User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orphaned non-free image File:VOTASEDD.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VOTASEDD.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

WiR focus on music and dance in July

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

FlightTime

FlightTime (talk · contribs) apparently has no clue what WP:OWN means and writes directly to an archive to avoid discussion. Curious. So let's see what this META:DICK actually did.

1. Editor 2017-06-26T21:08:56 "Restore genre's" - but actually moved the genres that that the anon removed after reverting the anon's edit. I don't care, either way, but if you're going to revert, do it. But don't move it without explaining why. I reverted assuming it was an error: 2017-06-26T22:06:23‎ "Where did the genres (plural, not posessive) go?" (missed an "s" in my summary)
2. Editor responded without answering 2017-06-26T22:10:54 "You tell me, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korn&diff=prev&oldid=787676435" I reverted again
3. Final edit and it's a poor reason: 2017-06-26T23:09:32‎ "Better place for note". How is after a better place? It's equally ignored. In my two years of watching this article and other to revert vandalism, hidden notes about genre have been placed before, after, and on both sides of genres. The WP:GWARriors don't care. They will change it where they want. But editors who know better should just make an actual revert, or actually explain their full edit when making it, not get passive aggressive on other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Pale Horses

Perhaps you would be kind enough to show me where 1) Redirects are not to be categorised and 2) Why you do not object to other people categorising redirects. You may also like to consider what I have already said on my talkpage which have patently refused to address. Thank you for your consideration. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: Perhaps you would be kind enough to show me where redirects are to be categorized. I don't police wikipedia, I only modify articles on my watchlist when they don't follow logical editing formatting. I have not patently refused to address anything on your talk page, it's immaterial to my life. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning New editor requires assistance on various finer points of several MoSes, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "New editor requires assistance on various finer points of several MoSes". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

!Hero

I changed back the month to shorter versions while tweaking another ref, because MOS states that it should be shortened in items like references. If it way important just change it back again, and I won't re-change it. Also, if you familiar with this Rock Opera, I did change some of the cast names to match the DVD, because I cannot find other sources. Thanks speednat (talk)

@Speednat: The if you follow {{use mdy}} you'll see that the actual template is actually, {{use mdy dates}}, and a bot will come along to both expand it and add the date stamp. Also, if the MoS states it, point me there and I'll correct it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

and you will correct the MOS or the article ;) speednat (talk)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Formats and yes it doesn't say do just can, but either way change or no change it is not a fight worth having. speednat (talk)

The plan is to correct the MoS, but it doesn't state to use the template, unless I'm completely missing it. The article is using the correct form. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I stated above but maybe not as clearly as could have.... It doesn't say do just can. "Only where brevity is helpful(refs, tables, infoboxes, etc.)" But it also does not say it can't. speednat (talk)

I get the feeling you and I are not talking about the same thing.

You twice added {{use mdy}} instead of {{use mdy dates}} and you supported that action by pointing to the MoS, which doesn't even suggest that a template should be used. So what are you talking about? Or more to the point, why would you 1) select to use that specific template, 2) remove the correct template 3) state that the MoS stated that it should be used and 4) why is using the incorrect, shorter version preferable to the correct version? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Most assuredly talking about different things. My apologies, I was communicating about the change of abbreviated month to full months within the ref. I inadvertently changed other aforementioned template back to w/o "date". speednat (talk)

!Hero

Just giving you aheads up that I am going to change a few of these items that you erroneously "corrected". Red links are a very useful tool and need to be left alone unless of course there is no plausible need for a page to be created. Also the wiki-linkage of instruments may seem unnecessary to you or I, but others may not know and may wish to link quickly. See Wikiproject Albums personnel section, you will see that they state, "The forms of participation (for example instruments)...and linked on the first occurrence only." Which is what I had done. Please, if you feel the need to revert someones hard work, please either ensure you are right or communicate directly to that person or both. Now granted, I am wrong sometime and there are battles to be picked, but de-red-linking is not useful nor proper. Thank you. speednat (talk)

@Speednat: Is there a hope that they will ever become blue links? If not, don't create them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not trying to ruffle your feathers but that is not correct. The guidelines are "in general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic " speednat (talk)

My feathers are not ruffled in the slightest. I'm not trying to ruffle yours but instead, trying to explain the general current understanding of when redlinks should be added: if there's ever a possibility of them becoming a blue link.

I understand what the guideline currently states. It is years old and the current feeling among experienced editors is that it has to change. Feel free to add the redlinks. Be prepared for me to place a {{uw-linking}} template on your talk page, and for a discussion to start to finally get this reversed with the article you're working on as the example of what the problem is. It will make an excellent example. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact, WP:REDNOT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have responded to your ANI and regarding the abbreviated months in the references, it clearly states that that is fully acceptable MOS Dates and also I will quote "Only where brevity is helpful(refs, tables, infoboxes, etc.)" that is when abbreviated months are acceptable as long as the citation style accepts which it does. Thank you speednat (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you would know Christian Music, I took the first name off the list btw and I do not know Christian Music, but the first name did a basic search and found her notability Nirva Dorsaint. I shouldn't have to go down the entire list that is why red-links are good so others can start the pages that I don't etc. Alright, I went to the second name on the "redlist" and Donnie Lewis is a member of Raze (Christian pop group). Now I could go down the list and probably 75% would be notable but "I don't know christian music" and... speednat (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Speednat: If you think the ANI is about abbreviated months in the references, you're wrong. It's about the sea of red you created and your refusal to accept that WP:REDNOT is the guiding factor in the MoS you're attempting to rely on. You should have to go down the list, and if Seth & Nirva are notable (you don't know how to link properly, you should only be linking to that article if there's biographic information about the individual there. I have seen too many band member articles redirect to a band that has one sentence about that subject: when they joined the band. If you have a link for a subject, add it. If not, don't add a redlink. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am done accepting your insults. That is two now. Please refrain from insulting my implication or otherwise. I am neither inexperienced, nor a wiki-lawyer. Please read policies in their entirety or at least state that you are cherry-picking and ignoring other sections. If I am making mistakes it is because I am having to respond to your insults and attacks on multiple fronts. I mean seriously. My talk page, your talk page, ANI, Mediation, Policy change on redlinks, whats next? Please leave the articles alone and "NO" I do not have to go down the list and de-redlink them all. When you talk about policys and guidelines maybe first and foremost read this suggestion and this one in generalspeednat (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. You're ignoring WP:REDNOT. Period. When I'm discussing your behaviour, which was the underlying problem as indicated at mediation I attempted to initiate, it's fair to discuss your behaviour. And when you change your edits to cover up your problems, that's another issue entirely. You don't have to go down and remove the redlinks you repeatedly introduced, but you shouldn't restore them when they are removed by an editor you is following a guideline, even if you refuse to acknowledge it exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to BladeRunner talk page

Blade Runner Transcript — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX2077 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

User blocked for continued deliberate copyright violation. Canterbury Tail talk 22:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Email

Hi Walter, you haven't configured an e-mail address on your Wikipedia account, but could you please e-mail me at salvidrimsalvidrim.net so I can run something by you concerning an article you're involved with? Thanks in advance! :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Walter Görlitz. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 12:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've absolutely no idea why you think you can revert the club name back to Inter Milan, yet you fail to address this 'so called' mistake on EVERY single other Inter article!? You clearly have nothing else to do with your time, and so you devote your time to being a tyrant instead. Listen up, 'cause I've a proposition for you, what if instead of revealing your hostile nature to everybody on here...you actually do something about what's going on with all of the problematic wiki articles on the Wiki EN - starting with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juventus_F.C._Youth_Sector), heed this message Why Wikipedia Is in Trouble

Kő Cloch (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Kő Cloch (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kő Cloch: First, you have no clue how to use {{talkback}}. While that doesn't mean you're equally clueless when it comes to the rest of Wikipedia, it certainly is an indication.

Second, where's the club article on Wikipedia? It's not me who is reverting back to the correct English-language name, it's you who is reverting it away from the name. That name is the consensus. Every time an editor like you who thinks they know better tries to move it to the Italian-language name of the club the community forms around the article's talk page and tells people like you just how wrong their ideas are.

Third, I don't have to make this change on every other Inter Milan article, but I will do it when I find it.

Fourth, you're why Wikipedia is in trouble, not me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing my edits

Leave me alone and stop editing my personal page and my edits. I will block if all possible if you keep changing my edits. I have personal ties to a number of musicians in Christian Hip-Hop. I cannot cite a text or a DM from that particular artist. I will divile certain information because I am bound by certain contractual information to not reveal my sources. It is not legally required for me to reveal who my sources are unless it is public knowledge such as social media posts and online articles. Leave me alone and do not call me racist. You are annoying me and I’ve had it. Go harass someone else who actually is making edits that are causing a negative impact and posting false information.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. KainanJoubert (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:LQ

Curly Turkey on an LQ rampage

You've just done the opposite of MOS:LQ in these reverts: [1][2]

I assume you misread my edits. Please revert. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC) @Curly Turkey:

You have not understood LQ correctly then. It reads, "include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material", and the period is definitely present in the sentence quoted from http://www.missioalliance.org/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-the-billy-graham-rule-and-love-like-jesus/ (the original material) so I'm not sure why you moved it outside the quote mark. I assume you don't have access to the other content and so don't know if it is or is not present in that material. If I assumed incorrectly, feel free to revert that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read that very, very carfully, Walter—the key is "only if". It does not say to "include terminal punctuation that was present in the original material", it says never to include punctuation that was not included in the original (as that would be misquotation). The sentence fragments that are being quoted—

"avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion"

and

"the kind of environment where inappropriate relating is more likely to occur"

are not complete grammatical sentences in and of themselves and therefor cannot, in and of themselves, be terminated—this is why we don't include terminal punctuation in image captions such as "Curly Turkey on an LQ rampage". The period in both the sentences you reverted terminates the sentence as a whole (the sentence that contains the quote), not the sentence fragment—this is the "logical" part of "logical quotation". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I am reading it very carefully. "Avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion." Looks like a complete sentence to me. However, "the kind of environment where inappropriate relating is more likely to occur", could either be a full sentence, but it would be more likely to be a fragment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion." Looks like a complete sentence to me.—superficially it is, if you toss out all context. It is a sentence fragment because:

• it is presented as one: ... he resolved then to "avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion".
• It is not the original complete sentence: "We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion."
• presenting it as a "complete sentence" changes the grammar: "Avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion." is in imperative form. The original is not in imperative form; the fragment requires the containing sentence to give it the grammar it has in the original.

So, no, the first sentence is not "a complete sentence".

The second is not a complete sentence by any stretch of the imagination—not even superficially like the first. How could it be interpreted as such? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you think so. Bye. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Note originally removed as per per WP:DENY, as likely an WP:EVADE editor .....but looks like others want to see this play-out.......see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Revision history . --Moxy (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lies

VeggieTales got cancelled is a lie. And Big Idea Entertainment is a big lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.112.251 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide

Please do not re-add these citations. This book is removed from sale by the publisher so finding any reference of it being a mirror is hard, but see this post which includes an excerpt which should tell you everything about the nature of it. Lulu.com is an on-demand printing service. RoseCherry64 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@RoseCherry64: I agree that it is self-published, but your link offers no proof that it's a mirror of Wikipedia. The reason must be changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Did you even read the excerpt? "Headbanger redirects here. For the figure skating lift, see Figure skating lifts § Illegal positions." — It's directly mirrored from Headbanging. Please do not revert this again. RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I did. Did you? The quote is

The origin of the term "headbanging" is contested. It is possible that the term "headbanger" was coined during Led Zeppelin's first US tour in 1969. During a show at the Boston Tea Party, audience members in the first row were banging their heads against the stage in rhythm with the music.

A definition describing "headbanging", from the book "Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide" By Yrjänä Kegan

Then below that it shows the definition from Wikipedia and posts a screenshot of the article as it appeared in August 2015. So unless I'm misreading it, they are two separate statements. The first is taken from the book and the second is taken from Wikipedia. You seem to be confused. I'm archiving this discussion and taking it to a larger forum as you should have been pinged about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Rivera.cg

When you welcomed this new user, the templated message did invite asking for help on your talk page. When Rivera.cg did that, you deleted the comment with instructions in the edit summary. New users may not know how or where to find edit summaries on talk pages. This newbie appeared to be genuinely asking for help and your response was bitey. I have replied on that user's talk page, which is where your reply should have gone. Jonathunder (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: and the edit notice here makes it clear:

• If you're here to respond to a comment on your talk page, please respond on your talk page instead. You can alert me by using the Reply to template after responding there. {{Reply to|Walter Görlitz}}
• If you're here to tell me about an edit of yours that I reverted, please explain why it should be included on the article's talk page. I likely have the article on my watchlist and will see it eventually.

Not that hard to understand. Edit summaries are below the edit box. They will see the edit summary in their alerts section. Edit notices are above and in my case have a bright yellow background and take-up half the screen. Thanks for stepping in to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is often hard for newbies, which we all were once. If you want people to follow your own preferences to communicate with you, please don't use a welcome template which invites them to post here. Jonathunder (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Comma space period

Sorry about that. I rephrased the sentence several ways before saving and the end punctuation just got all FUBARred without my noticing it. Thanks for the clean up. --Khajidha (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I figured it was a mistake. I wasn't worried. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting

Hi Walter

What exactly is your objection to a simple fix as a by-product to another edit, e.g. [3] to Canadian Classique?

The XHTML breaks <br />are to help syntax highlighters, which misinterpret a plain <br>as an unclosed tag. You may not use syntax highlighting, which is obviously nobody's business but yours ... but why go the trouble of reverting a fix which helps those who do use syntax highlighting? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: XHTML breaks are not necessary. To be clear, though, I didn't revert your fix, I reverted your insertion of XHTML breaks. There is one syntax highlighter that hasn't been updated to avoid using them and for that, your code continually inserts it. There's no need for it (other than to support the one syntax highlighter) so I have quietly reverted the addition for several weeks. Now, I'm making you aware of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Walter, this seems utterly perverse. The XHMTL tag closes are necessary for those who use syntax highlighting. If that's not you, then fine ... but why impede the utility for those who do need them?

The XHTML breaks cause nobody any harm, and I really struggle to understand why you are using your time to perform a task whose only purpose is to degrade the editing experience of those who do use syntax highlighting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It is utterly perverse that the one tool that does syntax highlighting has not been updated in five years. That's when HTML5 supplanted XHTML as the future of the web. Drop the one syntax highlighter in favour of a tool that does it correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will continue to remove the incorrect and unnecessary insertion of XHTML breaks to encourage editors who use this one tool to switch away from in in favour of one that might do the same work but be more current in its use of web standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you take time out of your day in order to perform edits which have precisely zero benefit to readers, with the sole purpose of actively impeding the works of other editors, in the hope that they will somehow realise that the failure of syntax highlighting to work on that page is a product solely of your active disruption which was intended as a passive-aggressive device to goad them to use software of which you approve. What a bizarre mindset

BTW, there is noting incorrect about closed BR tags.

And is extraordinary that you continue to assert simply that closed BR are unnecessary. The point is not that they are somehow "necessary", simply that they are both helpful and harmless.

Help:Line-break_handling specifically says the rather common form <br> also causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being. Please observe the guideline by ending your deliberately disruptive editing, and revert the disruption editing you have done do far.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

your how to guide is useless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting, take 2

Walter, you have archived discussion, mass-reverted yet again, and trolled me by issuing a bogus disruptive-editing warning on my talk.

You have seen Help:Line-break_handling. You have based all your actions of your false claim that <br /> is incoirrect, but you have cited no policy or guideline to support your edits.

You haven't a leg to stand on here, and you are behaving very badly.

Stop your trolling, stop your disruption ... and revert your edits, or I take this to ANI without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You mass added them, again! I have made no such claim. I have repeatedly stated that it is your preferred breaks are part of the XHTML standard, not that they are incorrect. I'm not trolling. Every article I removed the unnecessary addition of XHTML breaks on is on my watchlist. Stop applying them unnecessarily. You have no leg on which to stand. Archiving again. Do not commence a new discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested

Hello, fellow Pending changes reviewer! As you and me are reverting these nonsense on the Bayern Munich article (and we are right in that), You may be interested here (ANI report by me). Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 23:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi, I've blocked you for a week per the ANI report mentioned above. You were edit warring to restore unsourced information to a BLP. The location someone lives could very easily be construed as private, but even if it couldn't, you reverted the removal of unsourced information multiple times. There is no exemption because the editor in question is an IP. Your last block for edit warring was 72 hours, which is why I have made this a week. You may appeal by following the instructions at WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I did not violate 3RR, but I did edit war.

@TonyBallioni: So the wikihound, 142.112.229.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is still unblocked for more egregious behaviour clearly breaking 3RR: four edits in under an hour, and I'm convinced the editor is a sock of a blocked editor.

@Dibbydib: These are two ranges IPs of the WikiHound. If you do editor interaction with them and my edits, you'll see far too many overlaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.112.228.0/24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.49.139.0/24

I have no clue where the IPs you came up with came from.

@NinjaRobotPirate: You're having a hard time counting. I did not violate 3RR on the article, but I'd be happy to see your evidence in the location where you made the error. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.160.89.0/24 is from a different city—Winnipeg rather than Ottawa—the edit parttern coincides. I believe the editor was either employed in the city, or was a student there and is now in Ottawa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I don't think that's a blocked user. I haven't run a check, but I see nothing in the logs that would indicate we are dealing with block evasion. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we have constructive users who intentionally only edit as IPs. Whomever is editing on that range appears to be a good contributor who you are reverting for no reason because you think they are harassing you. That needs to stop. Stuff like Talk:Rachel Held Evans and your behaviour in the article that led to this block is disruptive behaviour in itself that if continued will likely lead to some form of sanctions longer than 1 week: either a long block or some sort of topic ban. You need to stop with this conspiracy theory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I did not claim that editor was currently blocked, only that the editor was wikihounding me.

I also pointed out that you made a one-sided block for an edit war. The other editor, who made four edits, was not blocked.

You'll have to explain your logic about "the stuff at Rachel Held Evans". I honestly have no clue how explaining that an ip-hopping anon can get away with this and registered editors cannot. I'm not looking for a lift of the block but for admins to stop blaming prolific editors for stopping unproductive editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And just to be clear, this anon makes some excellent edits, it's the Wikihounding that I object to, and that stemmed from the editor's time in Winnipeg. So I'm not looking for a block, but a promise from the anon to not knowingly edit in spaces where I have. I am willing to make the same claim Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are things in articles that can be improved, then IPs should feel free to fix them. That's how Wikipedia works. You don't get any privilege because you've edited for years. I also don't buy the world traveller story. Please stop reverting the theoretical traveling Canadian because you don't like them touching your articles. Even if it is one person, your approach here is disruptive and the exact opposite of preventing unproductive editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't believe it then. It fits several sock investigations I've followed. I'm sorry you find my approach as disruptive. You can't imagine what I think of you as an admin, but by all means, keep up the stellar work.

Regardless, wikihounding is not permitted. I'm not asking for any privilege. I'm not reverting the wikihound knowingly on the first revert. I revert edits according to what I understand policy and guidelines to be. I then check who the IP is, and it's usually Ottawa. But of course, you don't buy that, but then you already think I'm being disruptive so I'll save you the time: no response needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I do have one request, could you please unblock the other IP address? I have no intentions of editing while logged-out, but that's a bright red flag to my co-workers, and could result in HR actions. That has been done in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I won't lie I'm not fan of Walter Görlitz but I have to agree with him here. However wrong he and the IP are, an IP can break whatever rules they want, get not much more than a tap on the wrist block and then come back whenever they feel like with little repercussions. It isn't fair to serious editors who put their heart into the project to apply the same rules. SlightSmile 13:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Canadian Nationalist Party

Dawg, you totally outed that user. You shouldn't connect info like to a user who has not previously disclosed it. Please don't do that again. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Arvo Pärt

Not worth the hassle if you prefer not to discuss, thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: Let me make this clear. I do want to discuss it, but it seems that you elected not to read the edit notice that says "If you're here to tell me about an edit of yours that I reverted, please explain why it should be included on the article's talk page." When I reverted your first comment here, I made it clear where I will discuss it: one of the projects. Maybe you don't understand what a project is or where to find them. Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians would be appropriate. Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music would be as well. You could even go to Wikipedia:Short description, multiple points argue against your suggestion. One of the problems with Wikipedia is that important discussions happen in private rather at projects or in more public locations. You're not going to convince me that birth year is need in short descriptions here, but you may do so in a public place. I am now going to archive this discussion because it's the wrong place to have one on the topic you have chosen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your Kind Message!Chantern15 (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

I really do appreciate it!