User talk:Klock101

Welcome

 * }

Non-free rationale for File:Bright&#39;s Passage cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bright&. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 Wikipedia 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you really have to revert the entire edit? In reverting my removal of *some* information, you've removed *far more* information from the page.
 * Also, the Manual of Style page for television episode lists does not say that Title references as a requirement. As per the Template:Episode List page, they are only required for future episodes. The episodes that I removed the references from aired months ago. As such, I'm reverting your revert. Klock101 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about deleting the new episode content.
 * However, what the template documentation you pointed to, states is, "Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." It does not state that "they are only required for future episodes". That is a misinterpretation of the documentation. WP:V, which the docs point to states, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." Feel free to check Mickeydee15's block log. This editor was blocked for repeatedly removing references on this article. The editor made similar claims to you. When I reported the action, the blocking admin sided with WP:V. I restored the references, left your additions, and left most of your copy changes in-place. Feel free to revert to your preferred edit, but be prepared to explain to WP:ANI why removal of references and maintenance templates is acceptable practice on Wikipedia.
 * One thing further. There's an edit notice on my page. Every editor who adds a comment there sees it. It clearly states that responses to a discussion in one place should be left there. There at least two ways of notifying me of discussions here: talkback and ping. If you would rather discuss this at the article, it's on my watchlist and I will see any comments you leave there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree about misinterpreting the documentation. From what I've seen, no other episode lists on Wikipedia have references for episodes that have already aired, including this page which the MoS lists as a good example of an episode list. Regardless, arguing about it here isn't going to solve anything. Is there somewhere we can escalate this in order to get proper clarification? Klock101 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the same argument that Mickeydee15 made, yet Mickeydee15 was blocked twice for removing references. There are many places you can "escalate" this, but don't make List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes that place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what I mean by escalate. I mean take it to a higher authority - we're clearly at an impasse. Somebody else (like a group of admins or someone who knows more about MoS stuff) needs to sort this out.
 * I did not mean that I'm going to start edit warring on the page - I don't plan on touching the references until this is clarified. I've made a post here about it. Surely you can see where I'm coming from here - no other episode list that I've seen on this site includes a reference for aired episodes. Why should Murdoch Mysteries be the exception (unless there are others I'm not aware of)? Klock101 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. You don't seem to care to look into Mickeydee15's edit history to see that I am telling the truth. There are many ways to seek resolution. If you think that this is a dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would suggest pinging the admins who blocked Mickeydee15 or the other editors who reverted Mickeydee15 on the article in question. There are many other avenues though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked into the page's history, and from what I can see, you're the only editor who reverted Mickeydee15's removal of references. In fact, you even broke the three revert rule in the space of just a few hours on the 10th/11th October 2016.

You have yet to provide a convincing reason why the references should remain, when seemingly every other Episode List article on Wikipedia does not have them. Somebody (with a lot more experience than me) answered my query with a view that supports mine. I think there's more than enough reason for me to remove the references from the page, but I'm not going to (yet), because the last time someone stood up to you on this, you had an admin ban them for "edit warring", despite the fact that you were just as guilty under the 3RR.

If you can agree to just drop this, I'll remove the references, the article will be in line with all the other Episode Lists articles, and everyone can just move on. If not, I'm going to take this to an admin, because you're treating the article as if it's yours, and having people punished because they're making perfectly reasonable edits that you don't like. Klock101 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't drop this because WP:V says they stay. Just because every other episode list allows it is no reason for articles on my watchlist to remove references. Since removal of references (vandalism) is exempt from 3RR, so feel free to take me to Take me WP:3RR to see what they say. Before you go, answer why Mickeydee15 was blocked (and not me). WP:V and Mickeydee15's block are the only convincing reasons that I can offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure where to take this so I've created a post on Third Opinion. We'll see where it goes from there. Klock101 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." -WP:PRIMARY. Titles of episodes that have already aired are referencing the primary source themselves. This is an accepted convention on episode lists. An inline citation is not needed for past episode titles or air dates. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I propose we remove the references from the Murdoch Mysteries page, and put a link to CBC's official episode guide in the External Links section. This will bring the page in line with all of the other Episode List articles on this site.
 * I've done everything I can to prevent taking this to an admin (by posting on the Template page and by seeking a Third Opinion, and the above proposal is based on their recommendations).
 * So I hope you can accept the consensus on this. If not, I'll be taking this to the admin notice board. Klock101 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It should not be an accepted practice on Wikipedia as it violates WP:V.
 * Klock101. Feel free to remove the references. I'll then report your removal of references to WP:ANI and we'll let the block log decide whether CONSENUS or V is the threshold. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I came to this discussion because of the notification at Template talk:Episode list.  As I've already mentioned, WP:PRIMARY is what's relevant in this case, and WP:PRIMARY is policy.  Past episode titles, air dates, and basic plot summaries are already referencing primary sources, so additional inline citations are not necessary – a convention that's respected at every episode list.  The policy on primary sources is even mentioned within WP:V.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear case of WP:CANVASSING not third opinion. The cabal/project has every need to protect its opinion against the rest of the project.
 * PRIMARY is not relevant. V is. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Canvassing is notifying only specific editors to sway the direction of a discussion. This is not what was done; a discussion was posted on the talk page of the template and its documentation that are in question. The above editor obviously has no intent to accept any other policy other than their own (even if the policy that accepts the content as-is is mentioned in V), and has no intent to discuss the dispute civilly after reverting my typed-out discussion on their own talk page. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The disagreeing editor has begun an RFC at, and continues their attacks there. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries
Use a footnote? If I knew how, I would... I wrote on the talk page asking for you, which you apparently didn't see. Instead of deleting it, why don't use write the footnote.

Oh and I cant' put "when it actually aired" since it's only the second episode and I can't see the future......

Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)