Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 19 December 2011

Request to help students of IEP

Hey Walter, I'm Pratik, a campus ambassador for Misplaced Pages's India Education Program. I think you are already aware of this program. I also see that you have a great interest in the Software testing field. I just want to request you to take the edits made by our a bit lightly. These students have just started with their editing on Misplaced Pages and I believe that if we keep on reverting their edits, it might affect their morale. I would be glad if you actually visit the talk pages of students and guide them what all they can add to the existing article, what is required in the article, etc so that they will work on the sub-topics which have scope for improvement. We all share a common goal of improving Misplaced Pages and articles related to Software testing. Pease help our students with your vast knowledge of software testing and your experience on Misplaced Pages.Thanks. Pratik Lahoti (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the programme only of some of the members of the programme who have added material that is not suitable for Misplaced Pages. They add opinion, generic material to specific articles, or when they add referenced material it's often duplicating material that exists in the article. I don't know how to help your students until you tell them how to add material correctly and I won't take their edits lightly. That doesn't help to make Misplaced Pages any better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I understand. Don't take the edits lightly. Well, most of the edits made on Software testing articles these days are by the students from College of Engineering, Pune in India. They have been assigned topics and have been asked to work on them till 25th October after which they will be evaluated. So my request to you is that whenever you find any rubbish being added in any article, you just go to the user's talk page and tell the student what you are expecting or where there is room for improvement.The table on this page consists of all the student names and the topics they are working on. Hoping for some help from your side :) Thanks again! Pratik Lahoti (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what. I started by removing the material and then giving detailed comments on the editor's talk pages. They did not respond. They simply added the same deficient material back in without discussing or attempting to improve the material. Occasionally, they did improve the material with half-hearted attempts and I removed those with explanations. Now, I don't have the time to teach your students: I'm not being paid to do that but you appear to be and it's been cutting into my working schedule. What I will do is remove the material with a comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither am I being paid! And I'm not asking you to teach the students. I was just asking you to tell them what is expected out of them as you know Software testing better than me.Pratik Lahoti (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

They have the same guidelines as everyone else. I see that many, if not all, have been given welcome messages. Those welcome message clearly outline what is expected from them. Perhaps if they looked at the existing content and simply added appropriate (read verifiable and reliable) sources and then contributed by filling-in omissions, that would be a start. However they seem to write statements that are too broad ("Basically Grey Box Testing is also a testing performed on functional and structural part of an application" this can be said of both white- and black-box testing: see also and User:Netra Nahar/Sandbox) grammatically poor (see the previous example), and most importantly duplicate existing material.

They even tried to create a stand-alone article for Grey box testing, when the existing material is unreferenced and takes less than one paragraph to explain and when it was removed. They then saved an archive (User:Netra Nahar/Sandbox, mentioned above). I can only assume that they play on adding it back later.

I'm sorry that I assumed that you were an instructor. I understand that you're an ambassador. I'm sorry that I don't quite know what that means, but if it carries the weight of the term ambassador you convey bidirectionally. If that's the case, please let the students know that their additions are welcome, but only if they improve Misplaced Pages. However, I get the distinct feeling that they're taking shortcuts and writing material as standalone articles and then inserting that material into Misplaced Pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was my mistake that I didn't brief you about the programme. Well, India Education Program is implemented in some colleges in Pune, where students have been assigned some topics related to their course and are asked to improve the articles throughout the semester. Based on the quality of content they are adding, they will be evaluated by the instructors. As ambassador, my job is to guide them and help them with the Wiki syntax, detect copyvios,etc. We already have conducted sessions and informed them what all they are supposed to do. We have also questioned them regarding the notability of some topics. They made some mistakes initially, but I think now the situation is pretty much in control and they are slowly understanding what editing on wiki is all about.
I am second year student and I can't help 4th year students with technical stuff. So I asked you for help.Pratik Lahoti (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes on the Bayern page

Hi Walter,

I modified the number of days Zlatko Čajkovski was head coach of Bayern Munich and saw that you un-did my edit. If I understand you correctly you want the number of days to reflect the time each head coach was active for Bayern only when they were in the Bundesliga. Is that correct?

I mean that is ok but it doesn't say anywhere on the page that the number of days would only reflect the Bundsliga time. So I'd say that my proposal was correct. Or you add "days only refer to Bundesliga time..."

You also undid another change of mine: On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_FC_Bayern_Munich_records_and_statistics I change the way you calculated the number of days Jupp Heynckes is currently active for Bayern. Your entry, however, was wrong on two counts: first, Heynckes began his duties on July 1st, 2011 and not June 30th, 2011. And you miscalculate his active days as you start you calculation on June 11th, 2011. Don't know why you un-did my changes.

Kind regards, Beckrich. Beckrich (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason the changes were reverted were twofold. The first was the presented case: you made your changes without commenting. The second is a structural issue: the material is unreferenced. If you provide either (or both) changes won't appear suspicious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. I'm new to wikipedia and still have to learn how things are done around here. Thanks. Beckrich (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DCOM Productions

I wonder if User:DeadX07 might edit some more. He seemed to "get" your explanation of why the DCOM article wasn't acceptable - hopefully he'll decide to stick around and become a productive editor... Cheers, Tonywalton  01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he works for the company and he was (is) a single-purpose editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Einverstanden. But he agreed that the article should be deleted once you'd explained why. Most SPAs would have carried on complaining. Tonywalton  01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For explaining WP:RS to a newcomer Tonywalton  01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I did not see your messages yesterday because I did know to look for them. I did not know about the problem with red linking and didn't realize it would be a problem as the article is pending review. I will be sure to not do it again. I do believe the site is legitimate as there are many similar sites linking to those same articles in a similar fashion. Thanks

68.8.236.40 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to delete your comment on Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup. Editadam 01:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fight'em 'Til You Can't

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Fight'em 'Til You Can't requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Football captains

I read your comment in the Real Madrid page regarding symbols for captains; is there anything about the practice of seniority of the vice-captains: 1st vice-captain, 2nd vice-captain and so forth? I have always reverted if anyone includes it in the players section and want to know if that is the correct. Raul17 (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any conversation. Check out Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football‎. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Every one of those players is Canadian. If you can find a source proving otherwise, I will understand. I actually know a couple players on that team that are supposidly foreign players when actually they are Canadian. Also, would it make sense that a bunch of foreign players would be playing for an amateur Canadian soccer club in Winnipeg? 24.78.226.138 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. It's the club's own page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.hellas-sc.com/roster.php?year=2011

• Ayers, Stuart: Southampton England
• Kurbegovic, Edin: Bosnia/Hercegovina
• Mendez, Jorge: San Salvador El Salvador

And based on your stellar track-record of

1. removing content without commenting, and
2. focusing on the nationalities of players and removing those with which you disagree,

it was an easy call to mark your edits as un-constructive. When you feel like playing nicely, let us know and you won't set off alarms with your edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for wrongfully changing the nationality of 2 players. 24.78.226.138 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On that page, it was four. On others, you removed valid nationalities of dozens of players with the comment "unsourced". The irony of course is your changes are unsourced as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, 2. So you are telling me if there is certain text in an article that has no source, it cant be removed because removing it is unsourced? That is ridiculous. What your saying is no page can be edited because every edit will be unsourced. 24.78.226.138 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything needs a reference. If you change something, that too needs a reference. Thanks for playing. I've fixed the SC Hellas article according to Misplaced Pages rules: references. You're welcome don't bother writing here any longer you're usually wrong. And your spelling is worse than your fact-checking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that you change or remove only specific nationalities (Polish and Turkish so far). That smells like nationalistic bias. Someone else has noticed your flaws in logic. I suggest that you tread carefully. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not proud that I was right, but I saw it coming. Please seek consensus when making changes the way you're doing. I suppose that flies in the face of being bold, but those seem to be the facts these days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No More War

I appreciate your civility on the MLS page. Although I am used to seeing teams listed with the most recent winner given top billing (including on other sports pages), I'll take your word for it that the alphabetical method is correct. If you change the order, I'll refrain from "correcting" it... (plus neither one of us wants to get kicked off of Misplaced Pages over something so small. Yikes!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeydishwasher (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll see that it's standard practice in infoboxes with this edit. The only thing is that I'm at my 3rd revert on the article now too =( --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this Walter. I was going to simply remove the link, but at the last moment, I thought it may possibly still have some use. All the best to you. Happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Görlitz,

Thank you for bring this to my attention. But I assure you I did not intentionally do this. My cousins and I were joking around and when I wasn't paying attention, they typed on the page. When I came back, I asked them how to get out of the page and they tricked me into posting it. We then began looking through the page and they started giggling and I figured out what they did. I went back and got rid of it as soon as I could. I am very sorry about the inconvenience. Happy writing!

Yours truly,

STLCARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.102.226 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First, that notice was placed on your account on December 18, 2010 and you're just responding to it now? Thanks for doing it though.

Second, you were tricked into pushing a button that reads "Save page"? I admit that the Cancel link should be larger, possibly a button. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article Test Strategy

Hello Walter, I and my partner MrinmayeeHingolikar are working on the article Test strategy. As you must be aware, under the India Education Programme, we, the students of College of Engineering, Pune have been assigned to edit an article on wikipedia. So this is our first article. We've been working on it since last one month. We moved it up to the main space yesterday, and it go reverted by you. Could you please help what exactly do we need to improve upon? Yes you did mention it there on my sandbox, but do they apply to the article as a whole or only to a specific section? Are the contents incorrect? It would be a great help if you take your time out and point out to the areas that you feel need modification. Thanks and regards, Ankitamor (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to standards and I explained why on the article in your name space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hey Walter. First off excellent job with following Robin van Persie's wikipedia page. Whenever I look at the history your always the one with the latest constructive edit. Also second you placed on my talk page a link which helps me notify a user once I revert there vandalism. First off thank you. This will be useful as I monitor the Indian Football pages a lot and everyday there is vandalism everywhere whether its people making fun of Indian Football or just boasting there club. Anyway I just want to know, what if that user who's edit I revert is an IP user. Surely there is no point in doing so considering it is not a wiki user and that IP user will most likely not care about it and will continue vandalizing. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The communication isn't just for the editor, but it is for editors who, like me, look for vandalism and try to have it stop. An anonymous edit cannot usually be blocked unless they've been warned four times. If an anonymous editor's actions are not marked as vandalism, on on a few pages, they can do more damage than is necessary. If they are self-reverting, I usually add {{Welcome-anon-vandal}}. I hope that adding this requirement isn't too onerous. If it is, try installing Twinkle or a similar tool. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian hardcore bands

Look, we're both getting a little overheated on the talk page, and that's not going to help improve the article or Misplaced Pages at all. I was thinking that to cool down (and since I need to get caught up on my school work anyway), you and I could take a Wikibreak for the next week or so and then try this again, so we can resume the discussion with clear minds and work it out like grown-ups. What do you say? Deal?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm cooling down now. You have no grounds for indicating one album. To go a step further, if you insist on taking phrases out of context, the article will remain laughable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow down

You are leaving comments in too many different places too fast for me to keep track and respond appropriately. Try to keep it limited to one section on the list's talk page so we're not leaving fragments of a conversation all over Misplaced Pages. Also, please avoid any more removal of bands from the list until some sort of consensus is reached, so we can avoid a pointless edit war.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No need. The comments are all requesting that the discussion happens on the one article. Comment there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Cockburn

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are not the subject of the discussion - this is just an FYI.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To Walter

Hello Walter, I have a big problem that I think you can help me with but I cannot announce it here. I do have a Facebook page that you can get my email address at. Would be awesome if I could get in touch with you. Thanks, Oz Fox Sirozfox (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Test Data Generation Article

I had recently moved http://en.wikipedia.org/Test_Data_Generation to the main space. You had asked my to rework the lead. I have done the same and I was wondering if you could have a look at it and tell me whether it is up to the mark? Gakiwate (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bare link tags

Following up on user talk:Xeno#Why are you removing bare link tags: if you are going to put serious work into cleaning up the over 10,875 tags still remaining (placed en masse without appropriate approval), I will pause my reversion of the task until November 30. If the category has fallen by at least 1000 by that date, I will delay for a further 30 days, and so on. Please advise, –xeno 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why editing like this needs approval or removal. The discussion was too long to read while at work and I haven't read it yet. I suppose I can go through the list for articles I might have some interest in, but I'm just a bit confused about the reason for removing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it was an automated bot task run without necessary approval (see Misplaced Pages:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines), that placed the tags in the wrong location, that overloaded the category with too many articles than can be reasonably handled by humans. If there are humans who want to go through these 10,000+ articles, then the category can be listified rather than having these garish tags at the top of the articles for several years or more. –xeno 14:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

One down. 10,000 to go. =( I'll try to knock the list down this weekend. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If you are going to work on it, I will hold until the end of the month. And if the category has had a decent dent put into it by then, I'll hold another 30 days, and so on. Thank you for your efforts. –xeno 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. It should keep me out of trouble =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping out with this, if you two don't mind? I've fixed a few of the listed pages already. -Jer 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest! Many hands make light work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A great many of the bare refs are to AllMusic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

You might be inteerested in participating in this. Kingjeff (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't dabble in German politics so it's not really of interest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2015 FIFA Women's World Cup

I've found a question from you on another user's page. Probably you already found the answer: . Florentyna (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Scrum History

Hello, I'm the one who changed the year of the oopsala where the scrum methodology was presented from 95 to 96. On the german page you can find the year 1996; furthermore Boris Gloger asks for the year 1996 in his scrum certifying exams. Are you sure it's right? Greetings, Michael. and sorry for not beeing registered and ignoring some wiki-guidelines --195.3.81.25 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The German page is not a reliable source. I googled the subject and it showed-up in 1995. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Scoreboard

Hello. Where can I find the discussion about WP Football discussion on scoreboards that you mentioned on Talk:2011 MLS Cup Playoffs? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Search the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football‎ archives. The consensus is that it's not a scoreboard and it's best to update after full-time, however it's almost impossible to police and so as a project the best we can do is recommend that it not be done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Apps to Caps

"Apps" should be left on the Bayern list - the word "caps" is really only used in international football (where players often receive actual caps - the term has been used more widely on Misplaced Pages, but wrongly. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I hit other club articles I saw that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this IP address' talk page

This IP address is from the wi-fi network at the University of Saskatchewan. There is a high probability of further vandalism. --198.169.17.249 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There have only been two edits from that IP to date. The one that added material against our policies against controversial material in biographies of living people and the one made above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scenario testing

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Scenario testing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ZOEgirl (album)

Hello,

The edit you made to ZOEgirl (album) was minor, because it simply replaced the # symbol with the letters "No." Next time, please label similar edits as minor.

Thanks,
--LABcrabs (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Because it changed content. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes me consider it minor is that it hasn't "changed content" as you suggest it is. It is simply replacing a symbol with text. What i don't understand is 1. why you did that and 2. why you consider it a major edit and not a minor one. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I take it that you are making reference to Help:Minor edit "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page" however you're missing the parenthetical part "(... where this is not contentious)". For some editors it is contentious and so I don't mark it as minor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how is this vandalism?

I hope this is the correct place to respond, but in regards to the Philip Glass page, I was simply trying to contribute.

His middle name was not stated. I happened to know what it was, so I included it. I'm no wikipedia wizard, but I'm having a hard time understanding how that is considered vandalism.

And in response to me making the change twice, as you can see someone else made another change shortly after I added my harmless contribution. I just figured that since someone may have opened the page before I submitted my change, they may have saved their own changes with a page that did not include my revision, since the template they were initially editing did not include my contributions.

72.19.94.144 (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's vandalism in that it is a controversial edit and is unreferenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

since when is his middle name controversial? exactly what controversy are you referring to? and SINCE WHEN does something like someone's middle name get referenced on the page. I have looked around at some pages, and for the life of me, I cant find any that cite a source for something so trivial as someone's middle name.

and for the record, my confused friend, that IS his middle name, and your ARE taking this a bit far. but just because I am a nice guy, I will ask for your help. help me, oh great one who trolls wikipedia, help me provide a resource that will suit your needs. his middle name pretty well agreed on by some relatively trustworthy sources, like, oh, I don't know, PHILIP GLASS HIMSELF! Watch the documentary. he says his middle name.

furthermore, it is stated on his IMDB page, which is a peer-reviewed and trustworthy source. see for yourself.

this is silly, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.124.105 (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

reflinks with {{cite web}}

Just wondering how you use the reflinks tool with {{cite web}} (e.g. in your recent edit)? ··gracefool☺ 03:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a link to javascript:location='//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/'+(typeof%20wgPageName!='undefined'?wgContentLanguage+':'+wgPageName:)+'?client=bookmark&citeweb=on&overwrite=simple&limit=42'; on my browser's toolbar and I can click on it on any page. The website does the rest. More info at User:Dispenser/Reflinks --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. There's no documentation for the attributes (citeweb being the crucial one). ··gracefool☺ 10:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Help me by Jaci

Hi, my question is, do you have the album Help Me by Jaci? Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrblue (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. No. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers reliability

Hi, Walter. I decided to write you here because I don't want to give the impression that we're having a discussion regarding our little difference in the 1966 WC talk page. At least from my part, we're not, and I repeat your main point is right, but I just think it's unnecesarily meticulous. But what I think is important for you to know in the future is that newspapers are not official sources. I've checked out what you linked me and I can't see what there could have given you the impression that they are. Newspapers do not pursue scientific precision, and therefore are usually not reliable. Besides, official sources are those affiliated to the organizers of an event or the owners of some thing, and newspapers don't receive officiality because they don't belong to any organization. They're useful nevertheless, but usually only when we've got nothing better (which is too frequently the case). Please don't take this personally, because it's not. I'm telling you this just to help you improve the backing up of your contributions in Misplaced Pages. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For attendance at sporting events, newspapers usually just parrot the information given to them. So I'm sorry, I don't see your point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Cuenca

2011– Barcelona 3 (1) can not you see? (User talk:agelshan) 21 november

Petra 1984-1986

Hello Walter,

Thank you for your review. I believe that you are right with the date of Captured... and just the recording sessions were in 1985. I will do the correction back to 1986 if you want me to and I will make another correction on the "Beat the system" page (released in "1984" or "1985")?

1984 Beat the System StarSong/A&M John Lawry replaces John Slick in keyboards. Nominated for Grammy Award for Best Gospel Performance in 1985.

1986 Captured In Time and Space StarSong/A&M First live album for the band. Last album featuring Greg X. Volz.

1986 Back to the Street StarSong/A&M First album featuring John Schlitt. Nominated for Grammy Award for Best Gospel Performance in 1986.

Peace, Uwe50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.18.20 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The dates I referenced were 1) on the back of the vinyl recordings and were the release dates, not the recording dates. 2) They are listed with those dates in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yerba mate

Sorry you were offended by my adding "comment" to your post. I added a bit to one of my posts, almost simultaneously to your update. I was merely trying to keep things orderly. Lou Sander (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspected it was done innocently. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave a thought to messaging you about it at the time. I guess I should have yielded to the temptation. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jake_Fuersturm

Who in the hell are you? Djathinkimacowboy 16:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, Djathinkimacowboy directed users to the SPI via a Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance‎ request. After the complaining that Djathinkimacowboy offered there I felt it was important to respond at the SPI as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Walter,

following the WQA opened by the above editor, I've determined that he is in the bad habit of rattling cages quite often. Some people he has had frictions with in the mere 26 days since he opened his account include, Erikeltic, DIREKTOR, Cameron Scott, and McGeddon. Seems to be a regular pattern of accusing people of "stalking", "harassment", and "personal attacks" but does not appear to present himself in a particularly civil manner, from what I gather. The fact that he has opened up a dialogue with you, commencing with a rather aggressive "Who the hell are you?" seems to suggest that this guy is adversarial. The WQA shows he is not always willing to accept the truth either. I suspect that Erikeltic is also unwilling to drop the stick in terms of the SPI, "Jake", matter, as he too is still pursuing admin advice, fraught in seeing cowboy blocked, it would seem. Needless to say this is just some friendly advice, that Djathinkimacowboy seems a bit of a mud-slinger, so you might want to watch him carefully, in future, especially since you opposed his "canvassing" claims in the SPI, and his reaction is to treat everyone against him like a group conspiracy, then starts taking to several talk pages, which becomes harder to follow. Take care. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish  04:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New club season articles

I'm currently working on the 1991–92 SV Werder Bremen season and the 2011–12 1. FSV Mainz 05 season. Both are not complete and needs some working. If you're wondering about the Werder Bremen season, that's the season they won the European Cup Winners' Cup. Kingjeff (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wondering but will keep an eye out for it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started on the 1963–64 Hertha BSC season. It still need some working on. Kingjeff (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Honors/Honours

Haha, sorry man, good catch! Enjoy the offseason, best of luck to you guys in 2012. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season

There is a deletion review here. Kingjeff (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you vote on the topic? Kingjeff (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

King's X

Hi, I'm not sure I understand what your saying. I'm attempting to comprehend what your trying to point out. What exactly is the difference between material that is unsourced and material that needs sourcing? Aren't they one in the same? The statements never had any proper sourcing to begin with. Any claims without proper sourcing should be removed immediately. Whats the difference if that maintenance tag was inserted in November? The sentences never contained a reliable source in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.29.104 (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

in re OWS Library merge discussion, possible canvassing

(also posting to WP1234's talkpage)

An extra set of eyes is appreciated, but those guidelines talk about using neutral language when notifying. Encouraging others the way he did is not neutral. Sounds like he just wanted help arguing by replying to all the "Keep/Do Not Merge" votes. -A98 98.92.185.66 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1995–96 FC Bayern Munich season

1995–96 FC Bayern Munich season needs some working. Kingjeff (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey Walter, your talkpage is on my watchlist and I noticed your comments to User:Dondegroovily. Just wanted to give you a heads up about the talkback interface. While User:Dondegroovily manually added the section heading, Twinkle actually adds the heading automatically. Clearly, some prefer the section heading, while others do not. That said, it may be beneficial to overlook the different preferences and simply respond to the message. Respond with grace, rather than react out of emotion. Just my two cents. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Verification etc

Regarding your edit summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Verification_and_validation&curid=13144608&diff=464531482&oldid=464531252]) - what comments on my talk page ? I'm not that bothered whether a few sentences are moved from one article to another, but agree with User:Dondegroovily's reasons for removing the tags - would you rather the tags were left cluttering the articles for another 3 years ? DexDor (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Wrong talk page, it was a different editor. The discussion is still open. Feel free to comment on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The merge tags should be removed. You're the one who thinks there needs to be something particular on the talk page(s) to "allow" the tags to be removed so it would be helpful if you explained exactly what you want. DexDor (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion about why the tags are required? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! You did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette Assistance

Can you please look into this? . Thanks. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If the attacks have stopped, then I would let it go. If not, WP:ANI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll let it go. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the attacks have resumed -- . YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not an attack. It may be using Misplaced Pages as a weapon, but it's not an attack. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gorlitz. My initial assessment was correct.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Only partially. You accused him of being a user who was editing in the same area. That didn't pan-out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Further update: --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Then your suspicions were justified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And now we find out that not only did he have a past account, he has a concurrent account. Don't worry about the spam, this is my last update.

Regarding WQA in general, if I can humbly provide some advice: Please be very suspicious when a new account with a few dozen edits finds himself bringing an editor with +50k edits and virgin block log to a noticeboard. I'm not saying my rhetoric was exemplary, but perhaps you should have ignored the report given the background of both editors. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I were suspicious. I just don't say anything, particularly when an investigation was ongoing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken Iwao Change

I listed the footballer Ken Iwao as a Guam national. I have found at least one website that lists him as a Guam national. Please explain you change. Note: The Ken Iwao listing is on the page Shonan Bellmare. User:Oakley77 —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

I thought I did unlike you who did not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, your biggest flaw as an editor is that you don't seem to use the edit summary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Whoops, my bad - I'll correct it soon. Thanks for the heads-up. Toa Nidhiki05 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just glad that you're doing this. I'm glad to help when you hit an article I'm watching. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone has to it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

notice was already given

Re: Nick Cooper, I gave him notice of the WQA discussion, both on his talk page and on the article talk page. Just not using a neat template <g>. Collect (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You sort of did, yes. But you linked the header. The one I left was more appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I really think DNTTR works <g>. Collect (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup awards

Get yourself informed before accusing me of vandalism. I provided source and website while you, on the other hand, simple decided to revert edits obviously without even reading the edit summary. Next time try to assume good faith before falsely accusing users. 189.60.22.117 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You were not accused of vandalism. The editor before you was and your edits were in the way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, more correctly, the unhelpful anonymous editor made three edits, you reverted one edit and so I reverted the other two. Your edit was not affected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Glass and Sutter

Hello WG. I thought that I had reverted the IPs removal of all mentions of Wendy Sutter in the Philip Glass article earlier today but it turns out you beat me to it. Good job. I did have one question. The mention of the onset of their relationship in 2005 seems a little dated to me. I would think that the relationship has progressed/regressed or changed in some fashion. If you know of anything that could be updated that would be great, on the other hand if you are happy with the page as is please don't worry about making any changes. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching the article for a while. The anonymous user has continued to make the same changes to the article for a while. I have reverted all of them adding increasingly more stern comments. The anon must be informed that the edits are not acceptable. If the editor left comments explaining the changes it would be marginally more acceptable.

I'm sorry I don't have any updates on his relationship with Sutter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Must be somebody in New York (where the IPs geolocate to) who has a bee in their bonnet about the whole thing. Thanks for your vigilance on his article and others. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

Hi Walter, I see that User:Suitcivil133 is starting to be a conflict with my edits, judging from my opinion he is a Barcelona supporter and any negative out look of the team he deletes as in the Real Madrid vs Barcelona 11-1. Ive done my fair share of research and its been noted that there was no proof that Francisco Franco "theatend" Barcelona, he also said that "Your description of the 11-1 game is also highly biased." I dont see how that was "biased" if that really happend? Can you please do something because I dont want to be in an edit war with someone that reverts my contributions. Then whats the whole point of updating the article? RealCowboys (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that starting last night. I don't think that Suitcivil133 said that there was no proof, just that there was no reliable source. I'm watching the article and will become involved if needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

1986 FIFA World Cup

Your recent editing history at 1986 FIFA World Cup shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Longwayround (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)