User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2015-12

Happy new year

Hi Walter, I just want to wish you a happy new year! Happy editing!! Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2003 FIFA Women's World Cup

Hi Walter!

Do you think you could help me with the kick-off times for the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup games? You see, I have only added the times that FIFA has listed, but I have a feeling they are inaccurate, since each city/state in the United States use a different time zone. For instance, some of the times from the 1994 FIFA World Cup group stage articles are listed differently, i.e. Colombia–Romania, Group A, 19:30 on FIFA, 16:30 on Wikipedia, United States–Colombia, 19:30 on FIFA, 16:30 on Wikipedia etc. (I hope you understand what I'm referring to). I would like to do it myself, but I'm not an expert when it comes to time zones. (Since you speak Canadian English, I assume you live in Canada?) Arbero (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. The times in the article are local times and it appears that's what the official FIFA reports are using as well. How can I assist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you see the note "All times local (EDT/UTC–4, CDT/UTC–5, PDT/UTC–7)" listed below the table on the 1994 FIFA World Cup Group A page? I want to use a similar note like this for the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup matches, but unfortunately I don't know what kind of time zones Carson, CA, Columbus, OH, Foxborough, MA, Philadelphia, PA, Portland, OR and Washington, DC. use. (Eastern Time Zone or Pacific Time Zone?) If I knew, I would have changed it myself from the local times. Arbero (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I understand now.

• Carson, CA is the home for the Los Angeles Galaxy. Pacific time zone.
• Columbus, OH is in the Eastern time zone. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/usa/columbus
• Foxborough, Massachusetts is where the New England Revolution play. Also Easter time zone.
• Philadelphia, PA is in the Eastern time zone. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/usa/philadelphia
• Portland, OR is in the Pacific time zone. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/usa/portland-or
• Washington, DC is in the Eastern time zone. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/usa/washington-dc

I hope that helps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I meant. Cheers. Arbero (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bet (short story)

Hi Walter,

The Bet story has a duplicate occurrence of "ponders over scriptures" in the text. I removed one from the text to correct it, but that change was reverted. Is that duplication required?

Thanks,

Shirish

All right, God bless you!

All right, Walter! I hope you are blessed through the ministry Diante do Trono of Brazil. :D --200.158.2.76 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

End of Silence - Red album

You may be right, and rules are rules, but for the record, it's probably more metal than rock.

Delete this part at any time. I will feud no longer with you. Have a nice day :) DannyMusicEditor (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Randall Goodgame

In response to the {{notability}} tag you placed on Randall Goodgame, I have added some content I found in Newsbank and on Highbeam. Please see if this addresses your concern about notability and if so, please remove the tag. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The number of sources is good. The quality is not. It's all local local papers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BAND, notability may be demonstrated by having been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." The guideline explicitly includes newspapers and nowhere specifically or implicitly excludes local newspapers. Why do you consider these sources to be of low quality? It isn't like St. Petersburg, FL – just one of the local papers used – is Po-dunk, USA. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

They're low-quality in that they're local pieces. That guidelines doesn't specifically state that only local coverage isn't permitted. There was once such a guideline (or essay or something) but I haven't seen it in several years. Some of it is discussed at Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. The question isn't whether Goodgame is notable, I believe he is, it's whether the article reflected the subject's notability at the time that I placed the template in the article or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, but if you now believe he is notable, could you please remove the template questioning his notability? The article has changed significantly since you added it. Basically, I just want to make sure the notability concerns have been addressed and that the article is no longer being considered for deletion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Universe Sandbox ²

I see you added a template there on notability. Where do I have to provide the sources? I mean, where Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In the article. I looked for sources and couldn't find any so best of luck. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. Well, I have a link to that game on a steam page. The thing is that the game is still under development. In future, there definitely will be links and secondary sources about it. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. Well you should hurry. I will be nominating the article for deletion in about a week's time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't do it, man. The game hasn't been released yet, but pretty much like the first version, it will be mentioned on several gaming websites and in other places. Right now, all I can find is the steam page of the game. I think we just should wait a little more. Tetra quark ^(talk) 02:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Notability is the criteria for every article on Wikipedia. If a subject isn't yet notable we can move the existing content to a user's space or just delete it. We don't create articles just in case something becomes notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, mark it for deletion then. I just don't want to lose the images I uploaded for fair use. Couldn't we move them to the Universe Sandbox article? Tetra quark ^(talk) 06:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You could simply merge the content to that article, including images, and when it's released and gains notability, split the article back out. I can show you how to do that correctly if you want, or, you can try on your own and I can clean-up if you make any mistakes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a shot. Tetra quark ^(talk) 06:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have moved the content but left the article. I placed the redirect. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Coastal Cup

Hey Walter I have a question. Beginning this upcoming NASL season the Coastal Cup (est. 2010) appears to be expanding to include the new Jacksonville Armada.http://www.rowdiessoccer.com/news/detail/uuid/qutwuhnlt7hf1itr4kpr7spdf/nasl-releases-2015-fall-season-schedule#.VMKMJoWAeto Until now it had been strictly a Strikers-Rowdies affair. As such, I just linked it to the larger Florida Derby page. Should I just leave it as is or should the Coastal Cup get its own page in the near future because of the addition of a 3rd team? Thanks for your thoughts in advance. -Creativewill (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It would make sense to move it to a Costal Cup article, but they may have a different opinion at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion RE the US Soccer Leagues

I'm letting you know that there has been a discussion regarding the US Pyramid: Talk:United States soccer league system#ASL's place in the pyramid. I probably stepped in it by adding ASL without researching that league at all; however, the broader discussion of how to order the leagues that are not sanctioned by USSF is also being included. Would love to hear input from frequent editors of the lower division league and club pages. Thx

Grandare Grande

Thanks, blocked and tagged. GiantSnowman 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:Christianity#Once_again:_JWs_and_LDS

Regarding your comments at Template_talk:Christianity, could you please post a form of them at the Topic list here, so that the two different tempates (see Template:Christianity footer stay similar, and so that any WP:CON will be easier to form and verify. Thank you. tahc ^chat 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

why would you ping me on my own talk page?

Because you have not posted your propossal at the Topic list here-- and I don't know why.

-- and because you have not said why-- and I also don't know why you haven't said why. tahc ^chat 16:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no need to discuss it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want something different at one template than the other why won't you give a reason for that? tahc ^chat 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The other discussion doesn't seem to be about the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• The which links have always followed the Topic list on this page as it says many places. The talk page (for years) has only been where to put the the links and what images to use. Never which links to use.
• If you mean this this "other discussion" then that is only because neither you nor anyone else has joined it the discussion yet.
• If you are now claiming that the straw poll was humor, then all of your comments are suspect. Please let me know if you really want to accomplish anything real. tahc ^chat 19:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

War of Ages

How does Metal Hammer fail RS? It's a professional magazine/website used as a source in a lot of articles. Also looking through the article's history, metalcore seems to have been the established genre for a while, before being changed without explanation or source fairly recently. If you disagree with me on adding it to the genres, I suggest you listen to some songs by the band. I couldn't find a more reliable source for this upon a quick Google search, but I'm sure there are reliable sources for it out there, considering the band's similarity to As I Lay Dying or All That Remains etc.--MASHAUNIX 05:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The author is listed. That's a plus. The site does not list its editorial process. That's a minus. The site does not indicate which editors are paid staff and which are user contributed. That's a minus. The site doesn't indicate who the managing editor is. That's a big fail. The problem is that review could be user-supplied and added without fact-checking. I like it, but it still fails RS. You could request that other comment at WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for explaining that. However, do you not agree that metalcore should be given the benefit of the doubt in this instance? If you compare War of Ages' music with that of some other bands such as those I've mentioned, who have firmly been established as metalcore, the similarities are striking. And the current genre, Christian metal, is not sourced at all and, as I've said, has only been added to the article to replace metalcore rather recently.--MASHAUNIX 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a reliable source either. My opinion is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well your opinion obviously isn't immaterial, since you reverted my edit rather and judged that "Christian metal" was a better genre for the band than "metalcore", even though there's no reliable source for that either.--MASHAUNIX 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion. See WP:BRD. You make an edit based on specific reasons. Another editor, for other reasons, decides to revert it. That's when discussion starts. Feel free to take it to RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what article context this is from, but Metal Hammer is solidly an RS (it's a classic magazine), and is list on the reliable source list at the Albums WikiProject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kit Carson

The Kit Carson article was sent to GA nominations a day ro two ago. Sweeping changes to the text (like replacing infoboxes) cannot be allowed at this stage at the risk of "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Take your suggestions for changes to the talk page and gather some consensus. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You sent to GA after I reverted. And it has to be reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the principal editor on this article. You need concensus for your wanton reverts, so take it to the talk page. Gather some consensus. Don't tell me "It must be done!" Please do not revert the infobox. You are allowed three reverts. You've had them. Your name and a description of the sacking and destruction you are wrecking to the article have been reported to the admins' noticeboard. It is hoped that you will be stopped in your tracks before further damage is done to the project. SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. Then see WP:3RR. Your opinion that I am sacking and destroying the article is noted. I feel the same way about your edits to the article and it is hoped that you will stop thinking you can edit the way you want when you lay claim to an article. This isn't the wild west. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My revert: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644506789&oldid=644452661 04:14, 28 January 2015

You reverted without explanation: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644578661&oldid=644506789 17:27, 28 January 2015

Your GA nomination: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kit_Carson&diff=644579781&oldid=644579069 17:37, 28 January 2015

I reverted and requested discussion: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644584119&oldid=644578661 18:15, 28 January 2015

So far the discussion has been against excluding. I'm not sure why you feel the need to impose your opinion on the article.

It is my opinion that you should have addressed the revert before the GA nomination, not as an afterthought and use GA as an excuse. As for GA nomination putting it into some special state where it cannot be changed, that's not in any way rational. If there are problems with the article that preclude it from achieving GA, which I claim this to be, then it should be fixed. An edit war will not help to achieve GA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mate

In brief, Mate is a traditional South American beverage. Syria and Lebanon are simply West Asian consumers, thus should not be mentioned in the lead. Syria and Lebanon are already covered in the Variants section. Indigenous American (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I'm glad that you and your friend resolved it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your helpful edits on Christian Music (and related articles) to keep everything up-to-date and accurate! bojo1498 talk 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

My apologies on behalf of the rest of Am Yisrael for that fellow's ignorant behaviour. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Zao (American Band)

Hi Walter, I just was looking on Zao's page and noticed much of it has been deleted. I think that would qualify as vandalism, wouldn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you mean this edit, then no. Wikipedia:Vandalism states that it is "is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

If you compare that to the policy on verifiability that states, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Nothing I removed was referenced, and there was a lot of it. I didn't compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by removing the unreferenced material. I did debate whether I should simply mark it as needing references and remove it in say six months if it didn't get any, or remove it outright...well you saw the road I took. The fact that it was also explained helps a great deal in identifying it as not being vandalism, although some editors do obfuscate their unconstructive actions with edit summaries that look to be legitimate. Do you think I should restore it and tag it instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested on BridgeCity (album) deletion discussion

Walter,

If I could get your assistance and review of the article BridgeCity. It's up for deletion and I need some unbiased help.

They say the article cites no credible sources when it has a professional review from New Release Tuesday and two separate new-source articles from Jesus Freak Hideout. They claim these aren't valid.

If I could gain your support (or non-support if you see there point), it would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings, RhettGedies (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The NRT review is a user review, not a staff review.

There is no staff review at JFH only press releases from TKO Marketing. I don't think it does meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter, If you could look into this, I'd really appricate it. The article was deleted with a Mod stating the consensus was delete. However, the vote was 2 in favor of keeping vs. one "delete". Why did that happen?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BridgeCity (album)

RhettGedies (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

AfDs are not about voting, they're about determining who is making the best policy- and guideline-based arguments. The fact the JFH link is a press release means it's not independent of the subject.

NRT's review of Christ Be Glorified is by a staff reviewer, but the self-titled entry is not a review and doesn't help meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Walter, I've seen your many edits, and you're a well respected editor. Please join in the discussion about infobox flags. We're all wasting too much of our wiki time warring over these silly things. Your input, either for or against, would be welcomed and appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the well-respected part, but I did leave a comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:SveinFalk ANI

Given your involvement in the last ANI regarding User:SveinFalk, I'd appreciate your input at WP:ANI#Comments by SveinFalk. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo Headings

In regards to this edit, can you point out specifically where on MOS:HEADINGS it suggests using bold text or a semi-colon is okay for section headings? This directly contradicts how both WP:ACCESS and H:DL say this can be used: "Do not use a semicolon (;) simply to bold a line without defining a value using a colon (:). This usage renders invalid HTML5 and creates issues with screen readers." Fezmar9 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry I missed your point, we should not be creating "invalid HTML5", but you have clearly missed mine:

I'm sorry I missed your point, we should not be creating "invalid HTML5", but you have clearly missed mine:

From MOS:HEADINGS

"Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings"

From WP:BODY

"Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."

Further down that MoS: MOS:PARAGRAPHS

"The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."

I would argue the solution to both problems is to replace the bulleted items with colons as the accessibility guideline stipulates.

Incidentally, there's a discussion going on about this and with your help I may have come upon a good solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you link me to said discussion? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Band articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafinha page .

it indicates clearly in Barca official website man it is March

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/rafinha_alcantara

thank you

Adnan (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• ok according to his instagram he celebrated birthday on Feb 12 i think barca's website is wrong then..

http://instagram.com/rafinhaaa93/

Adnan (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also take a look at Marc-André ter Stegen where editor has been edit warring, just like previuosly at Nemanja Matić a few days ago. QED237 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Barcelona, as usual, are likely wrong. There were multiple sources that supported Feb. 12.
2. I'm surprised you have not been blocked. Going far past three reverts, against three different editors, with intent, and yet you're still editing.
3. You're the one edit warring.
4. Please read WP:CONSENSUS.

If you have any further issues, feel free to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gianlikestodraw

I noticed you reverted several edits by this person. I've noticed a disturbing pattern of creating articles with no references or references that are bogus. Several articles they say a song has charted on Billboard, but there is no mention at Billboard. It also appears they are removing referenced material. I'm about done for awhile and will check more on this later. Bgwhite (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

XHTML breaks

Hello. I am noting your disagreement with the cleanups involving converting <br> to <br /> AWB doesn't do that with its basic configuration. It is an added find/replace cleanup I do when there are other more critical cleanups to do -- they "tag along" for the ride, so to speak. You have suggested that these are "deprecated" for use in the Wikipedia. Can you help me understand this better by pointing to a guideline or community discussion where this decision/agreement has been made? If so, I will carefully consider it and amend my cleaning process if it merits doing that. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No guideline or consensus, but they were introduced to support the "upcoming standard" of XHTML, but the new upcoming standard is HTML5, and it's not part of that standard. XHTML has been abandoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I will need to see a guideline or community discussion about this to help me make up my mind. As you know, HTML5 is a new standard but not applicable to all browsers currently in use. Further, XHTML5 is in development and the idea that "XHTML has been abandoned" is one held by some but not all web developers. I will need to see a "wiki-consensus" on their use or non-use. As for why I make the change, it's because it makes line breaks more obvious to the editor and makes the tag look similar to other wiki HTML-like constructs. I will certainly bend to any consensus on this, however. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Create one. I will continue to remove XHTML breaks since they're not a standard anywhere. XHTML was never fully implemented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them (they are a minor part of my cleanups anyway). At the same time, they will remain a part of my cleanups until I see a consensus against them. As one who has done web development, I will have to say I disagree that XHTML was never fully implemented. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me one browser that will incorrectly display a correct break that has also implemented XHTML and I'll agree with you. XHTML may have been included as an encoding format, but its goal was to make all other HTML formats obsolete and so it was not fully implemented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I will disagree on your definition of what makes something "fully implemented". That it exists and that various web development efforts seek to conform to it as a standard makes it fully implemented to me. Also, it has not been abandoned as XHTML5 continues to exist. But the issue here is whether there's a consensus against the particular change that I make. So far, only one person has objected to these changes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. Please excuse my incorrect use of the term. It may be fully implemented, but a browser uses many standards to render a page.

Now allow me to correct you. Just because you've only seen me objecting doesn't mean only one person objects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Vespers

I would like to remove the speedy deletion template from The Vespers article. I've cited my reasons on their Talk page. Absent objections, I plan to remove the template in two weeks, around March 1. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Aron Jóhannsson

This isn't the first time we've had to deal with all these dual nationality claims, but we have another one on Aron Jóhannsson's talk page. Might want to check it out. – Michael (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Death Machine (EP)

Hello Walter, a page I created, called Death Machine (EP) was redirected. Even thought I had a reference. I have no idea why it was redirected. could you help me get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The link to the reference was bad. I just searched now and eventually found that the link should have been http://www.bandsonfire.com/resources/release-presentations/article/living-sacrifice-death-machine instead. The site isn't particularly notable and fails RS. That three-paragraph review is written by "Bruce LS". The staff are listed at http://www.bandsonfire.com/about/article/the-people-behind and Bruce LS isn't there. So it's not a staff review. So now that review has two strikes against it.

WP:GNG indicates that a subject can be presumed to be notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have

• a short piece, not significant coverage
• one source, not multiple sources
• With the LS at the end of the reviewer's name, it doesn't appear that the review is independent of the subject and has something to do with Living Sacrifice

I may have acted too soon and you were still adding important sources, but I suspect that this one review was it as the article has been in-place for three weeks and the album was released more than six years ago so now new reviews will be appearing any time soon. Sorry if I'm wrong. If you want to revert my edit, I can take the article to AfD instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you. Metalworker14 (talk)

OK. When you revert my changing to the redirect, I'll do the AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you do that? Metalworker14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I nominate for AfD? I use a tool that does the work for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No. How do you revert changing to redirect? Metalworker14 (talk) 6:58, 28 February 2015

You go to the page's history. Click the prev link next to the change. Undo the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Soul Embraced

Hello Walter, Me again. I've been doing research on Soul Embraced, and it seems that bassist Jon Dunn is still in the band. Just wanted to tell you, so you could figure it out. Thank You. Metalworker14 (talk)

OK. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ritchie

Dear Walter, Thank you for your message. Paul and I were friends and played football together. We attended the same schools and he lived about 500m from me. He also worked for the same company as me at one point. Paul is a year older than me and I was born in 1970. I'm sure he'll be flattered that you say he was born in '75. If you look at the class photo on this link, you'll see that he was in Primary 6 in 1980. P6 in Scotland is age 11. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Ritchie-footballer-born-1975/276195385912982?rf=104113932957267 Regards, Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpineclubofscotland (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. The only problem is the article has a reference to a reliable source that supports his birth year and the article is at that location as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me

Yes, that particular talk page post was rambling and from my small amount of research the person who probably posted that screed seems..."interesting"? but anyway, it is not clear to me that the website cited in Meyers' article is indeed her website. All it does is provide links to buy her album on Amazon and to buy her music on iTunes. There is no text provided, no fan news, no music news, no contact info, no agent address/phone #, no tour info, no publicist, etc. My thought is that even if it is perhaps her website (which is actually unclear to me), why should Wikipedia serve as a conduit for folks to just buy her music? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still her official website and it was only removed from the infobox, not the EL section. It's been her website for more than five years and still has information related to the subject. Now that I understand the situation without rambling I could be convinced to remove it completely, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Will You (P.O.D. song)

It's what they intended it to be. Cited as a Christian band, makes sense to call it christian metal or at least christian rock due to the single cover. And yes, I forgot to correctly capitalize it. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bumps Inf

Help me.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you mean with [1] this edit. The subsequent edit resolved it. As you continue to add articles about subjects who are less and less important to the genre, you'll run into this more often. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Meine Erfahrungen mit der deutschen Wikipedia

Ich habe lange bei der deutschen Wikipedia mitgearbeitet, bis ich dort frustriert aufgehört habe. Dort herrscht leider bei vielen ein wenig aufbauender Geist: Statt positiv mitzuarbeiten, wird hauptsächlich das, was andere machen, diskutiert und kritisiert, man löscht häufig, was andere schreiben. Statt Fehler zu verbessern, wird herumkritisiert, statt Inhalte zu schaffen, werden lange Diskussionen geführt. Ich habe mich dann irgendwann dazu entschieden, lieber in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia mitzuarbeiten, weil dort dieses - vielleicht typisch deutsche - Verhalten wesentlich seltener vorkommt. Manchmal frage ich mich, ob diejenigen, die wie oben beschreiben handeln, eigentlich wissen, wie destruktiv sich ihr Handeln manchmal auswirken kann.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen von Christ zu Christ

Metron (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Welcome to the project, and I hope your time here will be more enjoyable and profitable to both the project and your spirit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Society's Finest

Hello, I was wondering why Society's Finest was nominated for deletion. I added a reference and it requires one.

Metalworker14 (talk)

It was explained in the AfD nomination: it fails WP:GNG. 05:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

I see you inform me about my genre change on An Island and said that it conflicted with the neutral point of view and verifiability policies but it doesn't because the edit that changed the genre before http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=An_Island&diff=643078369&oldid=642276793 has no source just like my edit. Also there is no source for the genre of the song so I don't understand how my edit is false over the edit that was not sourced or explained as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I should blank the genre section completely. However, just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you can too. In short, was the genre you added supported with a reliable source or was it just that you know it was the right genre? If it was the former, I didn't see the source, maybe you could point me to it. If it was the latter, we've hit the nail on the head. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I found out someone did it after I did. The original was Alternative metal, hard rock[1] and I've been on the page before with the original genre and didn't do anything to do. Industrial metal didn't seem accurate so I just change it on my own but I'm still new to this site and naive about stuff so I didn't thought of going back and reverting it to the original one. I've seen you've been through other edit wars and I didn't want to start another one because its exhausting and pointless so do whatever you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I happened to pick up on this. Why is Rockfreaks an unreliable source? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Until We Have Faces

It seems you are very involved with the Red project on Wikipedia. Since the last post on this album's talk page was over two years ago (by you) I thought I might get an important, well-known person's attention about this on their talk page, instead of potentially waiting for months and coming up with nothing- its talk page is very short and I've had experiences like that before. I have copied the following message from my post on the album's talk page, except for one word being changed.

Single notability

Most of the singles after "Faceless" and "Feed the Machine" are only notable because they charted. They consist of two sentences, a tracklist, and a chart. Being very short pages, I'm suggesting redirecting those ones to the album. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As said above, tell me what you think. They've (Lie to Me, Not Alone, and Buried Beneath) existed for an average of about 6 months months now and have almost nothing. I hope you can give advice, DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the edits you made to the singles (they're on my watchlist) and I agree with the edits. The charts do exist though, but simply charting isn't really enough to meet notability guidelines. The assumption is that charting albums and singles will cause RSes to write about them. If that does not happen, the article fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I found something that might save "Lie to Me" from being a redirect. I will write when I have more time. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Repeatlink

You reverted here, citing repeatlink, and left it with zero links. Perhaps I overlinked. It's pretty common in list articles (and this list is no exception -- count the number of times Beyonce is linked), but as wikilinking is standard procedure, perhaps you could restore one next time? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually you REPEATLINKed. Let me take a look at it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

(?) -- you reverted here, citing repeatlink... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi Walter. I was just looking at your deletion here, and have a thought. I agree with you that (wrong-headed or not ...) our convention is to in the lede only indicate the date of birth, but not the (related) place of birth.

But I believe that, as long as you believe the information is verifiable (and especially if it is RS-sourced), the better course is to move the information rather than delete it ... solely on the basis of the fact that it is reflected in the wrong place.

Otherwise, it is like deleting a typo rather than correcting the typo. Because the typo is violative of a rule. We wouldn't do that.

Thanks. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your example is flawed, but I agree with your idea in principle. If this were a non-living subject, it would be a different matter. As it falls under WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIVACY comes into play as well. I debated removing it from the infobox as well. If it was that he played a left-handed guitar, that could potentially be verified. If it was that he recorded a song that reached the top of the charts, that could potentially be verified. I will deal with it correctly now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about red links on disambiguation pages

Hi, I've got a question I wonder if you could clarify for me. I had inserted a red link on a disambiguation pave (Thrive) and you reverted it. Is placing red links on disambiguation pages considered bad Wikipedia style? I read MOS:DABRL, which generally advises against it unless there's a mainspace article page with that same red link. (It does show up in an article; namely, Music of La Femme Nikita.) You're much more of an experienced editor than I am, so I'll happily defer if my red link addition on the Thrive page was unconstructive. (I figured this question was safe to leave here because it's not about an edit reversion so much as it is about broad-stroke Wikipedia red link policy.) Thanks! wia (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page." Copied entirely from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. See also Wikipedia:Red link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't checked out WP:RED before. I guess the red link I added didn't meet the "clearly should be a corresponding article" requirement. Okay, thanks for the guidance; I'll avoid doing that in the future. wia (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Re removal of entries for those who are not internationally known on days of the year pages

See here. I was following User:Deb (an admin)'s globalization and improvement of distribution project. She's recently offwiki now but I left her a note on her talk page and I guess you can work it out. Quis separabit? 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Kirk Franklin

I just want to thank you for educating me on the associated act parameter. You may want to look at the additional contention that I wrote and added to his page.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Days of Year Project

Hi, Walter. The ongoing discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year#June_11_and_removal_of_entries_by_Deb. There seems to be general consensus that something must be done to prevent vanity entries and private agendas as well as keeping the Births and Deaths sections to a reasonable size. Deb (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your criteria is flawed. There are no vanity entries. If a subject has an article on Wikipedia, they are either notable or the subject's article can be removed after an AfD discussion. There is no need for your separate criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Walter, if you read the comments on the Project talk page, you will see that other contributors are in agreement that something needs to be done. Why do we specify that events on the Date pages must be internationally significant and not apply the same criteria to people? Do you really think it's practical to have an entry for every single birth and death on that date as part of the Date article? The article would quickly become unreadable and useless. Deb (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well Deb, if you read the comments on the project page, you will see that other contributors are in agreement that something needs to be done: move days of peoples' birth and death off the pages. I am not opposed to that. You and a few other editors seems to think that notability guidelines can be ignored when moving those individuals on the births and deaths pages. That's simply arrogant. I think it's not only practical to have an entry for every single birth and death on those new pages, it doesn't harm the idea of that page at all. While it might be better handled as a category, it won't hurt to have it as a list either.

What I do think is useless, and quite harmful, is when a few editors set arbitrary criteria for what they call "internationally significant" individuals, and remove anyone who does not fit into their criteria. As you can see from the August 2 article is that you and another editor don't even agree. Can you see how that's not at all useful?

When the discussion has been opened to the broader community and consensus has been reached with that community, then we move forward. Otherwise, you're going to run into a lot of problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is what the Project guidelines already say: "...being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles. I don't see how you can argue with that - unless of course you want to change the guidelines. Deb (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling you have no background in hermeneutics. The first thing in interpretation is context. The context of that statement is the previous ones. It's about people adding themselves or friends.

Only the births and deaths of people who are themselves subjects of Wikipedia articles should be listed. To have an article, a person must meet the criteria outlined in WP:BIO. Being part of a group with an article or having the page that bears one's name redirected to a different article does not qualify as having one's own article. Having a Wikipedia user page does not qualify as having an article. Also, being the subject of a Wikipedia article is only a minimum requirement for inclusion in a Wikicalendar article. Not all people meet the more stringent notability requirements for Wikicalendar articles. Animals with their own article can be listed as well.

Again, the issue is that the actual criteria is not listed. So we're in the same place. I'm not sure how you can argue that there are criteria when they're not listed. And when you and another editor come up with separate criteria, there's a problem with it. I'm not sure how you can argue against that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to argue semantics with someone who doesn't know that "criteria" is a plural word. Putting your claim of intellectual superiority to one side for a moment, what do you think the "more stringent notability requirements" for Wikicalendar articles are? Are you suggesting that you are not allowed to add someone you know, even if they have a wikipedia article (which is the minimum requirement)? And why do you think the word "Also" is in there, if not to ensure that this sentence is not read purely in the context of the previous two? Deb (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow insulting my grasp of English vocabulary. What a META;DICK. The worst part there is not pointing out where I made the supposed error.

I am not suggesting anything other than as set of clear criteria that any editor can look at and say. "this person should be on a sand-alone list and this person shouldn't." For the majority of Wikipedia, that is WP:N. For your supposed project, that isn't enough. Your criteria is clearly insufficient since when two project members approach an article with it in-hand, you come up with different results.

Time to take it to the larger community. Don't bother replying here. I will blank it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Subtle Alliance

Thank you for the warning on Subtle Alliance. I'll probably stop making pages for EPs. So thanks again. Metalworker14 (Yo) 3:04, 24 March, 2015 (UTC)

Lauren Daigle's debut album

Hey. I need some advice on a page I created. Lauren Daigle's debut album is going for release on April 14, 2015, there was no page for the album, so I created one with as much information I could gather on it, and it got reverted by someone saying she was an "unknown" artist. Should I revert the edit by the user? Or just let it fly until the album's release? Thank you for your time. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic

Franck Ribéry

• Your lazy "revert all" was based on a misleading if not untruthful edit summary implying there were numerous deadlinks removed. There was only one deadlink removed and could easily have been restored without reverting all my edits. You also removed these edits by a third editor.
• I don't know why you keep restoring the empty spaces that I keep removing for no valid reason as it is perfectly valid MOS, unless you can prove otherwise from WP:BLP. Quis separabit? 16:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you're offended. It wasn't intended to be misleading. The whole thing was a piece of fecal matter. The empty spaces are the worst part of the edit. They're not needed and make reading of the references most difficult. I recognize that there are problems with the sourcing but the editor making them is not doing it correctly by simply adding {space}{{cn}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and stating that my edit was lazy because I stated your addition of the simplified version of citation needed was lazy is simply childish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Inter Milan

What's not necessary to include the club's actual name? It has been mentioned before that Jonathan Moreira an article which you have worked on gives the current club description as Internazionale as well as the Yuto Nagatomo article, Mauro Icardi article and the Hernanes article, and so on and so forth. Some of the player articles above have the current club listed as Internazionale, and to be quite frankly the WP:CONSENSUS vote for 'changing the name of the article from F.C. Internazionale Milano to just Inter Milan has not proved useful in improving the article itself. I cannot see why the real name, actual name or (full name of the club) had to be scrapped to conform with Wikipedia guidelines and/or user guidelines. Effectively what you Wikipedians, namely Admins have done is cause more problems because as you will see there are differing variations of the club name linked with current past and future players. Think of it this way if Inter Milan is and I quote from the article itself 'F.C. Internazionale Milano, commonly referred to as Internazionale (pronounced [internatt͡sjoˈnaːle]) or simply Inter, and colloquially known as Inter Milan outside of Italy, is a professional Italian football club based in Milan, Lombardy'. (See link to right)→ [2] Now as Inter Milan is what the club is known as outside of Italy why is the term used as the heading for the main article on the club? The name change comes from the proposed Americanisation of varying topics, lately this has included sport based categories such as association football clubs. If it is not necessary to include the Internazionale alongside the Inter Milan name, why haven't you removed Internazionale from the Jonathan article User: Walter Görlitz

By the way I am half-Italian and I can't possibly understand why Wikipedia have to refer to Internazionale as Inter Milan just because BBC Sport, ESPN and other media sources do. Surprisingly though FIFA know Inter Milan as Internazionale! PellèLong 19:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Common name is what you're talking about. For instance, you may have heard of FC Bayern München. Their page on the English Wikipedia is not there but at FC Bayern Munich because that's their common English name. The same goes for many other things, no article for Milano, Roma, Firenze or Italia for that matter either because in English they're Milan, Rome, Florence and Italy. I learned that early on after being pointed to exonym and endonym.

As for me editing those articles, I'm not the police. I don't monitor the behaviour of all editors on articles, nor do I try to ensure consistency across all articles on Wikipedia, although I may in areas I'm interested such as Christian music. If you would like to start a discussion about the naming of the club page, there are many good places to do so, but my talk page is not the best. Perhaps WP:FOOTY would be a better place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:DATERET

Hi Walter, thanks for returning Greater Victoria to where it should be. IIRC from looking at it yesterday, dmy was not present before Mkdw changed everything to dmy. If you haven't seen already, please check out our discussion at User talk:Hwy43#Date. Note the assertion that there is an established convention within the BC editing community to use dmy despite DATERET. I see Nikkimaria reverted your edit to Manitoba. When I looked at that one last night, I concluded that article had evolved using predominantly dmy. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Australian Christian Churches

Australian Christian Churches is the Assemblies of God denomination, thus narrower than Pentecostal. Paul foord (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I'm Συντάκτης, It's Good Friday! I'm looking forward to Easter Sunday & I hope you're to! Συντάκτης (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Breaks in infobox

"breaks do not belong in the infobox"

That's news to me. You should give a link to where it says that -- especially when there's something new that I may not know about. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

For the infobox in question: Template:Infobox musical artist. Commas or flatlists are acceptable, not breaks. I should have been more clear though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But, it doesn't say that in the instructions for "alias" -- and in this case, the comma doesn't look good (to me). --Musdan77 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. Would you like me to take that up on the talk page? Almost every other place it says commas or lists, but you found one omission. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TImeline section headings

Hey there, I've noticed that you have made a few changes on band pages from "===Timeline===" to ";Timeline". Do you mind if I ask why? Thanks, — DLManiac (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It It's a short section and doesn't need its own heading in the table of contents. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

List presentation

I saw you reverted the list cleanup/formatting changes of 50.26.212.188 on a couple lists. Why is this style of presentation preferable to this one? I honestly don't know if the guidelines favor one over the other, but the latter does look cleaner and more efficient to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, most sections are long enough that you would want to have the separated. Compare to List of Christian dance, electronic, and techno artists, where there aren't a lot of artists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

An even better example was when the anon changed List of Christian ska bands to remove the short sections. I didn't revert there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Matt Johnson (drummer)

Hi Walter, Metalworker14 here. I was wondering, was Matt Johnson also in Blenderhead, 90 Lb. Wuss, and Roadside Monument? Just wondering. Metalworker14 (Yo) 6:10, 14 April, 2015 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music does list a drummer by the name of Matt Johnson as a member of Blenderhead, Ninety Pound Wuss (after 1999), Roadside Monument and two bands you missed were Don't Know and Raft of Dead Monkeys (as vocalist only). The order, according to p. 769 was,

1. Don't Know
2. Blenderhead
3. Roadside Monument
4. Ninety Pound Wuss
5. Raft of Dead Monkeys

It also lists him playing on one song for Unwed Sailor. However, unless he meets WP:GNG, he still doesn't meet notability requirements. It's not clear that the subject you linked to and the one in these bands are the same person, but it's highly likely that they are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok then. Metalworker14 (Yo) 01:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

GAR (Three Days Grace)

Three Days Grace, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. You were messaged per being the first most involved editor of the page as determined by this tool. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Edits on American and Canadian Champions page

Hi Walter,

In the Overall Totals section of the page list of American and Canadian soccer champions you have Vancouver Whitecaps FC listed with two titles. Wasn't one of those titles earned by the old Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–84) in 1979? I just think the two titles should be separated out by franchise. Also, I wonder if it's a good idea having the Cosmos, Rowdies, Strikers, Roughnecks and Timbers linked to the current teams, given that all of their title in this section were won by now-defunct (NASL 1968-84) teams. Not to mention that four of the "new" clubs have never been D1 teams to this point. Isn't that a bit misleading? Maybe this topic has already been discussed and I missed it. If so, I apologize. Curious to hear your thoughts. As always, best regards -Creativewill (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It was earned. They finished first in MLS play and that was the way the championship was determined for that year's qualification. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Bare URL

You had mentioned, as well as other Wikipedia editors, to me about Bare URLs. Would you mind telling me how to not make a URL bare to help improve my editing in the future? Thank you. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic

Sure. Two options.

1. When gathering references, use a tool like User:V111P/js/WebRef. It gathers some information and you can add additional information on-the-fly.
2. When you've already added a reference to a page, use http://tools.wmflabs.org/dispenser/cgi-bin/viewer.py/Reflinks on that page. You can either add that your JS includes and invoke it from the page or you can go to the link and provide the article's name there.

In conjunction, you might want to investigate using a script like User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to automatically format dates since the above tools use ISO 8601 and DMY automatically. The second will recognize other date formats on the page. You'll have to familiarize yourself with the rules around date formats too, but that's an easy read and quite simple for most articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. This will definitely come in handy for future editing. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)ilovechristianmusic

2015 Major Soccer season table

There's a new discussion regarding placing play-off teams in the overall table. I wanted to make sure the three main contributors all have a chance to share our opinions. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Inclusion of MLS Playoffs in the overall table. Bmf 051 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tooth & Nail Discography

Hey Walter, Metalworker14 here. I was on Tooth & Nail Records Discography, and noticed that there is a lot of albums still missing since around 2011-2012ish. Anyways, just wanted to point that out. Metalworker14 (yo) 9:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some of the work. That period was around when Brandon was getting out from under EMI, wasn't it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam Gontier Wiki Page

Hi Walter. This is Adam Gontier writing you to inform you that I've tried, numerous times, to make changes to my Wiki page. My changes are consistently reverted, by you, with information that I would prefer to be administration of. Please shoot me a message back when you can, as I will have to get my legal team in charge of this asap, if I don't hear from you. Thanks so much. Adam Wade Gontier — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamGontier0307 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You will need sources for your full name or any other changes you want to add. We want to avoid "truthiness". Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Pan Ams Wiki Project:

Hi,

We are just 3 months away shy of the 2015 Pan American Games. There are still a thousand of pages that need to be created for the event. I can’t do this alone so I’m soliciting your help for this task. Please feel free to send me any messages regarding it.

Best regards,

The Green Giant 23 TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I tend to monitor pages for adherence to standards and to remove unconstructive edits. I don't tend to create a lot of new content. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian Metal bands

Hey Walter, when I went to List of Christian metal bands, the section Experimental metal bands was not there. Just letting you know.

P.S. Was that really Adam Gontier? from Three Days Grace? Metalworker14 (Yo) 6:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor pushed me off the article in the way it was organized. Feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page, or just add it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you remember the bands on there? Metalworker14 (Yo) 12:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I have not been there for years. No clue how it's formatted now or what was there before. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

K thanks Metalworker14 (Yo) 9:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Billboard CHR charts

With the latest website update they've removed the AC, AC/CHR, Inspo, and Indicator charts from their website. Or at least I can't find them anymore from the old links. Any idea where the replacement source is? I know the current charts can be viewed at http://charts.bdsradio.com/ but you can't view past archives there I don't think. Thanks.--Krystaleen 10:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea. I've always had a hard time finding them. Perhaps a site reorganization or possibly a sign of things to come. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Beau Bokan

Hi, just noticed you reverted my edit there. I don't want to edit war over this relatively small issue, but WP:CATEGRS#General says that categorisation based on gender (which applies to Category:American male musicians) should be non-diffusing, so I was just applying that. Several months ago I was under the impression that gender categories were diffusing, as I had not yet run across that guideline, and I edited a few thousand pages as if they were diffusing, so now I am cleaning up what I see as a mess I made. CATEGRS is a guideline, so it's slightly squishy, but I don't see how this is a common sense exception to it -- maybe you do? I believe that exceptions in this case would be where the article is already in another subcat of e.g. Category:American musicians, and I've been mostly leaving those alone. ekips39❦talk 16:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a new one to me. I'll self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

MOS fix

See here Thanks. I did not realize that this was a standard for numbers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Fort Lauderdale Strikers Roster

Hello, I would like to know why there was an undo on my edit to the roster? Why is the roster style a list type other then every other european team wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcp3 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question: because it's not a European team. Check out all of the other teams in their league. It was a decision made about five years ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not only European but every other League in the world taking out American Leagues. Why not just make it the same thing like all other leagues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcp3 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Because, this template is more compliant to accessibility guidelines and other formatting guidelines. Ask the other leagues why they have not followed the correct example. And for the record, some English teams do use the correct template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Focused & Overcome

Hey Walter, I realized that both, Focused and Overcome, don't have pages. I feel, that they should pages, seeing how they one of the first Christian Hardcore bands, and Focused was the second band to sign to Tooth & Nail Records. They also have both recently reunited. Another reason, one of the bassists of Focused, was in the band Stavesacre. Just wanted to see what you thought. Metalworker14 (Yo) 5:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

None of which are good reasons to create an article.

Focused has a very brief entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: one paragraph. Pretty empty at AllMusic. Overcome is about twice the length in EoCCM, but still very short but with one staff rating without a review at AllMusic, it's not looking good for them either. You'll need sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Try some other sources, such as HM or Jesus Freak Hideout, or maybe even some more metal-oriented publications. Look through Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. For online sources, you can type the main site url into a search engine like so - site:example.com - to search within a certain website. For print sources, you can try and see if there are online archives. If not, you would need to find hard-copies (good luck with that, sincerely).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Overcome's article is now finished.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've come to expect more for you. The references are all poor. Nominating for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at the HM articles and brief reviews, they are OK. I'm removing the misleading information though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I love you man.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making Overcome Cross Bearer. I'll make Focused, after I find some good references. Metalworker14 (Yo) 5:41 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Metalworker14. I just want to give you some good luck on creating, Focused, and that's because I can only find Cross Rhythms covering them.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

page needs help

Hi Walter - I've been trying to rehabilitate the music festival lists, but I've completely neglected List of Christian music festivals because I know next to nothing about the topic. I cleaned up the templates some, but there are still open-ended questions on structure (whether it should include just classical/gospel or also christian rock, christian hip hop, etc.), and the intro needs to be expanded. If it doesn't catch your interest, I'm sure I can find someone else, but you came to mind first. Earflaps (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Major League Soccer stadiums

Hi, I'm not sure I get the reasoning for this edit. As far as I'm aware, Minnesota United has presented stadium plans and are at a relatively advanced stage of discussions/negotiations with the city and county (at least more advanced than Miami and NYC). I'm curious to see where you're drawing the distinction, since it's likely behind-the-scenes discussions are taking place for all proposed stadiums. Mosmof (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Whitecaps have presented stadium plans as well. Doesn't mean it's going forward. I simply looked at the table and Minnesota United wasn't listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. To be honest, I know nothing about Vancouver's stadium plans, but I don't see why Minnesota wouldn't be in the same category as the other expansion teams (and New England). I'm going to go ahead an reinsert. Thanks! Mosmof (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I inserted the need for citation needed on all of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable

Does Chris McClarney seem notable to you?The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't look at the references, but sure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Commons

[3] I went to the commons AN and reported that user. That's also probably the best place to get in contact with an Admin on the commons about evidence for that COI, though I don't rightly know.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

.png and .svg

Walter,

A user sent me a .png file to update a Wiki page but when I looked at the page, it has both .svg and .png characteristics listed on the page. The .svg file(File:Coat of arms of Michael Sis.svg) has 6 different pixel sizes. It also has 4 different .png sizes(200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px). To compound my dilemma, I have no way of converting the .png to .svg. What is the Wiki policy, what do you recommend? Roberto221 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that both are OK, but SVG is preferred. Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload deals with that. You don't want to convert png to svg. The former is a bitmapped format while the latter is a vector format. You can convert to svg to png though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

New Sporting Kansas City 3rd Kit

I'm looking for help on doing the new Sporting Kansas City 3rd kit in the templates. I don't know how to make it. The design is here. Elisfkc (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have done a few of these, but others are better at it. Some like @Bmf 051: might offer more support. Essentially, you have to piece the kit together one part at a time.

| pattern_la3 =
| pattern_b3 =
| pattern_ra3 =
| pattern_sh3 =
| pattern_so3 =
| leftarm3 =
| body3 =
| rightarm3 =
| shorts3 =
| socks3 =

In order here you have left arm, body, right arm, shorts, socks and then background colours for those. For instance and are all in wiki commons. Case (upper or lower) matters. Create the patterns in a bitmap graphic editor (I usually use the GIMP) and then upload the new files to commons, then link to them in the article. If you use transparency in the image, the background colour will show through. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Bmf 051 did it. Thanks for the help. Elisfkc (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

can you please tell us youropinion about this topic : http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen.27s_page_question_please_:

I see you active in sport pages so thought you might have an opinion about this . thank you Adnan (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Canadian Women's Pyramid

I left some thoughts on how to include the L1O Women's Division on the Canadian soccer league system talk page, and thought you might want to offer some input since you're an active contributor there. Gopherbashi (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Facedown Records Discography

Hey Walter, I was wondering if you could help me make Facedown Records discography page, like Tooth & Nail's? Metalworker14 (yo) 4:57, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Sinclair scores

Hi, Thanks for your edits to the Christine Sinclair article. It looks like all of the scores mentioned in the article do not include en-dashes. Can you take a look and update accordingly? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Jimi Hendrix and acid rock

Hi! Would you care to comment at this RfC? It is about the article Jimi Hendrix and whether "acid rock" warrants inclusion in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Twelve Gauge Valentine

hey Walter, this is Metalworker14. Just wondering, do you think I have enough references to re-publish User:Metalworker14/Twelve Gauge Valentine, to regular Twelve Gauge Valentine. Metalworker14 (yo) 6:14, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

RfC on List of Christian metal artists

Hi, I've started an RfC on the List of Christian metal artists. If interested, please comment here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your edit on "My Paper Heart". I got into an incident with another editor who thought that repeating the album title in the tracklisting was the Wikipedia standard, I disagreed, and they brought in a few editors that they work with. So the others said that it was still standard, but I still doubted. So thank you! Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

IAS Accrediting body for Personnel Certification

Please see associated sites explaining this accrediting body!

International Accredited Services, Inc (IAS) provides accreditation for Personnel Certification bodies. See their website: http://www.iasonline.org/Personnel/PCB.html

IAS is a signatory for IAF See IAS listing on IAF site: http://www.iaf.nu/articles/IAF_Mem_USA_IAS/146

Who is IAF: The IAF is the world association of Conformity Assessment Accreditation Bodies and other bodies interested in conformity assessment in the fields of management systems, products, services, personnel and other similar programmes of conformity assessment. Its primary function is to develop a single worldwide program of conformity assessment which reduces risk for business and its customers by assuring them that accredited certificates may be relied upon. Accreditation assures users of the competence and impartiality of the body accredited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.165.81 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

TRA Certification Int'l now does Personnel Certification - Accreditation by IAS

TRA Certification International (TRACI) is an accredited "Personnel Certification Body" accredted by International Accreditation Services (IAS) see our certificate http://www.iasonline.org/PDF/PCB/PCB-104.pdf

Our website explains what Personnel Certification is https://tracert.memberclicks.net/personnel-certification

our google domain name is www.personnelcertification-tra.com which links to above site explanation - subtitled personnel certification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.165.81 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Focal Point (band) Proposed Deletion

Hey there, just wanted to chat about the proposed deletion on Focal Point. Do they not pass under WP:BAND's #5 point? I could see your point if you wanted to delete the individual album pages, I would probably not have any qualms with that, but seems they do have two albums under notable indie labels (granted one is an EP, but I'm unclear as to what WP:Band counts as an album or not). I'd be willing to try to hunt down third-party sources to allieviate some WP:GNG concerns, but either way, just curious as to your thoughts. In good faith, GreenRunner0 20:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. An EP and an album, neither of which was notable. Band still fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

MWS - The Acoustic Set

I understand the rationale behind removing this item from the MWS template, but I'm not sure how replacing the entire article with a broken redirect helps the community at all. I will admit both that the article was not yet complete, and I am still a newcomer, but I would hope that I would receive a bit of explanation rather than have my work discarded out of hand. I would appreciate any constructive feedback you may have. Thanks! TLBradbury (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that the redirect was broken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

CLion

Hello Walter. Apropos of your previous nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLion, you may be interested to know that the articles have recently been recreated at CLion1 and CLionApp. It's not clear to me whether this topic has achieved notability since your previous nomination; maybe you're better positioned to make an initial assessment. (I've already nominated one of the articles for speedy deletion, but only on the grounds that it's a duplicate of the other.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

ASL is Third Tier

Saw your reversion of that edit - made me laugh - the league doesn't even have the results on the games from 6/13 posted on their website. They've got a long way to go before they are in any "tier" --Trödel 17:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Chronicle of Narnia

I've just had a talk with user Elphion about my recent dummy edit on the Chronicles of Narnia at my talk page. Now having come to a resolution, it's apparent that my edit summary could easily be misconstrued, and interpreted as something like a "drive-by shooting" by an editor clearly as reasonable as he is. So I just wanted to say to you that that certainly wasn't my intent (you being the obvious target), and I see his point quite well and appreciate it. So, I'm thinking I see yours too, in your revert of the IP, in a different light than originally, and would like to say sorry for any misunderstandings. Best regards, Evensteven (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeremiah Scott

Hey Walter. I forget ho to move an article to real space. is it REDIRECT (R for Move)?

I checked the article in your user space. It's not ready to be moved, but if you want to move it, there should be a move in your interface. Where it is depends on which skin you use to edit. With my skin, it's at the top under the More drop-down menu. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Misty Edwards

What would you have me do, with regards to her biographical article, where you can see my luck evaporated, trying to keep the article?The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The same you've done with other articles: get reliable sources and prove notability. Ping me when it's up and I'll argue that OTC is for copyright issues and not to take now subjects that meet WP:N. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I just happen to have a stored copy of the aforementioned article, on my computer, after, the whole Brady Toops debacle, where it got speedily deleted, while I was away, then, I commenced saving the markup on my computer, for certain articles.The Cross Bearer (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The draft for her article is now up, Misty Edwards, for you to look about her notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to move the article to mainspace, please, with all do sincerity, go ahead.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted Misty Edwards on WikiAlpha.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation Errors

DonnaHalper (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Hi Walter. Sorry I got you upset. You are 100% correct that I neglected to format my sources the right way. Sometimes I do, but evidently, sometimes I don't. I hope you at least find my information is both useful and accurate, which I do strive for as a professional researcher. But as a visual learner, sometimes I fail to follow the instructions for using appropriate Wikipedia citation formatting. (I'm too accustomed to using MLA style, I guess...) Anyway, all apologies, and thanks for fixing that on my Yannick Bisson entries. I'll keep on trying till I get it right.

RKing85 - re: Canadian national women's football team

The Pan American Games women's football tournament is a full international tournament. No age restrictions. The men's tournament is u23, the women's tournament is full squad and count as full international matches.

Oops!

For this edit I meant to use the edit summary "see talk", but something distracted me at just the wrong moment, and I used the default. I did not mean to imply I thought your edit was vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi Walter ! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Misty Edwards

You may want to have your say, where it comes to the Draft:Misty Edwards article?The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, just wanted to thank you for the warm welcome back there at my talk page, I really appreciated it, you made my day! TheSoccerBoy (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC) TheSoccerBoy (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Photo Help

Hello,

You have advised on many of the articles I was editing a few months back. I am needing to update the photos on the profile pages of a handful on ones. I thought I went about it the proper way, but i did not. Please advise me on the best way to make sure those photos get accepted and used. Thank you.

Ivettealexandra (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. I'm not sure how to help. Are you having trouble uploading photos or add them to the articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit question

Walter, you edited my prod here and took out the link to the discussion on the Music notability page. I was told to link to it, so I did, but I don't usually do that in prods. Does the wl break the template? MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was the script that removed the external link pointing internally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS)

I wanted to discuss about the recent reverting of the Vancouver Whitecaps franchise that plays in MLS. Like the few MLS teams that adopted the name from teams that played in the NASL from 1968-1984, the Vancouver Whitecaps were one of them. This incarnated Whitecaps franchise are not the same franchise that established in NASL. That reference is only valid as a recognition of the Legacy that the MLS team is a part of similar to the San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers. This Vancouver Whitecaps franchise began playing as an MLS franchise along with Portland Timbers in 2011 both franchise being treated as a new franchise established in 2009 in MLS that began play in the 2011 season. Bluhaze777 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Do any of those former NASL clubs have pages on their MLS-owned sites that discuss their "history"? It has four players in the club's "Ring of Honour" and not one is from the MLS franchise. They were all inducted while the club was part of MLS. We have referenced content, with a note, so I'm not sure why it should be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

mistakes on the take 6 page.

hey walter. i just wanted to apologize for the editing incidents on the take 6 page. i included mouth trumpet as an instrumental role in the band because they have incorporated that vocal technique in a wide variety of take 6 songs. i didn't read your message the first time you took down what i wrote. i really didn't mean to "edit war" you or cause any kind off upset and i'm very sorry.

Mike Lee

You may want to have a look at Mike Lee.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Walter Görlitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. J Pratas (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

GAR input

Hey Walter. I've nominated a bunch of articles for reassessment (Disco 2000, Small Mercies, Alphastates, Chrome Division, Byzantine). They've been promoted in 2007/08 and I believe thay are far away from today's GA criteria. I've only nominated the most obvious aberrations from the music bands, though there certainly are a few more that need to go. Your input is welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Aftereight/Capital Lights Merger

The Christian screamo band Aftereight has been merged into their descendent of Capital Lights. This would be totally fine and dandy if I had been given fair warning the article was going to be deleted so I could transfer all the sources/do some writing expansion to accommodate Aftereight into their new place on the Capital Lights article.

Do you know of any way I can visit the old page or anything you can do to get it temporarily revised? Because at this point, a lot of history was just lost to the void.

Thanks as always! :) RhettGedies (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Twelve Gauge Valentine

Hey Walter, I've been working on Twelve Gauge Valentine's page and I was wondering if you thought it was ready to be moved. --Metalworker14 (Yo) 17:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Souther

Thanks for your help on the Richard Souther article. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and your input was greatly appreciated.

Thanks again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

MxPx

Wondering why you keep adding On The Cover II and Punk Rawk Christmas as "Studio Albums" on MxPx's page? They are not studio albums (check MxPx's website - they should know more than anyone). One is a cover album and the other is a christmas album. Not part of the studio album canon of MxPx.

The general opinion of a studio album is one that is recorded in a studio and is not an EP. Some artists consider "holiday" albums not to be studio albums. Most Wikipedians do. Some artists think of cover albums not to be studio albums. That's a grey area, but I would argue it's a studio album. Live recordings and compilations of a band's earlier works, even if it has a few new songs, are usually not considered studio albums. I hope that clears things up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I that you went and applied your opinion to the articles again and a different editor reverted. I believe that helps support my case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, but I encourage you to take a look at the official band's website. If they don't consider those studio albums then they aren't studio albums. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillandrew (talk • contribs) 02:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The project has a fairly clear definition of what constitutes a studio album and so it's consistent across the encyclopaedia. They may have their own classification system, but it clearly doesn't match ours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding DABs on top of articles despite the fact that they are clearly named

Guten Tag Walter - I noticed that you reverted my addition of a disambiguation note at the top of By Your Side (Hillsong album). I've gotten in discussions about this before, and wanted to clarify that I understand that the article is clearly named, but I see the DAB note as a site navigation convenience. If I'm reading the article and realize that I'm at the wrong By Your Side album, my method of getting to the correct article is faster than anything else. It's about efficiency. Thoughts?Timtempleton (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly, you have gotten into "discussions" about adding unnecessary hatnotes before but you continue to do so? Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and then try discussing again. In summary, the elements are

1. Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title.
2. Making the links for ambiguous terms point to the correct article title.
3. Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.

Since By Your Side (Hillsong album) has a unique title nothing further is required. No reader is likely to arrive at that article and expect to find a different topic, that would require them to search for the disambiguation page. If they were typing in the string, "By Your S" it would be the third item in the list. The DAB itself would be the fourth and would be the target if they were to search for "By Your Side". It is not only not a navigation convenience, it's unnecessary and distracting. I suggest you stop. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

OK - we disagree that the hatnote is useful, even though my solution is one click, and yours is typing and looking for things on a list. Happy editing - and remember that we are all trying to help make the site better.Timtempleton (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion at the DAB project. Your solution is not necessary according the other editors in the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I'll comment there and if anything interesting comes from it, I'll ping you. And I appreciate that you are not like some other editors here who default into conflict mode when someone disagrees with them.Timtempleton (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I was offering my interpretation and understanding of DAB. I'm not going to get into a fight over it. I asked "the experts" instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Babys

The article is being persistently reverted by a party claiming links to a present revival of the old group with two of its original members Wally Stocker and Tony Brock. Stedbeat (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing Manic Drive.

Manic Drive is a Christian Contemporary band, just like you say you are a Christian. Please stop editing that out of the article. You are acting like a Pharisee, they always doubted what my, and your Savior, Jesus Christ said and did. Please don't act like one of them, that is why people are leaving the church in droves, it's because people watch their every move, and every time they make a mistake, they get harassed. Please listen to what I just said. God bless you. Caleb David Smith (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such thing as "Christian Contemporary Music". That's part of the problem sir. That is your own, personal problem. The term is "contemporary Christian music". Not knowing and recognizing that you have the term wrong is big problem.

Another problem, and this is one that Wikipedia has with you making such an edit, is that there are no sources to support this fact. That's an ironic statement. I know that they are a Christian rock (not CCM) band. I have their albums. I have seen them perform in concert. I am well aware of they band, but I am not a reliable source. That's also the case with you. I believe that having been nominated for Covenant Awards should qualify them, but when they have won in "Rock Album of the Year" and "Hard Rock/Alternative Album of the Year", it's hard to state that they're CCM, but Christian rock would not be unreasonable. CCM, not in your life. We need to source the genres though. If you want to read an essay on the topic, see WP:GWAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for what I said earlier on your talk page and I wanted to let you know that someone else has explained what I was doing wrong. Thank you for your persistence in trying to help me. I will delete the other comment after you have responded to this one. Once again, I'm sorry for sounding off the way I did. God bless. Caleb David Smith (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I take no offense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you know RA08080? He won't get off my back even though I have apologized several times. HELP ME PLEASE! Caleb David Smith (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the user, but I'll look into it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Occupation

Hey Walter. I had a question. On the infobox for bands, what is the "Occupation" section for? No one seems to use it. Is it to tell if they are active, disbanded, or on hiatus? Metalworker14 (Sup) 8:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox musical artist#occupation states "This field is only relevant for individuals." Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard Souther

Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible to report certain users?

Hello

I know that you are an experienced user, so therefore I ask you: do you know if it is possible to report certain users? The article about VfL Wolfsburg has suffered a series of vandalism by two unregistered users. Do you know if it is possible to report them?

(Feel free to delete this question afterwards.)

Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's possibly to report individuals for specific behaviours. There are multiple boards depending on what kind of behaviour you're interested in. You might want to start talking about it on the article's talk page first. That's the sort of thing the admins who monitor those boards like to see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Dwayne Tryumf

Regardless of sourcing, unless it is particularly relevant to the subject, full birth dates are sometimes removed on request. However those requests are usually made by the subject or someone close to them. Its not a BLP violation as such to keep the sourced info there, it is just considered a courtesy to the subject to respect their privacy. For media BLP's, age can be a controversial/overly personal issue. Just because something can be sourced does not make it encyclopedic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

See also vs external links

Regarding the change back on Sep 2 on the Mennonite page to remove MC USA & Canada links from the External links section, I was wondering what the difference is between External Links and the See Also sections. Would it make sense to simply have moved the two links into the See Also section instead of removing them outright? BenHochstedler (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

See also sections are to be internal links to related Wikipedia articles. See WP:SEEALSO.

External links are to be pages or sites external to Wikipedia that add encyclopedic information. See WP:EL.

@BenHochstedler: Does that clear things up? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I read up on WP:EL to help me better understand. I think WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided item #13 (Sites that are only indirectly related...) helps explain why it makes sense to have removed MC USA/Canada from the external links. I see that the See Also section includes a link to the Mennonite Conferences page, which has links to their respective pages, and each of their respective pages has links to "official website". Thank you for helping!

BenHochstedler (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Swmrs

I see we have some conflicting opinions on how Swmrs should be formatted and I am having a hard time understanding your reasoning. Is it possible we could discuss some of these topics to avoid further conflict? Thanks! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to talk, but it's not about my incorrect formatting.

1. You removed citation needed templates without adding reliable sources.
2. You removed valid MOS:NUM formatting in favour of incorrect fomatting.
3. You created short sections. MOS:BODY Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.

As you can see, you're formatting incorrect. Now that we have the ground rules down, what would you like to discuss? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

And then there's the issue of the width of the bars. If you use decimal values, the image will not always be as clear. The tool that generates the rendered image often rounds up.

Also, if you use odd numbers for the inside bars, the space above and below will not match.

Look at this example.

The top row, 6 on 10, is the cleanest. It has a gap of 4: 2 above and 2 below. The next logical one, row three (5 on 10), clearly has has more space above. But the fifth row, (4 on 10) is clean again) while the last row (3 on 10) is uneven. The decimals are definitely uneven. Save the image. Open it in an image viewer. Look at the raw pixels. Blowing it up won't work because of the nature of the png. I can show the same with three or more lines. If you want to convey information clearly, the data must show clear separation. Looking at the last three rows, because 4 on 9 has an odd difference, it's unbalanced top-to-bottom, while the other two are balanced. That's why you should use even differences and whole numbers for charts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Devices with higher definition displays will likely not have an issue with the spacing though. That, ironically, includes mobile devices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

One of my questions were why were my sources for genres removed? and I think we could at least split the headings up a tad bit more. Thoughts? 75Indians75 (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources:

• http://punktastic.com/news/swmrs-have-released-a-tribute-to-miley-cyrus/ starts "surf-punk". Punktastic is not a RS. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Are allmusic.com, punkbands.com, www.roomthirteen.com etc. reliable sources for asserting notability of rock bands?
• http://www.rarasfarm.com/tag/swmrs/ is a blog and not a reliable source. It also does not support rock & roll. Nor does http://www.rarasfarm.com/2015/swmrs-homage-to-miley-cyrus/#more-7677
• The next two, which should have been merged into one reference, http://overblown.co.uk/swmrs-share-debut-single-miley-us-tour-dates/, you're relying on a headline. The prose don't discuss those genres.

Headings:

Did you read the ordering section?

There are five paragraphs in all. It really doesn't need a single sub-section or sub-heading. Check the history sections in The Rolling Stones or U2. Only one section in the first article's history section is shorter than the whole history section of the Swmrs article. None in the U2 article's history section are. So my question is, why do we need any sub-sections? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What if we were to break it up into three headings, "Early Years (2004-2010)", "Don't Be a Dick, Lost at Seventeen and departure of Neumann (2011-2014)" and "Name change, arrival of Mueller and Miley/Uncool (2015-present)" Or maybe we could work on expanding the page and looking for some genre sources? I'd love to work on this project with an experienced user like you! Sorry for the late response! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you follow my logic? Did you check those two articles? It only needs one section and two is already more than enough. Three is too many, as is four. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay I completely understand and agree. I feel like it would be best to just label one big section as "History". Now, I do think we should look for some genre sources to help improve on the page. Do you agree? 75Indians75 (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Peterson's albums

We need to get Slugs & Bugs & Lullabies, Walk, Appendix A: Bootlegs and B Sides, and Appendix M: Media / Music / Movies deleted, if we cannot find sufficiently reliable sources to prove notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The appendix albums are not notable though. They were released quietly and the only reason I know about them is a radio programme I listen to mentioned them. I'm not sure about the children's album. I suspect that it was nominated for or won a Dove award in the children's music. This is a vague memory from that programme. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are correct with regards to the children's album. The other three should be deleted, where they are not notable.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The message you left on my profile talk page

In the templated message that you posted on my talk page after you reverted my edit, you said that my edit wasn't constructive. As I provided a clear rationale for my edit in the summary, could you please explain why it wasn't constructive? Granted, deletion of a word may not seem construction, but it's often essential to remove parts to make the whole better. The presumed many previous discussions are not a factor here because the article must stand on its own or else give instructions to editors in hidden comments. Kumiponi (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The message was left after you did the same action and made no effort to improve the article or explain your position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all of the work you put into Wikipedia! I see you, by far, the most in my watchlist! bojo1498 talk 12:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tracklisting templates

Hello. I saw that you reverted my edits on the tracklisting templates of a few albums. The reasoning behind my doing so is that another editor told me that it was Wikipedia standard, although I could never find anything saying it was standard on "MOS", I kept the Standard edition, etc. template style of editing until that editor reverted again, and brought in other editors that said the ''Album Title'' {{nobold|– Standard edition}} template was Wikipedia standard, so I started editing that way to avoid the hassle of being warned. Since I cannot find anything relating to the ''Album Title'' {{nobold|– Standard edition}} "standard", am I fine to edit again using the Standard edition, etc. standard? Thank you for your time and input. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 3:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't always revert your edits, I simply removed the superfluous formatting. That format is not a wikipedia standard although some article use it. If you want, I can have it made a standard or not, but where did you have this discussion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you revert all my edits, I was just making reference to my tracklisting template edits on Hurricane, Brave, and Exhale. The talk referring to that "standard" is here. Also, I talked to an admin. about it, and they pointed me in the direction to WP:MOS Albums, which pointed me to Template:Track listing, which made it look like Standard edition, etc. is the normal standard. They also said to contact the user who told me it was "standard", and I did, but they removed my question from their talk page. (No surprise there...) It's not necessary that it's made standard, I'm just wanting to know what is standard. Hope that helped. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 9:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Just to let you know, you still have the blocked sock master listed as your mentee on your userpage. --JustBerry (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm giving it one more week. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for catching my over-zealous editing of Jürgen Klinsmann. I was reviewing new-edits, and reverted an edit by mistake. Name Omitted (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Template docs?

What are you talking about? Guess I need to read more about this... DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

At {{Infobox album}}: "If there is more than one producer, the names can be delimited by commas or

." It was recently changed from "three" to one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's annoying. I don't entirely agree with that. You're right, and I'll keep That's the Spirit the way it is, but I'm not going to be one who goes around changing every album to that standard. I think 2 fits a flatlist just fine. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's my understanding that up to three should be comma-separated and more than three use flat lists. I don't go looking for articles, but this one stood out when I was reverting vandalism earlier. It was more concerned about WP:OVERLINK, which you removed after the revert. Feel free to restore the list since it is more than one now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for explaining to me about the local flavors of English and the policy around them on Wikipedia. I didn't even know that sceptic was the British way of spelling it. :-)

Have a nice day!

Mr-aaron-gray (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Football

I understood now, they play 24 games in their conference and 10 in the other conference, so that means, you can play more games with stronger teams, it is not equal. But thats it.

Can you help me with this : 2006–07 Liga II, if you can split the big table in two tables, because all the seasons of Liga II have two separate tables. Thank you !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

List of Christian Hardcore bands

Hey, I was wondering if we were going to edit the LOCHB like the List of Christian metal artists. Metalworker14 (Sup) 1:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that there was a list of Christian hardcore bands. I have not edited it. I would argue that the former list is really a subset of the latter, and could probably be merged into that list. if you want to keep it separate, ask on the article's talk page and make proposals there. Let those who are interested in the topic comment there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, It's not exactly the same thing. We would have to change the name to "List of Christian metal artists" to "List of Christian metal and hardcore artists" Metalworker14 (Sup) 8:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco

Hi Walter I have a question for you. So Dallon Weekes has been recently confirmed to have been downgraded from fulltime member to touring member leaving Brendon Urie to be the bands only band. We currently have Weekes in the info box listed under former members but in parenthesis next to his name stating "(still with band as touring member)". How do you feel about this? Should we leave him out of it completely? Or should we put "(As Official Member)" next to his name instead? Any Ideas? Thanks! 75Indians75 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@75Indians75: It's my opinion that touring and studio musicians are not band members. It sounds like sources support that he's left the band so he should be listed as a former member. If that's not the case, add him under current members. No additional commentary should be listed in the infobox. See Template:Infobox musical artist#past members. It's best to discuss it on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But the thing is he is still with the band. Just not as a full member now. So how do we go about this?75Indians75 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I clearly don't have enough info. Discuss it on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I want to apologize for any difficulties I may have been to you. Bluhaze777 (talk) 04:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We all get hot under the collar and it's obvious that you're passionate about the subject and getting things right. I've been in your shoes before and I hope that I didn't intimate that I was piling-on. I would just like this major change to be agreed-on and generally correct. I'm glad you were WP:BOLD and made us think this through. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You're fine. Regardless, I am almost finished with my contributions. It's interesting to me how one edit led to another edit during this my past year here. I saw one edit I felt could be improved or added on one thing and then another and etc. Bluhaze777 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hater (Korn song)

I saw your edit in this article's edit history. I find it funny how you as a seemingly dedicated Christian would (I presume) listen to Korn. I could see how you would respect Head, though. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 23:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily a listener of the song. Just editing the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Serneholt

If you want to, please help by improving this weeks TAFI article Marie Serneholt. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Apology (Verification and Validation)

I went back and followed the link for your original edit (on verification and validation). After seeing your rational, I admit that you were right. Thanks for your patience; I won't trouble you further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.225.12 (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a problem, and I admire your persistence in light of my terse response. Those responses are usually for other long-time editors. I should remember that new editors might not be familiar with our common shorthand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Artist

What do you think about the David Thulin article in its present form.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not much content, but it looks OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Oba Chandler

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article about Oba Chandler. It is a article that I have edited a lot over the years. So any improvements etc are welcomed. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Anberlin

Hey, I was simply removing sections that have little to no impact on the band page. The fact that in most interviews the band refutes the ideas of being a "Christian band" was enough grounds to classify them as a hard rock band and an alternative rock band, their most prominent genres, and remove the inaccurate and rather generic non-descriptive Christian rock genre that makes literally zero sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentBitsko (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The removal of this content had no impact on the band page? A four-paragraph-long section, with eight references has no impact? It really doesn't matter what the band does or doesn't say they are. It matters what reliable sources say they are or are not. While they may not have wanted to be pigeon-holed into some category, they have played in festivals that are associated with the sub-culture and have been nominated for and won awards for their participation in it. If anything, the section should be updated and expanded. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it, please take a look at the article Lena Larsson that I have created. Could really need some help with it. Any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For All Kings

Hi Walter. Regarding the "citations needed" template on For All Kings, I agree that it should be sourced, but until the album is released, we can't provide a detailed description on the production, packaging, etc. In the meantime, I believe it's safe to list the band members without a cite, because it's obvious that an album by Anthrax is going to recorded by its members.--Retrohead (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can't provide verifiable details, don't add any content. See WP:V. When the band members have changed over time, it's really not safe to add them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. Can I ask for your opinion about the GA reassessment on Alphastates? It seems it hasn't drawn any input sa far, therefore any comments are welcomed.--Retrohead (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions

@The Cross Bearer and 3family6: Hello. I hope you don't mind me asking a few others to join this, and my asking your opinion, but I would like you all's opinion on a Wikipedia question. Although I believe different culture's can create a "communication-barrier" between editors, I would like your opinion on an ongoing issue I've been having. I've had some run-ins with another editor, that I thought were just "communication-barriers", but after reading Wiki:Bully, sections such as "Aggressive undoing" and Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy have made me raise my eyebrows. Look at these [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I figure you'll see what I'm talking about. I understand myself and the other editor started off on the wrong foot, due to me not knowing the ups and downs of Wikipedia yet, but it still continues. Am I overthinking this and making something out of nothing? I have even tried to apologize to the editor before for whatever I've done on my end, but they removed it right after. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 00:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's sorted out now. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 15:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Molotschna/Molochna Colony

Walter, Interesting to read above that you have direct ties to the colony via your mother. I do understand your removing the Blog post as reference to Matt Groening. It is an interesting connection, however. As a trivia buff, wondering... is there any appropriate way to include the link somehow within the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia? Perhaps as an external link or some other means? Jsniessen (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not intend to remove that sort of information only the idea that the term for those who were associated with the colony would be Ukrainian Mennonite. If there's valuable information in the reference, support it. Probably the best way to do that would be to add a section of notable individuals associated with the colony. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Canada seal

Sorry all my fault...I should have invoked BRD of the bat ...instead of a day latter after the RfC. I tried today..but no luck...will wait a few more days till RfC is clear to all. -- Moxy (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC will go on for a few weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Belated apology

Just wanted to say sorry for how I handled Talk:Jira (software). You made a perfectly reasonable request and my reply made it sound like you would kick up a fuss regardless of the rationale, which was obviously not the case. I was just having one of those days I guess, but that's no excuse and I do apologise. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I understood your thinking and I don't think you handled it poorly. I'm usually a reasonable kind of guy and really just wanted a summary rationale, but I have seen how some editors badger admins and I could see how my response may have appeared. I'm just pleased I didn't get a short block for being argumentative ; ) Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

@Walter Görlitz: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

OK

OK, so at least tell me what "the point" is and reply to my edit instead of just reverting. What's different between pages for The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Oasis and U2, and where does it say flatlists don't apply to three genres? Rodericksilly (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I fixed those articles, so there's nothing different now.

I just assumed that you were able to find the documentation for the template on your own. You'll fine what I'm talking about at template:Infobox musical artist##cite note-lists-1. That note is linked to several parameters in the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't want to get into any edit warring or bad feeling, I just thought I was tidying things up, that's all. It was all in good faith. Rodericksilly (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I was doing the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by a sockpuppet on the Football Records in Spain page

Hello Sir,

Kindly take a look at the disruptive editing of the user "2001:620:d:4ad2::323" who is removing sourced material after a consensus has been reached. Also take a look at his user history on Wikipedia where I have found him removing sourced material at will for no apparent reason.

The "dispute" is ongoing on this Wikipedia page below:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Football_records_in_Spain&action=history

2 primary sources (1 from the RFEF even) have been included and they been that for well over 1 year yet he suddenly decided on his own to remove the material.

Here for instance he has removed correct sourced information for no reason that I had to correct.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Derbi_barcelon%C3%AD&action=history

Here is his user history.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323

He is a sockpuppet moreover. It obvious that he is a RM fan hellbent on disrupting factual data/information about FCB if it does not suit him.

Where can I contact a moderator to discuss this issue?

Thanks in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Suitcivil133: WP:ANI would be the usual place, but you might try an appeal at WP:FOOTY where there is at least one admin who is also a member. They may understand the situation more clearly and be willing to act in a more holistic manner than admins whose only concern is vandalism or sockpuppetry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

man

Put back the flags here !! 2009 World Football Challenge and all editions ! how many football articles have you read ? 2015–16 UEFA Champions League group stage check this out and see that are with flags ! (and all other football articles has flags) why did you delete it ?

2015 International Champions Cup - also with flags ! so put the flags back !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited quite a few. The two most recent FIFA World cups and several others. WP:INFOBOXFLAG governs the guidelines. Many European and Spanish-language editors also try to edit the English articles. The rules are different there, so I could see difference in some articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I showed you two English articles (and I can show you another 10) ! Everywhere are flags , it looks bad without flags and hard to read, and maybe people does not know from what country is the team ! So please put the flags backs.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean the flags from "Matches".--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

2009 edition has a column with flags in the result table. It is OK. But here : 2011 World Football Challenge - no flags indicating the locations of the teams !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Also here : 2012 World Football Challenge - add a column with nation and it will be good !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. I don't have time to argue with you. You clearly didn't understand the argument I provided. When you do, then you can discuss with me. Showing me that violations to those two exist doesn't mean that they're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not celebrate Christmas, sorry, so if you say that those two articles are wrong, why you do not correct them ?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Look how bad and boring looks this page made by you : 2011 World Football Challenge without any single flag next a team, not even in the table, not in the list of matches !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Koloff article

I want to hear what you think of Kolby Koloff?The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Very weak. I deleted the speedy nomination, but there's really not much meat to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why the delete?

Why did you delete PDLlogo2016.jpg from the PDL page? I thought I made it clear the I got the logo from the PDL website www.uslpdl.com. I've used Non-free licensing logos before. I just don't get it.GrouchoPython (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. the tool I used reverted too far. I only meant to revert your last edit. I think I reverted to the right place this time, but feel free to revert again if needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it. Happy Holidays and Happy New Year.GrouchoPython (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Toronto FC Player of the Year

Hi there Walter. I noticed a user added a Toronto FC Player of the Year template to Giovinco's page and was wondering if you know anything about this award? I've tried messaging the user who added it but he gave no response... On the awards' page it doesn't list a single reference or link to go to. I've tried Google searching various supposed award recipients and cannot find a single article on this award. Do you know anything about this? Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea about the award. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So this is what I mean. There is no information about this award. Either it isn't really an award or it isn't notable enough for it to be published. It isn't on Google and isn't on TFC's website. What should be done about that article? How does nomination for deletion work? There are absolutely no sources listed, so it must meet requirements? I will do some research. Thanks for your replies. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)