User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2018-12

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Walter Görlitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Alex Morgan

I have done a test on the website https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_tables.asp and typed the following in:- <!DOCTYPE html> <html> <head> <style> table, th, td { border: 1px solid black; border-collapse: collapse; } th, td { padding: 5px; text-align: left; } </style> </head> <body> <h2>Cell that spans two rows:</h2> <table style="width:100%"> <tr> <th>Name:</th> <td>Bill Gates</td> </tr> <tr> <th rowspan=3>Telephone:</th> <td>55577854</td> </tr> <tr> <td>55577855</td> </tr> <tr> <td>55585434</td> </tr> </table> </body> </html> which comes out with the result which the 'Telephone' bit spans three rows. Whether the numbers are quoted or not, it works both ways.

Thanks for giving me the w3schools.com website, it will help to avoid table preview errors in the future. Iggy (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It does come out the same only because browsers allow for it, but the HTML standard is to quote the numbers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

Hi Walter. You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style. I've gone ahead and added a source to back up your recent addition to August 2. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Then 100% of the entries should be removed as none are sourced. Pretty stupid time to make this change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction, only one is sourced: Alain Giresse. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the idea is to start improving the articles. The exemption from WP:V was recently changed and some of us are trying to ensure that new additions meet the quality goals. I think you can appreciate efforts to raise the quality of what Wikipedia delivers. Your help would be appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Toddst1: Thanks. Perhaps {{citation needed}} would be appropriate on new entries until this is more well-known, say until the end of March. Should be easy enough to source from the articles though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Belated

Happy New Year!

Walter Görlitz,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@7&6=thirteen: Thanks! Just saw this. Happy new year to you as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC comment

How is the RFC not worded neutrally? I asked if should we do it, and confirm what a "yes" or "no" stance would be. It doesn't get any more basic than that. Sergecross73 msg me 04:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: You only offered a binary choice: should dates be included or not? There is are other options: let the number of entries determine whether they're included; form a consensus based on sub-project (pop, metal, jazz, etc); local consensus. I ignored the binary option and an admin could determine that my response is not within keeping and ignore my response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, it wasn't meant to imply a binary option, it was merely meant to display the general idea of the dispute to those unfamiliar with music template editing, and confirm what exactly a "Yes" or "No" stance would mean. For example, I've come across a number of RFCs and discussions where people don't pay attention to the wording of the question, and it becomes unclear what exactly they're supporting. Some say "Yes, include it" while other's say "Yes, exclude it", and it gets confusing when it comes time to figure out the consensus. I'd welcome a viable third option, and I think people generally know that they can propose whatever they want in RFCs, so I don't really think its an issue. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Walter. Thanks for your kind introduction to Wikipedia! I'm excited to be a contributor here! Sethowens (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Liner notes

I am going by what Allegeon's past album links say.

Sorry if you did not like my edits, I was just trying to be helpful. MetalSword (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

InterestingCircle

I had actually already submitted an SPI request to have InterestingCircle checked against Motivação about 15 minutes before you did. So since we don't actually need to have two simultaneous requests open for the same users on the same evidence, I just wanted to let you know that I merged yours into mine as a followup "user comment" instead of a full separate request. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need to identify with the show any more the dozen or so other program articles I have edited. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tommy Sims

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tommy Sims. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

How to add a citation

You added to the Hawk Nelson page that I needed to add a citation. How do I do that? Cruzin64 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hey there. I've started a request for comment that you might be interested in – feel free to have your say when you get a chance. Thanks. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Twenty One Pilots

Thoughts on Regional at Best? Are they still the same as before? -- AlexanderHovanec (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

(Talk:Twenty One Pilots#Follow-up on Regional at Best)

Zwarte_Piet#RfC_about_the_character's_visual_state

Hi Walter. A courtesy note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Zwarte_Piet#RfC_about_the_character's_visual_state. Apologies for the delay in closing this request for comment; there is a backlog and it's being worked through as quickly as possible. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 15:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018 Removal of tag close

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed the tag close (<br />) I added to the Hudson's Bay (retailer) page in this edt? As far as I know it makes no material difference to display, but if you have the syntax highligherter gadget enabled (as I do) the lack of closed tags causes problems and the whole rest of the article is highlighted as if it is part of the br tag. I only make this change if I notice it while making other edits, and until now didn't think it was a problem. Thanks, Beevil (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beevil: I did not remove the break, I changed it from the unnecessary XHTML break and used the standard HTML 5 break. Since it makes no material difference to display, why add it? The syntax highlighter is out-of-date and needs to be updated with HTML5 standards as XHTML has been superseded by HTML5. I only make this change if I notice it while making other edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you removed the break, just the close. The MediaWiki software itself apparently converts <br> tags to <br /> internally, so I don't see how one is any more appropriate than the other in articles. Regardless, I have no control over the syntax highlighter, but <br /> makes it a little easier to use for those who have it enabled, while changing to <br> has no benefit to you or anyone else. I only asked originally to make sure there wasn't an important reason to use one over the other that I'd missed. Beevil (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You stated I removed the tag close, not the break. As a user of that tool you have a choice of whether to use it or not. You also have the choice to talk to the maintainer of the tool or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Genres?

Hi Walter Görlitz, do you know what genres the staff at FACT Mag are calling "Nuh Ready Nuh Ready" by Calvin Harris here please? Theo (contribs) 07:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Neither reviewer really makes a clear statement. The closest is that it's "dancehall". They both address the use of "dub horns", but horns aren't really an element of dubstep, so that's a bit confusing. The only other clear attestation is "pop". Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it's clear enough that I can add the source to the infobox as a ref for dancehall and pop? Also, when Wilson calls it pop, does he mean song made for charts or the genre of popular music? Thanks. Theo (contribs) 16:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

For dancehall, yes. Pop? Not really. It's too broad a category and the specific definition we use is not necessarily what the author had in mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Added it as a ref for dancehall, that was really helpful, thanks. Theo (contribs) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

VivaSlava

I was following this shock VivaSlava for awhile. ...thought he was doing better with useless edits....but have not looked over there edits in some time. Have you noticed an overall problem? Charles lindberg vs VivaSlava.--Moxy (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: Not too much. Just not using edit summaries. The evidence seems clear to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt it's him I just find it easier following this shock then finding and following all the other names he will try to use. Been at it for 4 years now.--Moxy (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Headings

Hi. Earlier in February, you changed subheadings on two Duran Duran articles (including the main one) to semicolons [1]. Per WP:PSEUDOHEAD however, we shouldn't use semicolons to bold anything other than description lists anymore. Bold is also preferred for screen readers. Thanks. Ss112 21:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ss112:. I forgot that the correct way was to make them bold—I had it completely backward—and have applied the correct formatting consistently recently after re-reading PSEUDOHEAD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ellac (musician)

Not sure what happened here. There was no visible PROD when I tagged it with the AfD and I didn't get an edit conflict. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Perception (NF album)

You cited MOS:NUM in your edit summary. Where on that article does it support what you changed? I'm reading: "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." Hence my change of "3.5 out of 5" to "three-and-a-half out of five". I don't think a rating really falls under the category of mathematical formulae, which say use figures instead of words. Ss112 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: MOS:NUMNOTES and MOS:FRAC. Sorry. I just assume everyone knows these. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand of what I'm reading there, it states it can be written either way, but I suppose it's best to have consistency on the article considering "No. 1" is used later on. Ss112 23:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That's MOS:NUMERO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

How can I keep from singing.

I don't have the technical skills to make editing changes to Wikipedia, so I don't think I'll try in future. After checking The Christian Pioneer Vol. 23 1869, p39 on Internet Archive, I was simply trying to correct an inconsistency between the correct publication date (1869) cited in the text, and the incorrect publication note in the accompanying footnote. I suspect from checking the footnoted source that the publication date of the Atlantic Monthly should be 27 August 1868, not 7 Aug, but I have no means of checking the original publication to be sure.Davidbro (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Date format

How to change date format in articles while using script? Like with this edit in Hell Can Wait. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: The instructions for "installation" are listed on the page of the script. You add a link to the JavaScript to your profile and the links will be available when you edit any page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Canplace

Bearcat, others and myself were bold and updated the text at WP:CANPLACE. If you have not noticed, you should review. But I think there is nothing there you would disagree with. Alaney2k (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Photographer Credit

Please forgive my ignorance but why is it not proper to credit the photographer mentioned? I clicked on the photo itself -as a link- yet still did not see his name mentioned..?

Thank You for your Time Merseymale (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Merseymale: We do. It's in the image itself. "Taken by Richard Lam" in the original upload. I'm not sure where the guideline is, but it's been the case for years. One photographer objected so much to it, he repeatedly inserted his name in the photos he took, and when he was told he wasn't allowed to, he requested that the photos be deleted from Commons. That too was rejected as he had released them to be used on Commons and no longer legally owned them. A bit more at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#Disruption See also, WP:WATERMARK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I see... Please forgive my ignorance & may I wish you & yours the hope of a Happy Eastertime. Merseymale (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mate (drink) and Murdoch Mysteries

I'm aware of your excellent policing of Mate (drink), and have thanked you many times for your work there. (I worked on it long ago, and it's on my Watchlist; your policing is greatly appreciated.) Tonight I saw your name on the Talk page for Murdoch Mysteries. My wife discovered that excellent show several days ago, and has been watching early episodes. Almost binge watching, I'm afraid. I watch some of them, too. What a clever and well-done series it is.

It's interesting that both our wiki-interests involve these two not-so-very-mainstream articles. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Italics

Regarding Deadline Hollywood you stated that "websites are not italicized" yet that's how the Deadline Hollywood article is headlined, and how the citation templates render web site names. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: Odd. You're correct. However, use in a reference is not a REPEATLINK. Would you like me to make that change, or would you like to do it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: If you have the time, thank you. Otherwise, I'll get back to it eventually. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pemilligan:

Done. Thanks again for explaining. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Voodoo Children

Hi,

I'm new to this site and didn't see the original message I got when you first reverted my edit to JT's page, so I posted it again without understanding what the issue was. I work for his management team and was told to upload his bio to the page, so can you instruct me on how to do this correctly instead of reporting me?

Thanks. Sarah061 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

GA for God's Not Dead (film)

I'm thinking of nominating God's Not Dead (film) for GA review. Since you have experience, would you have some suggestion to improve it? I'm asking you because you are a major contributor of the article. Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: The GA review will find any potential issues. I tend to focus on form rather than content, and the GA reviews do the opposite. Form is already good, so the process should enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Is hereby awards for your valuable contributions to Christian music. – Lionel^(talk) 08:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ref layout

Hey Walter. What do you mean it's done automatically now? When you revert it goes back to a long list as opposed to 3 columns. Rob van vee 15:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: there's an algorithm now that automatically determines when to use multi-column or not. Not sure what the break-point is, but you can see that in articles with a larger number of references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, never knew that. Then why do some articles with say 10 references still stay in one long column which requires more scrolling and IMO looks far less aesthetically pleasing? I understand that an article with 3 references or less probably doesn't need it but articles with 8-10 references or more in single file looks quite "old school" Wikipedia. Are there policies to read up on this that you are familiar with? Rob van vee 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure. You'd have to check the code of the template and which formatting is used in the actual article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Walter. Rob van vee 07:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

USL edits

Did my edits cause the pages not to be redirected anymore? It wasn't my intent, just adding stuff so when they become non-redirected..

Roberto221 (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Roberto221: Removing the #REDIRECT has that effect yes. You could take the content and drop them into draft articles in your user space if it's easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Show Me Heaven

Thanks for your editing of the introduction to this article which was more appropriate than what I had done! (I admit I had doubts about it). I also wanted to discuss with you the 'other cover versions' section; although what is on the page was already there when I changed the layout of that section, do you agree with me that there is too much unsourced information? Appreciate your input on this. Jccgclrc (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jccgclrc: We should conduct this conversation on the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 Major League Soccer season

Did you mean to revert User:‎AmericanSoccer10 in 2018 Major League Soccer season? From your edit summary I think you meant to do mine, which I've now changed. Nfitz (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

PS - why use the further tag in the 2017 (or earlier) articles. There's nothing in particular relevant in there about the 2017 standings. Nfitz (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right on the 2018 article. We don't need a template to link to the conference, you're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

JJsCat's content

Okay, so I didn't read the first time. My mistake. A question then: why are you moving JJsCat's content? Why can't they do it themselves? Also, I'm just asking you questions, I'm not coming to you argumentatively, so you don't have to revert all my talk page messages. Ss112 17:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: I figured as much, and I mean to hit "revert good faith", but the JavaScript button moved as the page was drawing.

Good question. The history isn't that important, but the move wouldn't be inappropriate. It's my understanding that JJsCat is a bit of a newbie and may not have the facility that a more seasoned editor would have. We had discussed a move, but after looking at the history, I didn't think it was necessary.

And I didn't assume an argument was ensuing, just you trying to figure out the method to my madness. I wouldn't oppose a move even at this point. I questioned the genres (clearly they're from the previous album, and no one seems to have commented on the genre in the reviews). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Isn't there a concern about attribution about you moving JJsCat's created content though? Ss112 17:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: A bit, but he actually created the page so any notices that would go to the creator would still go to the editor. I suppose I could ask. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I really need to figure out how to cite references correctly beyond just a ref tag. You'd think that after all this time I could do it, but I keep forgetting and then try and add a ref in a hurry. Canterbury Tail talk 00:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I was happy to fill them in for you, but I did a face-palm when I saw that you added the bare refs: I thought essentially what you just wrote here. My opinion is that it's better to have a bare ref that someone can fill-in with a cheesy tool like the ones I use, than to have no ref because you want to supply a "correctly formatted" ref and can't figure out how to do it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Quotations of Google Books linked via ISBN code

Hi. I have only noted that wiki articles with too long URL's are not saved and published. You may try this. Google Shortener it wil stop in 2019 and just now is become only for registered users.

A shorter URL is more readable and, while editing the en.wiki article, users will not have any problem to their sight on changing only a paragraph.

It is compliant with the en.wiki guidelines on using some identifier code in quoting books and so on.

If you have this information directly in the URL, it is easier any user add it, instead of having an other attribute for ISBN or similar code.Micheledisaverio (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Micheledisaverio (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The Gathering (band)

Terrible article--typical for such bands which have some kind of following but never made the big time, esp. non-American or English bands. I listened to a few tracks from a 2006 album and was pleasantly surprised: I half-expected trash, but it wasn't bad at all. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Not familiar with the band. Not sure how it ended up on my watchlist, but I've been watching it for a while. Still haven't listened to them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I listened to a few songs from Home. Haha I'm a bit embarrassed cause right now I'm playing some really old stuff. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

non-notable EP

Hey, if I can ask for some assistance, may I request you to weigh in on the Rosecrance (EP) page and the war emitting over this release which is totally non-notable for a user so persistent to continuously revive the page? Just asking this of you as you seem to be able to argue in this topic better than I can. If you don't want to, that's fine too. Second Skin (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

NF

Thank you very much for this because I was honestly baffled when you reverted a ton of sourced information with no summary ahaha. Seemed very out of character for you. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 12:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sock: Yes. Sorry. I didn't see the fully explained edits since you made several and they all made sense. Sorry for the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Revised Choir bio

Hi, Walter... just wanted to have you review and assess my revised bio of The Choir. I know we've had our differences in the past, some of which were due to my ignorance of certain Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I'd reach out to you first. I've made a very concerted effort to provide thorough sources, and remove any POV language. Some sources may not be considered acceptable, since they're not mainstream publications, but I'll let you assess that. I'd rather work with you than battle each other with edits. :-) TARDIS (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a few questions for you: 1) What are your thoughts on removing the sources tag? Has the rewrite met those standards? 2) What do you think about removing the 2017 touring lineup? It's now been mentioned a couple of times in the text above, and it's not like the band reformed with her permanently.TARDIS (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Soccer Bowl" as trophy or competition

In reverting my edit, you said Soccer Bowl "(is) also the name of the competition". It was the name of the competition in the past, but the relevant article states with sources that in 2013 the league renamed its playoffs ‘The Championship’, the ultimate championship match ‘The Championship Final’ and the trophy itself "The Soccer Bowl". The NASL's website indicates that those names were still in effect as of 2017, the last season played.[2] That is precisely the confusion I was trying to clear up with my edit. Thanks! SixFourThree (talk) 15:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)SixFourThree

Narnia Tag

I removed the tag because it wasn't relevant anymore... not because it was "old" TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheRealWeatherMan: Yet you wrote, "removed outdated tag", and would not associated "outdated" with "irrelevant". The tag was better updated than removed, and that is what I did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

sorry bout that. Best Regards TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FLRC for List of Vancouver Whitecaps FC players

I have nominated List of Vancouver Whitecaps FC players for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I've contacted you because you have many edits on the page and I wanted your input. Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sebastian Saucedo

Hey, I looked into Sebastian Saucedo further, and you're right. He's American. I missed that he played for the US U20s most recently, because I quickly scanned the international career stats. My mistake. --Ortizesp (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

USL Hartford

I noticed this awhile back. I know they have interest in it, and the politicos have set aside money to refurbish the stadium but nothing has been officially announced.

Roberto221 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't see your edit notice

Sorry, I didn't see your edit notice. You wrote, "Please take it to the article's talk page as requested in my edit notice." Can you please direct me to that "edit notice"? Thanks! Holy (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@HolyT: User_talk:Walter_Görlitz/Editnotice should be displayed at some point during your editing activities.

Step 1. Hit edit here.

Step 2. Look above the edit frame. There is text that starts with "Please read this before you leave a comment on this talk page".

That's the way it looks in a browser using the standard skin. I don't know if that applies to you. If not, please let me know as that would be a bug with edit notices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I see it now. Thanks for pointing that out! Sorry I didn't notice that earlier. I thought you were referring to a notice that came with your revert somehow. Holy (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent revert

Sorry for the confusion. I accidentally clicked the rollback button when no revert was intended. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 05:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Septrillion: I understand. I've done that more times than I care to remember. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

German national team kit sponsor

Hi, There is different information at Spanish Wikipedia. [3]. Can you check out the Kit Sponsor history? Is source of spanish wikipedia reliable? Footwiks (talk)

@Footwiks: The sources appear to be screen shots or replicas from Erojkit.com. I can guarantee these three sources are reliable based on English project rules: the dfb site, Reuters and Der Spiegel. The rest are blogs or fan sites and I'm not sure that they would be RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

So, Do I have to edit English article contents about 3 sources? Can you edit them?Footwiks (talk)

I don't think you do. I think the DFB and Der Spiegel ref are already present and the Reuters article is about them turning down an offer from Nike. I'm not sure what else you'd want to include there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

U.S./United States

Why did you change U.S. to United States?

Here's the Template:Infobox record label. Check the source code for your Talk Page to see the fields.

Vmavanti (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC) @Vmavanti: That clearly needs to be updated. First, it violates WP:INFOBOXFLAG with the flag thing, and second, there's absolutely no need to constrain it to an abbreviation. As long as it's not linked (which would violate WP:OVERLINK, the full term is a better choice. If it were city, state or province and country, then the abbreviation would be preferable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Then you need to contact whoever does the template. Until then, I'm not going change how I've been doing it. I'm going to follow the template, so if you have reverted any more of my changes please revert them back. Having a flag there strikes me as kind of jingoistic. I see no reason to avoid abbreviations, particularly in infoboxes which should be brief anyway, particularly when "US" is acceptable elsewhere. In fact, "U.S." is better than "US". "US" is nothing but "us" capitalized. It looks dumb, lazy, and wrong.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: We do the template. US is actually standard in all forms of English except American. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is an American creation and operation, maybe it's best that we do it the American way.
Vmavanti (talk)

Charlie Peacock

Hello again, Walter. I see you have an interest in Charlie Peacock. You should know that the conventional way of writing record labels (here) is to use the name of the label, to link it and pipe it on its first occurrence, omitting the word "Records" or "Music" (or whatnot) after the name, then add a comma. This is all in the documentation, and nearly all of Wikipedia has it this way. Would you revert the changes you made? Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The labels are only to be piped in the infobox. Is there a MoS for it in discographies on musician pages (he asks knowing that he's been trying to get agreement on a music bio MoS for a while and can't get one)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. Labels are piped in discographies and usually piped in articles after the first occurrence. Even if it weren't a rule, it's logical. Why repeat the word "records"? Why link the same term over and over and over again? What's the point? Do you have a reason? The label name comes first, then the year. Don't you wonder why the rest of the site does it one way and you do it another? Don't you think there should be consistency across the site, from one article to the next? That's how other encyclopedias, and other reference books, and other professional organizations do things. Do you have good reasons for doing things the opposite way?
Vmavanti (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: so you say it's wrong, but did not provide a Manual of Style. You can argue your point with me, but there is no guideline for it and the only clear documentation for it is for the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be in Wikiproject Jazz, Wikiproject Music, and articles about discographies. Nevertheless, you haven't answered my questions. You seem to be claiming that you are guided only by documentation. But that's wrong. There are other reasons why you use formats that are different from all the other articles. What are those reasons?
Vmavanti (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

When you find it, be sure to point me to it as it's not acceptable for a sub-project of the music project to have their own standard. The classical music project already prefer not to use infoboxes for composers, so this would be a problem. If you want to discuss the need for piping labels in a discography section on a music bio, don't do it on my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you brought up an exception: Wikiproject Classical doesn't want composers to have infoboxes. I disagree, but maybe they have good reasons. I don't know what they are. But back to the subject we were talking about: What objection do you have to being consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? It seems fair and reasonable.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. There is no consistency with how record labels are presented on the rest of Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I work mainly in jazz, and in jazz there is a lot of consistency. You are correct that the MOS allows one to choose between "(Columbia, 1989)" and "(1989, Columbia)", but I believe most people use the former. So we disagree.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

AllMusic

Would you like to weigh in this discussion regarding AllMusic should be in infoboxes over other publications. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Good on blocking user 142.167.242.182

The guy is in an absolute need to read How to make friends and influence people.

I made headings a certain way in some article. They were a little long but no biggie, those were articles I think and hope I vastly improved overall. He went in the talk pages of all these articles and wrote absolute non-sense it felt like edit slaking. And thought is criticizing had weight his good faith was gone out the window.

But when I saw you on is talk page and called you something I wont repeat here I knew. I just thought I'd share this with you and let you know that if he does any non-sense again I'll support you. Filmman3000 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For replacing a disgusting vandal's image with a smiley face. Well done. Home Lander (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A Star. SebastionArthur (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Tournaments

Hi,

I was trying to keep the ICC discussion on the topic of using "sortable". But I'm curious, why isn't ICC a tournament?

Wiktionary says a tournament is "A series of games; either the same game played many times, or a succession of games related by a single theme; played competitively to determine a single winning team or individual."

And my Oxford dictionary says: "A series of contests between a number of competitors, competing for an overall prize".

According to International_Champions_Cup#Sponsors, there is a trophy. So we have teams, competing, a winner, and a prize. That makes it a tournament, no? Now, it's only a friendly tournament, but still a tournament. Great floors (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Great floors: To start with, it's a series of friendlies. They try to make it appear to be a tournament, but they can't really achieve it. If it were only the "group play" stages, that might satisfy the requirements, but in past years, some teams played one game, some two while others played four. The extra games were all planned to be played in advance. The reason: it was a series of friendly matches. Now, it's not even that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this so hard for you to understand?

Your edit summary read: The musician at the time was releasing this was on a Christian label and it was released to Christian radio and it charted on US Christian Songs. He was a Christian hip-hop artist at the time. I find that irrelevant. One genre descriptor should be chosen to describe an artist entirely. This is why any given rock band always says "rock band", not Christian rock, or hard rock, etc., unless it is literally the only genre to describe the artist, and that's clearly not the case here. Consistency is important. I strongly disapprove of labeling him "Christian hip hop" for only "Let You Down". If we're going to do that, we should do it for every one of his releases: albums, songs, EPs. I don't think that putting Christian across the board would please everyone, but it'd certainly be better than just this song.

I think adding "Christian" to everything does not display a neutral point of view, personally, and most people don't negotiate that, but I'd be willing to compromise to that if we must, though I wouldn't prefer to. If you don't like "hip hop artist", we could just say "American rapper".

One last thing. If you'd like to move this, go ahead and drop me a ping. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll counter that removing Christian from everything to satisfy a marketing manager does not display a neutral point of view. Check the history and see when it was first removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I really don't care what the marketing manager thinks. This has nothing to do with their goal. That we want the removal of "Christian" is coincidence; they want it for the wrong reasons. They are trying to re-brand him entirely and erase anything Christian from his profile. I oppose that, and I think I've done an okay job explaining that in a nutshell on his biography (moving Christian down the list of genres but not removing it, explaining in-article that he makes music for "everyone", lead saying where he's charted). But putting "Christian hip hop artist" doesn't by default match all that. I just want to remove the unnecessary emphasis on "Let You Down", not change NF's style entirely. Don't be paranoid. (I suppose I could see reason as to why one who's worked with the article for a long period would be paranoid about it, so forgiveness is easier.) The song isn't even classified as Christian hip hop by a given source. Charts or radio adds don't determine genre (though awards typically do). If this were so, Evanescence would be a Christian rock band, but they made sure they left that behind. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't care what they think either. I do think that the changes started to happen when they got involved. No paranoia necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you not skip like half the argument I just presented? The song isn't even classified as Christian hip hop by a given source. Charts or radio adds don't determine genre (though awards typically do). If this were so, Evanescence would be a Christian rock band, but they made sure they left that behind. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not? How did it get listed at http://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2017/hot-christian-songs ? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a chart. I just said charts or radio adds don't determine genre prefixes for an entire artist, or even as a song. Just like Dan + Shay isn't a Christian artist even if they chart there (see no. 42). dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They don't? So you mean we have metal songs on the classical charts and country track competing with smooth jazz on the same charts? What a strange world we live in.

I can't speak to Dan + Shay, but I can to NF. He was marketed as a Christian hip hop artist and this song was part of that marketing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It is impossible for you to know for certain whether that song was intentionally part of that marketing unless a source is shown that's not the charts (because, as I showed above with Dan + Shay, sometimes it happens anyway). But you're still missing my main point. He is not referred to as a "Christian hip hop artist" in any of his recording articles except that song which you continually push for the use of the former. That is absolutely absurd. I can accept that if you use it on all his articles (say, Perception (NF album) and others can be changed to include a Christian label), but the way you push for it now is wrong. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You have no clue how singles are released, do you?

As for how he's listed, he was listed as Christian hip hop on all of his works before his most recent album was released and his media people started redacting "Christian" from everywhere.

Do stay off my talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You say you wouldn't budge to them before. And yet you did to them there, but not here? I'm confused, but that's fine, what's done is done. I won't dig anymore. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That one song was done through Capitol so I'll leave it until he changes his mind (read: after they drop him and he needs his original fan-base back). Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I know I said I wouldn't ask anything else, but I just want clarification on who the above "he" is. If it's who I think it is, I'll just agree to disagree and drop the stick. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that NF is following what his management is telling him to say. I've seen it happen a dozen times before and they all say the same thing when their contracts with the mainstream label expires. If it's not, and instead, he's actually more like Moby, then I can accept that too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert my talk page edit?

Hi, just wondering why you made this edit [4]? I had made a mistake so I edited my own comment, by striking out my incorrect statement about a missing archive link, that was not actually missing. I don't understand why you reverted it, or said something about striking my comment yourself - it's not allowed to edit other people's talk page comments...?? --IamNotU (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

King's X

I understand why you reverted my edits on the King's X page, but I just wanted to add what the current status is on their new album so readers on Wikipedia can know what's going on with the band. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

But it's essentially a primary source. Might be different if it were a new story on a site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to revert again, and being harsh if you thought I was when I told you that it doesn't matter what Wikipedia is, but to me the information I added last night does belong on Wikipedia, so that a reader on Wikipedia will know what King's X is doing in 2018 or in the future. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed it again. What part of WP:NOTNEWS is unclear? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know what WP:NOTNEWS is, and understand this sentence: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Not to get in a fight with you, but clearly that information I kept adding back still does belong on the King's X page for the same reason I kept saying, which is so a reader knows what they are doing in the present time. Another reason I kept adding it back is one of the sentences in the article says, "In June 2015, Doug Pinnick announced that King's X were committed to begin work on a new studio album, their first since 2008's XV"; that was three years ago, so why not keep the page up to date? MetalDiablo666 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you disagree that this information belongs on the King's X article, I will leave the page alone for now. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. You're not discussing the issue. If you have something to counter NOTNEWS, feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page, but continually re-adding it without reference to NOTNEWS is just silly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And I did address your question on your talk page, we're not here to keep fans up-to-date on their work, we're here to report on encyclopedic content. It's the difference between Wikipedia and a blog or between Wikipedia and a fan zine. Not everything they do carries encyclopedic weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft of Experience + Innocence Tour

I thought you would like to know that I've submitted a draft of an article for the Experience + Innocence Tour. Hopefully, any concerns about notability that you had are addressed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment for RfC involving the lead section of Swimming (Mac Miller album)

Can you please vote or comment at this RfC involving the lead section of Swimming? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes

Thank you for doing the one for Murdoch. How do I do it so I can put one for Frankie Drake? Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mickeydee15: It takes two steps

I do have a concern though: it's not referenced. Also a concern is that tonight's episode may be preempted in New Brunswick as they are at the polls. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Check Screener TV/Zap2it TV listings or if you have satellite, check on the TV. I have no other way of knowing. I can ask on Facebook and see what information I can get.

I can't reference the QC elections but I did contact CBC Montreal last week through Messenger and they confirmed what I suspected. I could look for the conversation if you want... Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your instructions, so I copied and pasted the footnote. Unfortunately I made a mistake and I don't know where. Could you take a look please? Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

NB Elections

So far all I could find is CTV in Atlantic Canada has the provincial elections tonight. Nothing for the other Canadian networks. Mickeydee15 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Update, it won't air this week on CBC Atlantic. From their Twitter page:

Attention #MurdochMysteries fans in New Brunswick: Due to election coverage, tonight's premiere has been preempted. It will air Oct. 1 at 4pm AT on CBC, or stream it tonight on-demand as of 8pm AT on the CBC TV app and http://cbc.ca/watch

Mickeydee15 (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops!

I did something with the Footnotes for Murdoch Mysteries and I can't fix it. You'll have to take a look. Mickeydee15 (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for raising the issue of a user making all those changes. I left them a long note explaining why it was a bad idea. I'd really dread an RfC on this right now as I don't think we could get anything remotely close to a community consensus that reflects the complexities of the situation, so hopefully this will die down. If it doesn't, ANI might be a speedier resolution than getting a formal agreement beyond the standard "use what's already in the article." TonyBallioni (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bloodshot

Hi, Walter--Just wanted to let you know that I've created a new page for Bloodshot that I will finally upload shortly. Because the album was universally praised (and I have four linked reviews), I thought it was notable. I'll create the page and let you review it. BTW, I can't figure out some of the proper formatting for the footnotes, so I would appreciate your help with that. Thank you! TARDIS (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Episode Count

Hi; I'm trying to add the second episode count for Frankie Drake Mysteries, but I'm having trouble with it. Where and how do I add it to the top of each season? I can add it to the individual episodes, but when I try the top (heading) is out of sync. Mickeydee15 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mickeydee15: I"m not sure. Does it have the correct template? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know.... 2001:1970:4C1D:9700:986F:3BE6:C34A:DA7E (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty edit requests

I don't think I was biting the newbie. If someone posts a request like that, to me the correct course of action is to remove the request and post on their talk page they did it wrong. Requests like that just fill up the page with pointless nonsense. – Pee Jay 20:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: That's a good option! I notice that you removed the talk page comment in main space, but did not write on any comment on a user space talk page until you wrote here. Are you expecting someone else to follow your principle or are you simply making the suggestion?

Ultimately, your edit summary was that they should be reverted on-sight. I agree with empty requests, but this one was a bit more detailed, as was the response, which is why I reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the user had already been responded to, I felt there was no need to write on their talk page this time, but I will do that in future. – Pee Jay 20:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Query

Sorry to post again, I should have asked before; I can pass on a clarification, unless you would prefer to do so? HLHJ (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"work" versus "publisher"

Hi there. :-) One of your changes (link) at Mesut Özil alerted me to the fact that I'm not clear as to when "work" and when "publisher" should be used in references. Could you please point me to a page explaining the difference or, if none exists, give me an idea of it? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: I'm not entirely clear on the distinction. I apply the Fix SOURCES from Ohconfucius. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The script's documentation was very helpful. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Typo

Regarding this edit. I wasn't sure what your script was doing and wanted to make sure it wasn't an WP:AWB type thing that resulted in syudio being inserted. Had I known it was just a regular typo I would have simply fixed it myself. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what I though. I applied the infobox parameter change and AllMusic capitalization manually and then applied to the script since I noticed some MOS:CAPS issues and wanted them all caught. I forgot to apply the first changes to the summary. Thanks for catching it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Revert on MLS logo

Hey, I saw you reverted the updated logo I added to the MLS article (the old file appeared to be meant for CMYK instead of RGB, and even then, it seems that they've made subtle tweaks to the coloring since that version was published in 2015). You said there's no copyright notice on the new one, but I have it tagged as PD-textlogo and trademarked, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Could you explain what the problem is? Cheers, IagoQnsi (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi: Glad you did that. I was going to deal with it on the weekend and ask which made more sense. This is probably the better option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Walter Görlitz:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Iggy (Swan) 17:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Portal link clean up

Per your request, here's an explanation:

I've been placing matching portal links to articles. For example, a link to at Blade Runner#See also. While doing so, I also clean up other portal links I encounter, to match each article's focus.

Per WP:See also, The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

A reasonable number of portal links would include those that are directly relevant (that is, about the subject of the article). Otherwise, we are inviting a portal link farm. The tendency is for more and more related portal links to be included. For an example, see Portal:Bread#Related portals, which looks like this:

Which is where the navigation templates and categories come to the rescue...

Concerning navigation templates, Portal:Science fiction, for example, has a link placed at the bottom of the Science fiction navbox footer, which in turn appears at the bottom of around 350 associated articles. Besides on-topic link placement, piggy-backing on the corresponding navigation footer is the main way that portals get "advertised" all around the encyclopedia. Because of this, generally speaking, it is redundant and superfluous to provide portal links in see also sections, unless they are directly on-topic.

Concerning categories, the parent topics are presented as categories at the bottom of every article. In turn, most every category with a corresponding portal has a link to that portal at the top right corner of its page. So an easy way to find a parent portal is to view the parent category.

Nobody wants to increase portal traffic more than I do. I've found that the best way to do that is through the placement of on-topic portal links. For Portal:Blade Runner, on-topic links would include a portal link at Blade Runner#See also, on at the top of Category:Blade Runner, and another at the bottom of Template:Blade Runner (upon which it piggy backs to appear at the bottom of the most relevant articles). Another place for on-topic portal links is Portal:Contents/Portals, where they are all supposed to be listed.

I hope you find the above explanation to your satisfaction. If you have any further requests or questions, please feel free to ask. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 04:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply, please {{ping}} me. Thank you. -TT

The need for Tim Chandler to be acknowledged as the bassist at the heart of the band's sound from 1982 to 2018

Walter,

I'm wondering what your motivation is for removing the new line in the Daniel Amos description. As I said in my note, I am open to suggestions for better wording, but must insist that excising Tim's name completely from the main description is to be avoided, if the goal is an accurate encapsulation of the band's history. You may object to the words "virtuoso" and "classic", but can you suggest alternatives? If searching for "'les claypool' virtuoso" yields 19k results (it does), then the label is in-my-opinion justifiable.

Douglas Gwilym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas.gwilym (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

World Cup 2026, East Rutherford

Walter, on my talk page you left the comment, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United 2026 FIFA World Cup bid. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.", could you explain how my edit was nonconstructive? (I'm guessing you meant nonconstructive, not unconstructive.) The World Cup in 1994 used the East Rutherford stadium, 1994 FIFA World Cup#Knockout stage where the New York Giants play, there is no stadium in New York City that's big enough to accommodate that many fans.

Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Exadajdjadjajdsz: The term we use on Wikipedia is unconstructive, and the template that was placed on your talk page, {{Uw-vandalism2}} is written correctly in respect to that standard.

The changing of the location of MetLife Stadium has been an ongoing activity with "real New Yorkers" insisting that the locations are not in New York at all. We don't use Wikipedia as a source or a guideline, we use the bid book as our standard for determining the stadium's location. The bid book https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/united-2026-bid-book.pdf?cloudid=w3yjeu7dadt5erw26wmu states that it's New York/New Jersey on page IV. This is repeated on pages 116, 181–184 (although there the prose on 181 reads "MetLife Stadium, located in East Rutherford, New Jersey" and on 184 has a street address in East Rutherford). However, the discussion has settled on New York. If you want a change, open a discussion on the article's talk page, not here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Christian music wikiproject

I’ve been working on improving certain articles and I was looking through the guidelines for assessment of quality and importance. It seems as if the wikiproject is dead/not active other than you; and although there is a page I can request for assessment, the last post was from 2016. Is there another place you do that now? Or better guidelines? Thought you would be the best user to ask because I see you everywhere.Awsomaw (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about how dead the project is. There are a few editors, although they may not be active members, but they're active editors. BrDen (talk · contribs) updates charts on a weekly basis while Kuda188 (talk · contribs) works on worship albums. Krystaleen (talk · contribs) works on Michael W. Smith (and related) articles while 3family6 (talk · contribs) is one of the other more active members. There may be others, but they're not all active in the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Walter Görlitz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Paradigm Shift

Thanks for the note regarding the genre change here. The IP involved has a history of mass unexplained changes to genres (see their edits) so I simply rolled back all their recent changes, of which that one was included. Home Lander (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Of Beauty and Rage

At Of Beauty and Rage, I notice that you added a malformed link to the track listing section that should probably be in the background section. You might want to revisit this. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a reason why this is in the track listing? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: not sure if you're watching here, so I pinged you. I debated on whether there should be a section on the video itself or whether we needed an analysis or meaning section. I don't like short sections so I decided to avoid that, but you can feel free to create a section to contain the info. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence

Hey Walter, I looked through the external links/notice board to find the posts I have referenced. As I think its important to provide evidence if its possible. Look in the change history of the project page. Do a search for my name and compare the Revision as of 07:05, 2 August 2018 by me to the Revision as of 08:50, 2 August 2018 by Beetstra. Here's a direct quote "Most of these are indeed hardly ever suitable as external links, but used in the right context they can serve as primary references for certain information. It does seem a bit overdone, though." Notice, he says they are hardly ever suitable as external links, except in the right context. He doesn't say if the ones that he specifically looked at where in the right context though and if they were, it would only apply to those ones and not necessarily the ones used on other articles. As its not a blanket caveat as the context of how they are used in each article is the important thing. Also, notice him agreeing that they are overdone. As I said.

Also see the comment by Ian.thomson on 23:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC) "WP:ELNO #5 says those links should not be included. Feel free to remove them again, linking to that point and leave a uw-spam warning on the usertalk of restores it. If I'm on and active, feel free to ping me when you warn them." I think that's a resoundingly clear thumbs down for the links and permission to remove them by someone way more qualified then you. As you can see on Ian.thomson's user page, he is an administrator. As I said he was. Its to bad you treated me like I was lying about it (remember the whole "There's no administrators here!!" thing?). Instead of just taking me telling you what they said in good faith, as the truth. So the question becomes, why I take your clearly slanted opinion over theirs? Especially considering your ongoing attitude. There's no reason I can think of that I should, because your clearly in the wrong and have been disagreed with by multiple people. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And you misrepresented references as external links. In the follow-up conversation it was made clear that references do not follow the same rules as ELs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Except I didn't. I prefaced the question saying I didn't know if it was the right place to ask or what the difference is. Then I just provided links to the pages I thought were problematic. They were the ones that looked at the pages and made their own conclusions. Otherwise, if they hadn't of looked at the pages and links themselves Beetstra wouldn't have said "It does seem a bit overdone" Plus, it would be near impossible to miss represent something to an administrator just by asking him to look at a page. As far as the follow up conversation goes, so what? It was different users, They didn't give a definitive answer one way or another, said it was up to editor discretion, and even if it had of been both of them definitively against me it would have just evened things out. Which wouldn't be a clear "your right." Plus, whatever the second conversation decided you went off, reverted me, and accused me of lying about an administrator telling me to go ahead and delete the links before the second conversation even happened. So your behavior before then was still completely wrong. As I was told to go ahead and delete the links. So you reverting me because you said I was lying about it was BS. Just accept it and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Except it was in ELN so they assumed that you were talking about external links, not references. You did not provide links to what you were discussing. @Ian.thomson:'s response was based on the rules around external links, and you were discussing references. @Beetstra: then asked for links, and when you linked to the articles Beetstra stated that "that all are references. This guideline is concerned with external links." The entire discussion is on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes. Ian.thomson's next comment is not to support the removal of the commercial links, but to state that they're tenuous and do not support the criteria in all cases.

I think it's safe to say that his earlier advice to follow the rules for External Links, which clearly state that such links should be removed, should not be applied to references. However, there are other remedies. If they do not support the full extend that are claimed, {{failed verification}} would apply. Of course, as was the case with the Facebook reference you kept removing, you have to read all of the content, including that which is initially hidden. Using {{better source}} is another good option if you do not like a reference, or it's offensive (such as a commercial site—Amazon, iTunes, etc.—and without an author for instance). I'm sure that there are other options I'm not thinking of. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

wrong. notice I said in the first paragraph of my first message "What's the rule about linking to places that mainly sell products like Amazon or Apple Music." know where in that do I say anything about external links or not, because I didn't know anything about the difference at the time. So saying his advice was about external links when neither he or I specify that's what's being discussed is wrong.

Also, notice later on in the paragraph that I say "The links are not used properly as citations." So I was clear I was talking about citations and there's no indication he thought otherwise when he made his comment. Otherwise, he would have said it only applied to external links and not citations. Since I said the question was about citations in my original message. Its clear by Beetsra's response also that I was clear I was talking about citations originally, before Ian.thomson commented "you were discussing references." Beetsra still said they were over done also. Ultimately, I removed the links right after Ian.thomson said that I could and before Beetsra said anything, which was also when you reverted me. And although I didn't provide direct links, I said what specific pages they were and there's no evidence Ian.thomson didn't look at them before he made his comment and its clear Beetsra did by the response that there could be less of them. Once again, Ian.thomson just says it doesn't apply in all cases in his later comment, but he doesn't say which cases it does or doesn't specifically. There isn't a clause about it in his first comment either or in the guideline he referenced. Which is what I was going off of to remove the links.

I haven't seen anywhere since then either that says references are exempt from the guideline and I was clear from the start that references were what I was talking about. According to what I can find, Wikipedia doesn't make a distinction between external links and references. According to it, an external link is any link that takes the user out side of Wikipedia. So references can be external links. Since its what they do. Or what would be the point in even having the rules in the first place? Notice in Wikipedia:External links "Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations. Then in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources it says "Online retailers such as iTunes and Amazon.com should also be avoided." Again, know where is the distinction made between the appropriateness of using them as external sources versus citations. So you can say its safe to say the advice doesn't apply to references, but provide some actual evidence. I've provided plenty that it does and that they are excessive anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Since EL policy does not apply to references, I'll say it's not clear why Ian.thomson referenced that guideline to discuss WP:CS so I stand by my comment that he was addressing EL, but stop arguing for your point of view on my talk page until each has had a chance to respond to their motives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Tiny Mix Tapes

Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding Tiny Mix Tapes should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

UAA Report

Thanks for the report. I've blocked the account with {{uw-softerblock}} and watchlisted the page, so we'll see if they respond and clarify their previous edit. ceranthor 16:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Glad to help. It's not the first time that section has been removed. I think the last time it was an anon. I'm not sure whether the claim is or is not valid. We might need to get some of the copyright cabal involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

regarding this

How'd you do that? dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: It's one of the JavaScript libraries: User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

GAR review

Cesc Fàbregas, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Walter Görlitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Coda16 17:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Walter Görlitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Walter Görlitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Krampus in popular media

Hey Walter!

I seen you reverted my edit of adding information regarding Fortnite including Krampus skins as "not notable".

I utterly disagree, the page is for mentions and appearances of the Krampus in popular media and fortnite is currently one of the biggest forms of popular media in the world.

Regardless, the same section also contains mentions of a Krampus skin in Overwatch and Killing Floor.

So I readded the mention. Bobfordsgun (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bobfordsgun: I saw your edit summary. Valid point. To avoid this becoming a WP:COATRACOK, we should probably delete both early in the year if no references can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)