Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:38, 1 November 2010

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

Canadian magazines

There already is one. A list and a category aren't necessarily supposed to serve the same purpose. Bearcat 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating

Neither of the above. I either forgot, or thought I had checked but did it wrong. The last I remember was looking for simple, step-by-step instructions and not easily finding any. I apologize for leaving the double redirects and thank you for fixing them. Do you know where to find instructions on how to check for double redirects? I think I followed these directions from Help:Moving a page: "Always check the What links here for your page, and if there are multiple levels of redirects, go fix the links to point to the new location directly." I thought I saw some direct links, and some pages indented which would be redirects, and nothing indented twice as far which would be double redirects. I don't remember very clearly. I may have used the wrong method, or I may have made a mistake in how I applied it. I'd prefer to have instructions that explain what double redirects will look like in the "what links here" page. If I find out, I may write the instructions (which will then come in handy next time I move a page). Sorry again for taking up your time with this. --Coppertwig 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe I see what my mistake was. Maybe there were no direct links, because the page had just been moved. So what I thought were direct links were the list of single-redirects, and the ones indented once in comparison to those were actually double-redirects, but I thought they were single-redirects. --Coppertwig 05:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's probably wrong, too. What do double-redirects look like on the "What links here" page? --Coppertwig 06:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I think I understand it now. I've just written the instructions Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Checking for double redirects. Note Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken; article pages linking to redirect pages don't need to be fixed. --Coppertwig 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It was useful and more-or-less necessary (as well as permissible, which I always thought) for the links to be changed as you did. (I read the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirect#What to do with redirects to a page that was moved.) Thank you for doing that. The links as computer code (left-hand side of a link divided by a pipe) don't generally need to be changed, but in this case, the right-hand-side, which displays in the articles, did need to be updated to show the new proper name assigned by the government. I'll try to do better next time I move a page. --Coppertwig 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PROD

You may have confused "Proposed deletion" with "Articles for deletion." Proposed deletion is a process for attempting to delete an article without discussion. No discussion is taking place about Mgmbill. And anyone, including non-admins, even the original author, can stop the proposed deletion by removing the tag. That's how you're supposed to do it. The remover doesn't even have to provide a reason, though I always try to. It is speedy and AfD tags that are not to be removed. Review WP:PROD if you need to.

It sounds like what you want is an AfD. In that case, see WP:AFD for directions, and participate in the ensuing discussion. Mgmbill may very well lack the necessary notability to survive an AfD, my removal was procedural rather than a judgment on notability. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD

You seem to have left comments on the WP:AFD page under the Sean D'Anconia heading. I think you might have been mistaken, as the article I nominated for deletion has nothing to do with Mgmbill. Could you have a look for me and see if you could straighten it out? Thanks. beekman 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems that one of the admins moved your comments to the appropriate areas, and everything was cleaned up. That page can get kind of crazy with edit conflicts. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. beekman 20:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aminopterin

Sorry about the {{fact}} issue on the Canadian status of aminopterin. I put it there out of a desire to find a comparable source to the EPA doc I found for the US. I will admit my knowledge of the Canadian equivalents of the EPA/FDA/etc. is limited. My initial attempts trying to use Google.ca to search only Canadian sites for this info did not meet with much success.

In any case, I certainly didn't mean to imply what you had originally added to the article was wrong. Thanks for cleaning it up. --Dfred 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

C-NoEviL

I created a page for hip hop record producer "C-NoEviL." I believe you have a mark on the page, indicatin that the page doesn't confirm he is a record producer. Please refer to the references, external links, and the internet in full before you make a wrong decision and try to delete the page. All of the information is accurate. Also, refer to existing pages, links, and other information in regards to C-NoEviL; the page was created over a month ago and was "cleared" by Misplaced Pages standards. I was updating some information on it today, but it cancelled out the page and therefore I had to create the page again. Nothing is wrong with it.

thank you,

Jgray11

Deleted page - C-NoEviL

To your comment: Then wouldn't you leave that as a note on the page instead of just flat out deleting it? Why would the page I created over a month ago be fine, that I accidentally take off the information, put it right back and all of a sudden you delete it? That doesn't make sense!? I'll research and get it right but a little more helpful info would be great!

jgray11

Varieties of English

Hello there! Thanks for all your contributions to Misplaced Pages! I appreciate it. I want to make a quick point about different forms of English in Misplaced Pages. Recently there have been a number of changes back and forth to the article Mennonite in regard to the word "labour"/"labor". Misplaced Pages policy states that unless there is a significant reason to change the form of a word from British to American spellings, then the spelling should be as originally written. Significant reasons can deal with the following issues:

• Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout.
• If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
• Try to find words that are common to all.
• Stay with established spelling.
• Follow the dialect of the first contributor.

For details on each of these points, please see WP:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English.

In the case of the Mennonite article, the spelling was originally given as "labor" (). The most appropriate policy applying here states that "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated."

Thus, in this case, whether "labour" can be considered an "international" form of the word is irrelevant. Labor is a valid spelling and, according to policy, should be used here.

Let me know if you take issue with what I say, have any questions, etc. Thanks for being a part of Misplaced Pages!!! I am sure you love this place as much as I do :) JeffreyN 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For my part, I was referring to the context of the whole article, which is neither American specific or specific to any other geographic area. I don't really care which way it is spelt :) as long as Misplaced Pages policies are observed. Originally, your edit summary "Misplaced Pages isn't American so we'll keep it with the 'international' English spelling as the original editor wrote it" confused me and, to be honest, offended me a little bit (does that make sense? This is not meant as an attack, just an explanation of what I saw and interpreted). The edit summary indicated to me that your reasons were not in line with Misplaced Pages policy; however, your new reasoning as described holds water to me. I have no problem leaving it as "labour"! Thank you for explaining your logic and being diplomatic about all this. I appreciate it. Please respond and let me know if this all makes sense to you. JeffreyN 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keaggy / Cassar-Daley True Believer albums

Thanks for your tirade on my talk page. I fix up mistakes by other people here all the time - in fact when I made that one I was fixing up four articles recently created by someone else with incorrect names. I always fix double redirects, however since it was 1am when I made the edit I forgot that one of the redirects was to a disambiguation page. In this case, adding a note to the top would not have been appropriate, as each album was of equal significance - while it would have been more convenient, it wouldn't have been correct. In any case, I also found one that you missed at Wade Jaynes and have fixed that.

It is generally preferred to Assume good faith, rather than go and tell the other person they are stupid (not "not stupid"). I guess it's a good thing that it wasn't a new user making those changes because they probably would have been put off Misplaced Pages if yours was one of the first comments they received. -- Chuq 01:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I never called this user stupid, nor did I imply it. I simply pointed out the problems that the user created by moving a page that had been created without cleaning up the redirects. If the user is feeling stupid, it's not my fault. --Walter Görlitz 06:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be my computer science background but 'Not "not stupid"' implies "stupid" to me. Yes, the problem I caused was that I moved True Believer (album) to True Believer (Phil Keaggy album) when a second article about another article with the same name was created, and accidentally left ALL THREE of the links to that article pointing to the disambig page. Yes, three. If you really think that is the worst thing to happen on Misplaced Pages then I suggest you spend some time doing recent changes patrol. -- Chuq (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Again to clarify. I never called the member stupid.--Walter Görlitz 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, you didn't call me that directly. You just implied it. There was a "Not Stupid" barnstar a couple of posts above the bottom of the page and you stated "I'd like to revoke that award". Anyway, I don't really care what you called me, I just have no idea why you decided that such a minor mistake was a reason to lambast another editor. -- Chuq (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor was reading too much into the comment. I was simply commenting that the user did not deserver the "stellar" award that was given. I didn't bother to read the title of the award. --Walter Görlitz 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Twilight Sad

I think the independent review from Pitchfork Media is enough to avoid speedy deletion, at least. I'd be more comfortable if you sent this to AFD. Thanks, NawlinWiki 01:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've referenced 2 reviews of different releases by the band on the talk page. I'm unsure how to include these in the article, however, but I do believe that this band meets the notability criteria. Thanks.--Sparklism 12:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Free The Hops

I've renominated Free The Hops for deletion and hope you can comment. -- Rob C (Alarob) 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Christian rock, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Super-Magician 20:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during August 20 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. — Super-Magician 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please cite your edits rather than pass them off as true just because you say they are. Controversial edits such as yours should be discussed first on the talk page. — Super-Magician 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You want me to cite removal of vandalism and misinformation? --Walter Görlitz 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Try to at least provide a reason why you believe the information is inaccurate or biased. Otherwise, it might appear as vandalism to people like me. — Super-Magician 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead then. — Super-Magician 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

stub section in Software Testing

hmm - why? I gave a reason, which you did not: 20:39, January 6, 2009 (hist) (diff) Software testing ‎(Undid revision 262306073 by Tedickey Tedickey (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Switchfoot "obscure" awards.

Ok, let's address your arguments point by point.

1. "All of the awards are obscure. They're all gone. Thanks for setting the standard."

My first response is that, NO, the awards listed currently are not obscure. ASCAP and GMA are two major organizations. ASCAP is the big-time "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers," and GMA is the "Gospel Music Association." The San Diego Music awards are also highly respected by music critics nationwide because of the eclectic and thriving music scene in that town (thus, it has its very own wiki article). Awards with Misplaced Pages articles generally are not "obscure." These awards are still around, they are not CLOSE to being gone, and no, I set no standard. The standard was set before I even made my first edit on wikipedia!

2. "Just because you don't know an award doesn't make it obscure. You need a much better definition of which awards should be kept and which should not."

First off, I DO know which awards were being posted up on the awards section, I'm not stupid. The "This Is Home" award that was posted was NOT a Dove Award, it was a small Gospel Music TV award... therefore, it certainly didn't belong there. Oh, Switchfoot won NO Dove Awards this past year by the way!

Secondly, the added random Australian song of the year award is NOT major... it's based on Christian Australian radio station's airplay. Last time I checked, artists and bands don't get real awards for getting the most plays on radio. Maybe recognition as a "song of the year" or something, but no real awards. Perhaps next time, you can do your research before jumping to conclusions. Thanks. Joberooni (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Functionality

I so hate that word. What's wrong with just saying function?

I also think I changed it in more than one place. :)

SimonTrew (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In two months you have not said why it is wrong to say function instead of functionality, before my immediate reply that there is a difference. SimonTrew (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. See User_talk:SimonTrew#Function_vs._Functionality. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine

Who cares if The 77's give credit to Johnson. Many people haven't even heard of The 77's. It's a trivial non-notable event. The whole edit warring on the article has been nothing but disruptive. MegX (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The 77's and you are incorrect. The song is traditional. Johnson may have recorded a version but he did not write the song. The Grateful Dead credited it as "traditonal" not to Johnson, and since the song is public domain the claim Led Zeppelin stole it can not be proven in court as no-one actually owns it. And lets do bring this to a vote. Given the number of editors you've warred with over this I suspect you might not get the support you claim. MegX (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Teitur Thordarson

There is absolutely no guideline even advising the use of only 26 characters in the English alphabet. Also, see Ayumi Hamasaki for an example of a foreign-language FA that uses the appropriate infobox. Admiral Norton 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't like the way the request turned out, I'm not disputing the move, I'm disputing the contents of the infobox, which IMO should be the way they are in the FA article I presented as an example if we stick to the "English" version of the name. Admiral Norton 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm an admin, so I might just go and argue with myself and change that infobox, but I don't really care any more. Good night. Admiral Norton 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

A comment has been left on the Wikiquette page regarding Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine#Connection to Blind Willie Johnson discussion. MegX (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitecaps merge proposal

FYI, Cmjc80's close of the merge proposal was not "vandalism". While it may be a good idea to request an admin to close a merge discussion if it is contentious, it does not have to be an admin who closes it. Anyway, I have now closed it as there is no apparent consensus for a merge. In addition, I have reverted your edit to Cmjc80's user page; he/she is under no obligation to create a page. --Ckatz_spy 06:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Walter, that's not it at all... there had not been any discussion since March 27, and there was no apparent consensus to merge. Perhaps Cmjc80 should have requested outside advice, but the fact that he closed it after 17 days of inactivity is not comparable to your stated intent to "close merger discussions that I feel are not going the way I like". --Ckatz_spy 23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Added a bit about functionality (and thanks for your reply) SimonTrew (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian Music

I was looking at the Adult contemporary article and someone had made that addition. I thought it was useful in that Christian music seems to be divided up into several different styles. I suppose most of the stations would fit under "Christian AC". But from what I'm reading there's something new called "Christian CHR".

I'll go back to the other article and see what needs to be done there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's at the end of this section. To be fair, if you do it to me, you should do it to this person too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Adult_contemporary_music#History_and_evolution_of_the_format Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would rather have kept both articles the way they were. I'm not reverting this person just because you say it's wrong, but I can use your edit summary to make changes.You seem to know this music. I take the attitude that we should all be listening to the music of Germans who died 200 years ago. Nevertheless, when I know stuff but can't pinpoint a source Misplaced Pages would accept, I make the necessary additions.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On the whole Good Charlotte thing

you asked Good Who? lol, actually Good Charlotte is a very famous alternative rock group (At least to modern day teenagers like myself). And I don't know if all the members are Christian, but I do know that both the the lead singer and the rythym guitarist/backing vocalist in the band (identical twins Joel & Benji Madden) come from a very religious background. Also, the band refers to God in many of there songs, and even has two songs (We Believe and The River) that have Christian themes (look up the lyrics to the two songs and you will understand). Take care, and God Bless. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Music

I restored the "expanded list of CCM artists who were never considered to produce Jesus Music but Contemporary Christian Music" since they all created Jesus music and are important to the article. Granted, Sweet Comfort Band is definitely a late entry in the list, they were very evident in the mid-seventies at Calvary Chapel. If you want to discuss each artist individually, we can do it on the article's talk page. I left your festivals paragraph though. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that Jesus Music happened during a specific time period *before* Contemporary Christian Music came along. Pretty much every one of the bands listed in the section I deleted were/are considered CCM, *not* Jesus Music. When you start adding jazz-fusion, country rock and hard rock to the mix, you have gone into CCM and completely strayed from Jesus music (and the type of music is even denoted in the paragraph above the one you restored). It was the evolution of the music and the genre that caused the term CCM to be coined - the time period for what was truly called Jesus Music was a small window in comparison to what you are attempting here. Not only that, but you have bands in that grouping who were definitely considered (by those in the business as well as themselves) to be CCM, and not Jesus music. Along with removing the "it was immature" POV comments, I am restoring it back to what it was when I went to bed last night. The section on those bands you listed would be much more appropriate in the article on Contemporary Christian Music - why not work it in there? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The page has been edited and reviewed by many experts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? *Which* "experts" are those? Do you have names? And from where did they receive their "Jesus music/CCM Expert" credntials? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added references and cited peer review on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The artists you removed were in existence during the time of the Jesus movement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well...of course they were "in existence" (I didn't imagine them as infants playing and singing onstage) - but were they actually a part of the Jesus movement and performing Jesus music prior to the genre's morph into CCM *as* the groups you listed?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added references and cited proof that they were in existence as bands during the era of JM on the article's talk page. Your suggestion that I was implying that they were alive is an attempt to discount my claim by reducing it to the absurd. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Their early albums all have "file under Jesus music" on their spines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where is the evidence of that claim? Do you have a refernece or references you can cite to back this up? And if so, were those labels placed appropriately?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is right here in my music collection, and in the collection of many others. If I didn't write that "File Under Jesus Music" was written on the spines of the albums, I'm sorry. It was common practise during that era. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do what asked and discuss this on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Who asked that and when?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked. When I reverted your edits. In the summary comments. I asked you to make all further discussion on the talk page of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will provide album scans to prove my point. Do not touch the list of artists until you have vetted your reduced list through the talk page, citing why each artist should be removed and I will do the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you a Misplaced Pages administrator? If not, don't presume you have a right to tell me what to do in Misplaced Pages.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. didn't mean to imply that I was an admin. However, when you go in and harshly edit an article like this--one on which I've worked for a while--without fully understanding the reason that the article is the way it is, it's upsetting. In fact, Misplaced Pages's policy is to edit hard, but you have to take into account that in this instance, you were inserting opinion on the bands and musicians who were listed. One that did not fit the facts. While we must present evidence when we add new material, apparently deleting material doesn't require citations. That's wrong. That's why you should talk about your evidence on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A have specialized in Jesus music and early CCM. I know the difference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear otherwise. I have also "specialized" (if that is what you want to call it) in Jesus music and CCM - not just because I experienced it when it actually occurred, but also because I have been a participant as a professional musician within the genre.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know who was in each group. I know who did and didn't make the transitions. Please don't try to teach me what you don't know, it's really condescending and rude. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean like you are being right now? Sorry, but since I'm not behaving as you are, I can safely say that I am not being "condescending and rude".SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I meant more like you were being when you made your edit summary comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been around for the four years that I've been editing that article and I don't appreciate your deletions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there some rule in Misplaced Pages I am not aware of that states an editor can claim ownership of an article? If there is, I must have missed it.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point of the article doesn't mean that I think you're immature, you're just missing the point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said "immature", I was referring to a POV statement within the article, not something you said or possibly implied.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more points. It's not 1970's, it's 1970s. It's one space after a period, not two. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ad-hominem noted. So you're not being "condescending and rude", eh? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have ignored the remainder of your attacks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

edit-war over "lyrically and musically simple"

Please don't edit-war or add it until there is a good cite to support the claim, so it's clear that some reliable source is saying this, not a[REDACTED] editor's opinion or analysis of cause/effect. OTOH, once there is a good cite, it's definitely includable and an interesting idea! DMacks (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Sheila Walsh-Future Eyes 500.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sheila Walsh-Future Eyes 500.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese flag

That's odd... it shows up for me fine. Maybe it's an error on your computer rather than a problem with the Wiki image? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Rock

Sorry about that, I didn't really look to see what exactly was going on. Now that I looked again, you're definitly right. Free (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine

Do you know who the IP is that is on this crusade against you? I have protected the page for longer this time to stop it wasting any more of your, or anyone else's, time and effort. Mfield (Oi!) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Re: User:SockpuppetWG, I am not a checkuser so I can't check the IP personally. His appearance certainly does look suspicious and I will certainly keep an eye on him. If his editing pattern/behavior becomes problematic then we can open a SSP case with an associated checkuser request. Mfield (Oi!) 17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Please stop creating new cases for the same individual. You can add new accounts to the existing report here. — Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

White space

White space can be necessary if it improves the readability of the article, like in this case. Digirami (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the browser. It has to do with the resolution of the screen. If you have a screen at 1024x768, the infobox messes how the table is supposed to look. Digirami (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vancouver MLS 2011

To me, if a team's paid its league dues and officially been announced by the league, it's a member of that league, regardless of when it begins play. So Vancouver MLS 2011 is officially a member of Major League Soccer, it just doesn't begin active play until 2011. Just to clear it up, Tom Danson (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Incivility warning

I am putting you on notice that you will be reported for inciviity if you continue to attempt to bully and intimidate me on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting

Don't let User:Afterwriting get under your skin. He's not too bad of a problem overall. He's clearly lost the argument at this point and will simply get himself banned if he keeps it up. Given some of the comments I see he's getting elsewhere, it's possible he's intentionally trolling people this way, too. If he keeps this up, we can do an RfC. Sχeptomaniac 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Churches"

I didn't want to get into an edit war with you, so I'm coming here first. Seems to me that the word "churches" in that heading (on Baptism) is not a proper noun, as it is not referring to any particular church or group of churches. And technically, the word "church" transliterated "ekklesia" from the original Greek means nothing more than an assembly or gathering of people. As such, I believe the word "churches" in the section heading should not be capitalized.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a proper noun. The Catholics refer to themselves as The Church. Most protestants and post-reformation denominations don't take such a narrow view. I am in the latter camp and with you would prefer to see it uncapitalized, but if you look at the change history, I'm sure you'll see someone making a stink over it remaining capitalized for the reasons I gave above. If that's not the case, then I really don't mind it changing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:36 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Oh, ok, I wasn't aware that had been disputed before.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to messages where they are (to keep all parts of the discussion together), or at least use my talk page rather than my main user page. Thanks!
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for References

I'm not too experienced with Misplaced Pages protocol, so I'm not trying to be contentious. But regarding your removal of a reference I added to contemporary worship, would that reference still be considered illegitimate if it includes content that informed a revision of the article itself? In this case, the sample job description in the "Worship Leader" resource suggested additional responsibilities that were added to the Worship Leader section of the article. Thanks either way for your help! Timbugtoo (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Timbugtoo

Not a problem. It actually makes more sense to discuss this on the article's talk page, but we're here now. The issue is that the resource is a $15 document. If it backs up a specific point you're making, it's best to use a <ref></ref> tag and {{cite web}} citation (see WP:CT). But a bare reference looks like an ad. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Baptism

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Baptism: you may already know about them, but you might find Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. Thank you.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Thank you! How do we get started? Which references should be removed? I'll giver it a try, I guess. Armorbearer777 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have written up s nice little Christian Metal Radio Section.. Here goes, I hope it lasts.. Armorbearer777 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are so many other great Christian Metal radio shows and podcasts these day! More coming out all the time. I think it is AWESOME! The more the merrier says I! But I tried to highlight the ones who are recognized as the main pioneers and other notable shows, for their substance and originality if not always for their popularity. Perhaps one day Christian Metal Radio may be able to stand on it's own. That's about all I think I should ad for now. What do you think?Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

hi walter

RE; List of GUI testing tools. Lists are used in Misplaced Pages to organize information, and for internal navigation. Lists contain internally linked terms and thus serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Misplaced Pages. Lists do not exist for the purpose of linking external websites. Each "article" entry within a list has its own content, citations or "official" links, therefore External links within "list of..'s" serve no encyclopedic funtion and fails WP:NOTLINKFARM.--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Larry Norman

Hi Walter,

I note that we are ping ponging on the Emil Nikolaisen claim.

I don't know who wrote that Emil was majorly inspired by Garden, nor why they didn't cite any references.

What I was trying to do, because the entry had "citation needed" next to it was to show at least that Emil is a fan. I figured that gets us one step closer....

Would it not be better then if we changed the sentence, so that instead of majorly inspired, it just says that Emil is an admirer of larry's music? That can be cited.

I didn't rewrite it because I'm new to editing wiki pages, and wasn't sure if that would be the correct etiquette.

What happens with other false information that is there, say with a citation that is untrue or incomplete?

For example, the page says that Randy was dating Nancy. The cited reference only says that Randy's girlfriend was Larry's sister; no mention of names.

Now Nancy herself says that they never dated.

Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NASL Country discussion

hi walter. thank you for you input. please come discuss this further on the NASL talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:North_American_Soccer_League_%282010%29#Country_league_is_based_in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.148.252 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Non regression test

I saw the non regression test speedy delete and posted a hangon. Just thought i'd ping you so you are aware. This is my first time working with speedy deletes, just thought I'd look around[REDACTED] a little. I am not totally familiar with policies and procedures for this sort of thing, and in general I dislike wikilawyering as I prefere to edit articles for content (something I wish I had more time for). My thoughts are on the articles talk page. Regards, CoolMike (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GUI Test Tools

Please stop removing Eggplant from the list of GUI Test tools. Over half the external links at the bottom of the page mention it, it's been around longer than Ranorex and has more users, and I've been a user of the product since it's introduction 8 years ago. I'm not trying to advertise the tool, it's a tool that everyone should have in their arsenal. Thanks for listening. Ajfisher2 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have an article while Ranorex does. Personally, I don't think either should be on the list as neither can demonstrate market share. It's not a tool that everyone should have in their arsenal. My mother doesn't need it. Web designers don't need it. There are lots of people who don't need it. You need it, and that's great for you, but Misplaced Pages isn't about you or me, but about information. Why not create a page for Eggplant and see if it survives. If it does, you can add a link to it on the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Baptism (Immersion/Submersion)

I'm sorry if I stepped on your turf with the baptism and immersion baptism edits. It was not my intention to get into a wiki-war over baptism.

My main concern about the "baptism" article was that the word "submersion" is used in the heading and article when submersion is not in common usage by theologians and dictionaries (in my own experience and quick research), and possibly misleading to casual encyclopedia readers who encounter the term "immersion" frequently. I have heard the term qualified as full immersion but very infrequently, "submersion." I was fairly confused when I first read the article and it referred to submersion, when most other sources I've had contact with call it "immersion" or sometimes "full immersion." Basically, I was concerned that others would be similarly confused by the term "submersion." Swampyank (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to hope a vicious war doesn't break out between the immersionists and the submersionists. Tom Harrison 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy Stonehill..

If it is true, how can it be liable? The divorce is a matter of public record besides being common knowledge. I shall scan it in, upload it and then reference it. There is also no mention of the fact that Randy was also married to Larry Norman's wife. I think claiming god saved his daughter from spinal meningitis is a much more libelous statement than the fact that Randy has had a 3 year long affair and is now leaving Sandi due to his inability to maintain a faithful marriage.68.52.39.110 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it public record? Larry married Randy's ex-wife, not the as you suggest. This is the first I've heard of Randy and Sandi parting ways. I believe you're slandering. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Load testing

Hi Walter, thanks for the edits. Will surely use care with any material which goes in.

Dhiraj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhiraj1984 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying

Please do not make assumptions, they're not nice either. Just because someone leaves a comment on my talk page does not mean that we are conversing. If you have a problem with the comments he/she leaves others, please adress it on that users talk page. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Bro

I put allot of my heart into writing that radio section.. I hope I didn't step on your toes.. I like Pulse radio, but it is just not Intense Radio, HM Podcast of Full Armor of God Broadcast. Maybe we can make a bullet list.. I don;t know.. This all gets so draining to me, I don't know how you do it.. Be blessed and thanks for the oppertunity to write the Christian Metal Radio section on Christian Metal. But I just don't have it in me to battle this out.. I leave it to you cheif. By the way, do you have skype? email me if you can taskforce@fullarmorradio.com Armorbearer777 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on your talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I now seem to be under attack by Ridernyc, Franamax and another user Rubbersocks in retalliation to this Christian Metal Radio discussion. They seem have an aspect of chronnyism that links them together, possibly canvassing or even stealth canvassing. Any input you can give me would be much appreciated. Sorry for bailing out on the Christian Metal Radio discussion but it did not appear that it was going very well. It was getting very draining for me. One thing that I do agree with IhopeIcan143 about is the fact that there definately seems to be a rivalry between The Full Armor of God Broadcast & pulse radio, seemingly more on their end. I suspect possible stealth canvassing betweem fishermanD, IhopeIcan143, Ridernyc and Franamax. But how does one prove that? There definately seems to be a collaberation of sorts between them all. Anyway, please join my disscussion on the re-wright of Christian Metal Radio on my talk page, if you please. Also, there are NEW sources that should allow The Full Armor of God Broadcast to finally be able to have a stand alone article very soon. Once that is achived, it should be clear that the Christian Metal Radio segment on Christian Metal was never just a ploy to promote Full Armor, which is what these users are all implicating. Keep in touch! Armorbearer777 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter, you seem to have Armorbearer's trust. Perhaps you can explain to him that he is not under attack, rather that several editors are making good-faith and polite attempts to help him undrstand and comply with site policy. Maybe also explain that on Misplaced Pages things don't always turn out exactly the way you want them and that doesn't mean that people hate you or are out to get you. I'd rather see this get resolved peacefully so that everyone can go back to editing articles, the alternative is considerably less desirable. Franamax (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, I closed this, hope that's what you wanted? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reverting of administrator's comments that contradict your comments on my talk page

I notice that you have reverted an administrator's request that you don't revert "warnings" on other editors' talk pages. It's very interesting that you have done this - especially in view of the claims you have made about this on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. You misunderstand the policy. Allow me to explain it to you. There are instances where blanking is specifically allowed. I applied that rule here after I read the admin's comment to my talk page. I believe it was a comment and not a warning template. You correctly applied the rule when I placed a WP:NPA on your talk page. However, in deleting the warning on your page, you again broke WP:NPA and so I reverted and placed the warning on your page, which is permitted in WP:BLANKING (restoring warnings). So the policy is you may delete warnings or comments of any type, although archiving is preferred, however warnings may be restored, I believe that there should be a good reason to do so. You even later commented on your talk page that you hadn't read the information in that warning. I believe that this is now resolved and I left the following on your talk page as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you finally read the the page about no personal attacks. I am not engaged in a campaign of incivility, abuse, harrassment, and stalking of you. Someone made several edits on the Reverend‎, a page on my watchlist and you reverted all of them. I then restored one edit that I felt was deleting distinctive information. You took offence to that and accused me of stalking. I tried to be civil on its talk page and you dropped into ad hominem attacks. I responded to the edits. You attacked me again personally. I then responded with comments on the content. I researched the matter and found that personal attacks are not permitted and placed the template here. This is what should be done. It was only a level-one warning. You commented again on me personally in your reverting of the comments as is permitted in specifically allowed and I restored the warning as is loosely permitted in that same guideline since you obviously had not taken WP:NPA to heart. You then attacked me again, on my talk page this time, and I placed a second level-one warning. You are most free to revert any warning placed on your talk page. It is your right and privilege. I will never place a warning on anyone's page unless I hope it has a corrective effect and as such, any warning should be investigated before being deleted.

Please, dear brother in Christ, I am not attacking you. You may feel that I am being uncivil, but I have never once in this debate uttered an uncivil word nor taken an unkind action toward you. I am not abusing, harassing, nor trying to provoke you, I am simply trying to teach you to be civil, non-abusive, and non-harassing when dealing with other editors. The edit war on the Reverend‎ article has ended and thanks to your work on that article, it's really shaping-up nicely. Thanks for your effort in improving that article and the many others on Misplaced Pages that you assist with. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Underoath

Dear Mr. Görlitz, thanks for your support and comments and my talk page as well as on the article's talk page. I simply feel that there is no reason to excise an important attribute about the band from the lead when most academic references mention it when introducing the band to an audience. The opposition has not mentioned a good reason to remove this fact. His quote actually supports why one should leave the adjective in the lead: "Christianity is the backbone of our lives." Thanks again for your comment! With regards, Anupam 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Görlitz, there is a pending discussion here that you may be interested in. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam 07:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful Dying Day

That page is not an edit war, or speculation. What happened there was an honest mistake, which has now been resolved. Your involvement is only making a mountain out of literally nothing. Thanks. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, I just interpreted it as such. The user explained to me that that was actually the name of the new.. er.. whatever it was. Sorry for the confusion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, my edit was not vandalism. Please stop furthering the conflict that has already been resolved on the page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Shouldn't have hit the Rollback vandalism button. I have now followed-up on your talk page and have deleted the associated acts since they're not linked to articles (and there's no WP:V for the fact that they're associated). No need to split the one artist into a new section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It was placed on my talk page because the editor came to me, because I reverted it (for the same reason that you did). However, I do see what you are saying. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the topic. Thanks for the clarification, Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the one that started the Beautiful Dying Day page, and I have read 'A7' on how apparently this is not a relevant entry for Misplaced Pages, but I honestly don't understand how one so many other things that are on it are any more relevant that fall within the same criterion. Simply because you do not know about the subject would not mean it is not important; do you not agree? --Parkergreydeal (Talk) 22:15 (UTC)

Responded at User Talk:Parkergreydeal --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.