified, either self-identified or by a reliable source, as Christians. A band's own desire to be considered as part of the genre does not come into consideration. (Emphasis mine). Ἀλήθεια 14:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It goes back to an agreement I made early on with a group of editors on the Switchfoot article. I stopped editing the article after I was shouted-down for trying to imply that they are a Christian band. I supplied sources. It didn't matter. I finally got a barnstar for my work, but the agreement was they are not a Christian band even though they had received Dove awards and nominations (for The Beautiful Letdown), performed at Christian festivals (at the time they had stopped doing that and then requested to start again). I threw up my hands and agreed to leave based on those terms. It appears as though those editors (likely band management at the time) have either left the article or had sufficient reason show them that they are wrong. Feel free to revert my edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer you weigh in with agreement on my comment at the list article, and make the edit yourself. I believe this would demonstrate that we are in agreement and would help build consensus for future development of this article. I would also encourage you not to give up when you are editing based on sound principles. If the model of Wikipedia is ever to function at its highest capacity, we need more editors like you, not fewer. Ἀλήθεια 14:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your preference is noted. You started a multi-front discussion. You can live with the consequences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Suphanburi F.C.

Hi, that article does not cite any references, please see the page history.-- Tommy (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a project that deals with this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you both going to target every football article in this way? References are clearly shown the season related articles that they go to... absurd to say no references are there? Why not target every other football club article aswell?? Druryfire (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no "targeting" being done. The correct avenue for bringing up articles that are in a bad state is the project not my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Tommy1933 has been vandalising Thai football pages for 4 weeks now, and it seems like Walter Görlitz is helping/supporting him. Tommy1933 removes whole articles without valid reasons, and without discussions or notifications in advance. He also spams "not referenced" boxes on sections that are clearly referenced/sourced. Both of you have something against Thai football? SveinFalk (talk) SveinFalk (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi SveinFalk I don't vandalising, I just needs verification, you can add material, but only with reliable sources, and I do it, not in only Thai football pages, you can see my contributions. -- Tommy (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@SveinFalk:. Do you have some diffs to where Tommy1933 has been either vandalizing articles and removing whole articles without valid reasons? I haven't seen either. Vandalism has a specific definition on Wikipedia. And the articles I've seen Tommy1933 remove material on have summaries such as those after October 18. If they're valid reasons, I'll support any editor, including you. If they're not, I'll oppose the editor, such as I did here and here. So let's drop the vague accusations and offer facts.

The only reason I'm even looking at those articles is because Tommy1933 added material to an article I watch and I reverted it. So you're way off-base. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirecting at AfD

Hey Walter—I'm in the process of closing several of your music-related AfD noms as redirects and thought I'd leave a note here instead of repeating the same thing on multiple pages. If an article has a reasonable redirect, it shouldn't be brought to AfD unless the nominator (you, in this case) believes the article topic has a chance of being deleted outright. So articles like members/albums/songs of notable bands are fine redirect targets, and their merger/redirection can either be discussed on their article talk pages or just done boldly. In any case, they need not go to AfD if deletion is not actually on the table. czar ♔ 06:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Having tried both, I prefer the discussions that AfD offers. It avoids edit wars with "fan"dalists, however, I'll try it your way for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

And then we have situations like this and this that result in comments like this. You'll see why your method doesn't work. I'm done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it my method, but it's how AfD suggests these things should go. However, in your example, the redirect should have gone to a talk page discussion per BRD without devolving into an edit war when it was reverted the first time. The idea is that edit wars never end well and that the simple misunderstanding could be solved locally before taking it to AfD.  czar ♔ 18:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MLS Table Footer

Hey, I've been working on the MLS 2014 playoff article, and I really don't like the way that the current footers for the MLS Tables are set up. I've mocked up a footer template at User:Udeezy/sandbox2 (see example at User:Udeezy/sandbox) that has switches for the different tags in the key. It could be used for eastern, western, and overall tables. Before making the change and implementing it for the existing tables, I wanted to run it by someone. What do you think? Udeezy (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree in principle. If you could make the East/West material conditional, that would be helpful, but you won't want the East material to be displayed in the West table and vice versa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The way I have this set is that there's just a |e=yes parameter and a |w=yes parameter. If those parameters are included, then the (E1) and (W1) lines are included in the footer. I see it replacing Template:Fb_MLS_Eastern_Conference_club_footer, Template:Fb_MLS_Western_Conference_club_footer, and Template:Fb_MLS_club_footer. I'm not sure how to make it conditional on the other templates included, that's quite a bit beyond my ability. OK to go ahead you think? Udeezy (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! That will be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for talking it over! Udeezy (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Icon For Hire

Hello Walter, I'm contacting you on behalf of the band Icon For Hire. We would greatly appreciate if you did not edit the changes we make to the Icon for Hire page, specifically about comparison to other female vocalists and religious affiliation. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to respond to me. On the behalf of Icon For Hire, thank you very much. Ida IdaForHire (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello, Ida. I just put a welcome message on your talk page about conflict-of-interest. I highly suggest you explore the links found within that message.

Please note that the terms of use of Wikipedia requires you to disclose that you are editing for pay (I'm assuming you are, correct?), and that nobody owns any article on Wikipedia. This is because editing on Wikipedia is a collabortive process. This is true even if Wikipedia is a part of your income. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I dream of horses. That's some of what I would have said.

Part of me wants to comment on how Icon for Hire is using their article for marketing purposes and to make a statement against their label. In the latter case I would argue that perhaps I should contact T&N and ask what their input into the dispute is. If it were about how much either the band or the label were willing to pay Wikipedia, I'm sure we'd know who has the deeper pockets. However, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. The information you're adding is controversial and should not be supported with a WP:PRIMARY source. It should be from a neutral third-party source who has examined both sides and gives factual evidence from both parties.

Then there's the referenced material that comparisons the band to other female-led rock bands and discusses their religious affiliation. With sources like those, it would be difficult to have an encyclopedic understanding of the subject without including them.

So while I understand and appreciate your request, I can't comply with it because Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and, ultimately, its goal get in the way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

AIV

Please stop reporting Druryfire to the AIV board. It's for obvious vandals only; if you're having an editorial dispute with another editor you need to follow the dispute resolution process. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop telling me that restoring unreferenced material without explanation is not vandalism. Other editors who do that get blocked. You should be de-admined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism - WP:V only requires material be verifiable (which is to say that it's possible to be verified). Now, if the content the editor in question keeps adding is demonstrably false, then you'd have a case for calling it vandalism (still not obvious vandalism, which is the criteria for reporting at AIV) but you haven't alleged that it's false. Parsecboy (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Rainbow's End disambiguation page

Super-minor, but I can always learn: On the Rainbow's End disambiguation page (also for Rainbows End -- no apostrophe), I added a link for Vernon Vinge's name, following the model of the Martha Grimes novel just one bullet higher. You reverted mine for vandalism (certainly not intended) -- help me with your thinking. Why would the existing link to Martha Grimes be fine, but the link to Vernor Vinge be considered vandalism? Thanks in advance for your assistance. ResearcherQ (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See MOS:DABENTRY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cool, thanks for the link. Could/Should I unlink the Martha Grimes link on that page? ResearcherQ (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No. The MoS reads:

Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.

That meets the MoS. There's no article for the other entry's book/album/work and so we link to the creator. The second entry has a link to the work, so we don't link to the creator. Only one link per entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Got it -- good lessons, thanks for your patience -- on to my 3rd cup of coffee. ResearcherQ (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Persib and Inter That Affiliated

Read http://inilahkoran.com/read/detail/2152962/persib-akan-jajal-inter-milan persib will used inter facilities, training ground. Etc., you can translate the source Saya itu Ganteng (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not say that at all. It says that Arsenal and Inter will play and that Persib is making a bid for something, but not that it is happening. Also, this needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

What? why Arsenal?

what the source mention arsenal?? Please translate all, and at the end of paragraph . Saya itu Ganteng (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I don't read Indonesian I used Google translate and it includes Arsenal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto FC/GA1

Toronto FC is in the process of being nominated as good article. Please review here: Talk:Toronto FC/GA1. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

SargentSignals

If they restore the content while the ANEW report is still up, mention it there (and ping me). If they start up after the report gets archived, let me know, and if they start with the abuse again, do likewise. I'm watching their pages as well. Acroterion (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Love Ran Red corrections

Hello,

First of all, thank you for all the help on the page. This was my first, and was actually a school project so I had little to no idea as to what I was doing. I do have a question regarding your edit to which album "Love Ran Red" is chronologically. I said ninth originally because I wasn't counting his Greatest Hits album, but I recently watched an interview with Tomlin in which he says it's his tenth album. What do you think should be on the page?

Again, thanks for the help!

RH1824RH1824 (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply clarification.

Say "ninth studio album" or "ninth studio release on sixsteprecords" if people want to argue his early indi releases count. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you want

Hi, what do you want with User:MbahGondrong he removed because is a consenus. And you removed because unreferenced, and i already add references. But that section removing by User:MbahGondrong, In Performance AFC Competition, Persib. What do you want? MbahGondrong is depressed. Aku Indonesia (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If your references were challenged, discuss it on the article's talk page or take it to WP:RSN.

I'll remove material that has no reference only if it should be referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This AfD

If you are a Metro Vancouver resident (as I think you have indicated), please feel free to make reply in the AfD above (for or against it) if you wish. You don't have to make a reply if you don't have any views, of course.

PS: In the City of Surrey Wikipedia article, I notice someone has said that the mayor here is now Linda Hepner apparently. I don't think this is true until she is officially installed as mayor. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

MLS stadium map

Hey Walter, I have a new stadium map for the two new franchises. I was going to wait until after the MLS Cup to update it. Good thing you caught the change Roberto221 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Commas

So, what's wrong with: "In 19--,"? By the way, I've noticed that Canadians and the British don't like the so-called Oxford comma (which is kind funny because the name comes from Oxford University). I personally use them when I'm writing, but I don't go around adding them when they're not there -- and I think that others shouldn't do the opposite either. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with starting a sentence that way, it's just better style to save that. There was a guideline, essay or something that I read a few years back that suggested avoiding starting successive sentences or paragraphs with, "In {year}..." or "In {month}...". I can't remember the details, only the substance. I always thought it was a select few who like Oxford commas. My training was in APA style which is similar to The Chicago Manual of Style. Some differences from Wikipedia's MoS, and some similarities. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of Mark Driscoll

I've started a peer review of the Mark Driscoll article. Since you've worked on that article before I would welcome your input. -Sigeng (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Response

Hi, look I got involved on the ANI. Don't mean any offence with anything said. I'm not on anybodies side of this. I utterly do not care what the results are. There are dispute resolution processes that can be used here to help move this on. An RFC, one of the many noticeboards and ect. I suggested they start a RFC. Get a consensus and move on. Simple as that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not perceive that you took offence or that you took sides. I hope that I didn't make it seem as though you had. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Poppy Tohill

Hi there Walter Gorlitz. I am replying to you regarding the changes I am continuously making on Brooke Fraser's wikipedia page and profile.

I manage the social media and online presence for this artist who the page is about and the changes I am making have been requested by her, so if you could please let me continue making these without changing them back that would be appreciated, as otherwise we will continuously keep doing this anyway, as the client this page is about does not wish to be associated with some of the previous acts and content that you are putting up on this page. Thank you and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyTohill (talk • contribs) 6:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's a problem then. You should consider stepping away from the article. You've been removing referenced material that apparently "conflicts" with the image you're promoting and adding unreferenced material, not the least of which is genre. I have added a template to your talk page explaining how to avoid conflict of interest. If anything I have written here conflicts with that material, feel free to ignore my statements here.

As for your request, I'll support the changes if they can be supported with reliable secondary sources. The unexplained removal of her Dove nominations is very troubling. As is the removal of Category:Contemporary Christian music and Category:Christian religion-related songwriters. Also adding a source that doesn't mention the subject doesn't help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to your answer--

Ah, that's a problem then. You should consider stepping away from the article. You've been removing referenced material that apparently "conflicts" with the image you're promoting and adding unreferenced material, not the least of which is genre. I have added a template to your talk page explaining how to avoid conflict of interest. If anything I have written here conflicts with that material, feel free to ignore my statements here. As for your request, I'll support the changes if they can be supported with reliable secondary sources. The unexplained removal of her Dove nominations is very troubling. As is the removal of Category:Contemporary Christian music and Category:Christian religion-related songwriters. Also adding a source that doesn't mention the subject doesn't help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

-- Thank you for that information. I understand you believe that the removal of these categories is troubling. However as an editor I am sure you agree with me that it is best to keep wikipedia pages up to date with information that is relevant and not outdated, and in the genre section where I have removed these from, this is because the person who this article is about, has re-invented their style and these genres are no longer relevant and are outdated. So could you please possibly put this into consideration? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoppyTohill (talk • contribs)

@PoppyTohill: It's not irrelevent or outdated. The wikipedia biographical article on her is about her and her career. Her career in 2002 as well as 2014. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Take a look at any artist that has been around for more than a decade and their style is likely to have changed slightly. You will see multiple genres in their infobox and several genre categories included. They should all be discussed in the article, or at least in the linked album articles, and the subject's article is review of their entire career, not a promotional vehicle for the artist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoppyTohill

Walter, thank you for opening this SPI, and for doing a good job in presenting the case. One thing for the future. Please don't template the involved parties' talk pages notifying them of the SPI. There used to be an option to do that in the opening instructions, although it was never required. However, for quite some time now even the option is no longer in the instructions. I think it's fair to infer that those of us who are heavily involved at SPI believe that a notification is not helpful and may even do harm. By the way, you are not alone in notifying users; some habits are hard to break. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not use it any longer, and I will mention it at Twinkle. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pep Guardiola

Walter, I think the best way to currently deal with this discussion at Talk:Pep Guardiola is to put a request for closure. You can do that at WP:AN/RFC. An uninvolved administrator will than come, read the presented arguments and asses the consensus based on them. Tvx1 (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The RfC will take a month before closure. Let's let it play out. An RfC was requested of the other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Steven Beitashour

Hi Walter Görlitz. Please stop adding Category:Iranian Christians to this article. He practices fasting in Ramadan according to This Interview and said "My dad is Christian and my mom is Muslim so they don’t force me to do it, especially because of soccer. So I’m kind of halfway doing all of the traditions". He has not declared his own religion. Pahlevun (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally a reference. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Band members subsections

Hey, considering this edit on Blessthefall, are you following a specific guideline on that? I was looking for one but don't know where to find it.----MASHAUNIX 13:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:HEADING and convention. It's just not something important enough to have in the ToC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:HEADING doesn't say anything about this, and WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings actually seems to contradict it, stating: "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead." In my opinion, the timeline should have a title, as it is an important part of the article that one may want to link directly to. I looked around on some featured band articles and they all seem to use a title for it.----MASHAUNIX 04:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything and it doesn't need to be in the ToC. The feature articles likely have more sections. let's remove the pseudo headings then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well to me it seems that it already is a convention to have titles for this section, even if it isn't in MOS, and I don't see how it is problematic.----MASHAUNIX 04:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Old Testament

I simply changed the caption to match the diagram, which showed "Lxx". I see the diagram is an SVG and have edited it to match the caption now. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael W. Smith career section

I started a discussion at Talk:Michael W. Smith about his career section, may I know your thoughts on it? Thanks.--Krystaleen 15:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pep_Guardiola_discussion

I have opened the case for dispute resolution here. I look forward to hearing from you. SPACKlick (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You haven't returned to this DRN discussion since it was opened. If we don't here from you by the 16th I'll likely close it. Is this OK with you?SPACKlick (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: I have returned but have seen nothing from the other party. The attacks have more-or-less stopped but the bad faith comments continue. An example is where I comment on the editor using insufferable rhetoric and the response is the claim that I stated that I called the editor insufferable. It seems that the topic will have to go to an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A note

Just a note here on the new Surrey council. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Walter or Bearcat ?

I guess this message confirms the information above. But someone would have to do the edit that Hepner is Surrey's new mayor on December 8 and it won't be me as I don't edit much on Wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know that I'll make the edit either, but agree that Monday is the time that Hepner will be inaugurated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• OK. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

New MLS map

The new map looks good! It's perfect on IE11. You're going to have it edit when it needs editing cause I haven't discovered how the names are overlaid and stored. Roberto221 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty easy actually.

1. Start at Template:MLS stadiums map.
2. Edit the page.
3. An entry looks like this: {{Location map~|United States |lat=49.276667 |long=-123.111944 |label={{nowrap|{{small|[[BC Place]]}}}} |mark=Orange pog.svg|position=right}}
   1. The first part, Location map~, is the template name.
   2. Next is the "map" to use.
   3. Then latitude and longitude. You can usually find that in the article related to the subject.
   4. The label is the words. It's got some templates in there, nowrap, to prevent it from breaking, and small, to make it small. In the example it's BC Place and it's linked.
   5. The "push pin" mark that's used is next. Here it's an Orange circle.
   6. Finally whether the label should be to the right, left, top or bottom of the mark.
4. Add a new entry or adjust the existing entry based on the template.
5. Save it.

That's it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! After this Holiday season is over and I have more time(I work for UPS, the shipping company), I'm going to convert my other stadium/arena maps(baseball, basketball, football, hockey, college bowl games). If I have any questions, I'll drop you a line Roberto221 (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Christmas

Hi Walter Görlitz, it's been a while since working together on the Underoath article! I hope you're doing well. I just wanted to let you know that your edit here inadvertently removed the rest of the article. You can take a look at it when you get an opportunity. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thnx for the wittenburger ;) It was due to some precautions against the Spanish inquisition ;) Serten II (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Twelve Gauge Valentine

Dear Walter Gðrlitz,

I was wondering why Twelve Gauge Valentine was proposed for deletion.

I'm somewhat new to this so I really don't have

much of an idea what I'm doing. So if you could help me with that it would be much appreciated.

                          Signed- Metalworker14

I didn't prod or nominate it for deletion. The reason given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twelve Gauge Valentine (2nd nomination) is "No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. Some mention in metal sites and blogs, as the band does exist, but these sites are not reliable sources (e.g. user-submitted or fan sites)." I do agree that it should be deleted as the band doesn't meet WP:MUSIBIO, which is offers some concrete examples of the notability for bands and musicians. Those are over and above WP:N and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. I do agree they are a small time band. Though Shouldn't Their label's website be a reliable sight?

Reliable? Yes. Independent of the band. No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ski Morin Heights

Thank you for your constructive edits on Ski Morin Heights! --J.B.M.D. 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

afd favor

Hi Walter, I came to ask a favor. I'm stepping away from a cluster of afd discussions, and was wondering if you might have time to glance them over yourself.

I know we've both disagreed and agreed on things, and so thought you'd be an great choice for a neutral eye. I wouldn't mind if you completely disagreed with my two-cents on the topic, but I would feel so, so much better if I knew a music editor with a firm grasp of GNG's nuances was in there doublechecking arguments, so in case a noob swarm appears, the topic gets a fair trial instead of falling victim to groupthink.

I'm frankly riled up by the nom's bias insinuation and just had a beef with the other editor, so if I even look at those topics right now I'm sure I'd say something mean and snitty and just muck everything up. :/

It's a busy time of year, of course, so if it's beyond your current focus I'd more than understand. Thanks! Earflaps (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Harrasment from a user

Hi, I hope you could help me as I really need to sort it out ASAP; I created my account today and I've done a few edits to Jagged Edge (group), various Rihanna articles etc etc and the user Binksternet has accused not only me but another user called Stanlyfe of being a sock puppet of a user called MariaJaydHicky; they have not only reverted all my edits he has accused me of being that user and when I wrote back why are they doing that they reverted my edits and have got the pages I've edited protected under sock puppetry can you please get them blocked as I find their behaviour harrasing and downright out of order and I am afraid no matter what I'll edit they'll revert it can you please help me? Muicfantasy (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Philadelphia Fury

Hey Walter thanks for your help on this one. I'm going to be away for a few days and was wondering if you could link up all the old players to the new/correct page? As I'm sure you know, they're all in the Category:Philadelphia Fury players page. I suppose that cat. may need to be changed as well? Merry Christmas to you and yours. Regards, -Creativewill (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If I have the time, I'll see what I can do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Season greetings

		Merry Christmas + Happy New Year
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Walter Görlitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Fixed your spelling of "Styrper"

You mispelled Stryper on your user page (I'm assuming there isn't some sort of Canadian spelling for the band). You're welcome. 24.111.148.106 (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, just a typo. I noticed the fix. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Trinity Western page

Gorlitz, You monitor the TWU page fairly closely it seems. I am going to make a few to several updates in the next few days on the citations used, which have generated three separate flags at the top of the page. I work abroad and this sort of thing is not so great for my career. When people do a search of my university, having all of these on my university's wiki reflects poorly on the school and those who write and monitor the page (mostly TWU alumns, I am guessing). That being the case, I am going to bring it into compliance. The curious timing of two of the flags during the law school controversy also makes me suspicious those negative flags are not valid. Let's see what we can do to improve the wiki so that it does not have any negative flags and complies with wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.56.99 (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As long as your edits don't violate any of the pillars and remain neutral, I'll respect your edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was your intention, but you removed a large block of referenced material I restored it all. You also used Wikipedia as a reference. That's not a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Gorlitz, I have updated several of the factual statements and corresponding links and refined the odd grammar points. Aside from the citation to wikipedia about TWU being the third oldest university in the province, can you point out any other specific examples where this article still deserves to have the three negative flags? Thanks.

Avril Lavigne (album)

Actually there's several of unreliable or questionable sources like Muumuse, hardrockhaven.net, etc. 115.164.216.254 (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ref needed template

Why is the BLP sources template used instead of unreferenced section?Just wondering. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's explained in the template: {{BLP sources}}.

This template is intended to be placed at the top of articles about living persons that need additional references, and therefore in need of immediate attention.

Some editors monitor those lists and remove contentious material or attempt to improve the references. BLPs without references are potentially more of a problem than other articles without references. That's why they get their own template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)