User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2021-12

Buddy Miller
Hello, You undid my re-edit of the Buddy Miller page regarding a band he was in in the 1970s, saying there was no reference. I am the reference: I knew him then and played in a band that played with the band that he was in. So, I actually witnessed him playing in the band: The Desperate Men. Here is a recording of them performing in NYC around that time, with Buddy identified: https://www.facebook.com/101543269925472/posts/this-is-great-desperate-men-and-the-lsc-go-waayyy-back-right-bill/212953098818144/ and another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9yNT1f1VNg Here's another reference: http://www.desperatemusic.com/desperate-moments/the-band-of-desperate-men-from-the-first  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgoessling (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries - Main Page
Hello;

Someone did something to the main page and I'm too sick and tired to focus, to see what needs fixing. Could you take a look please? BlackW76 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again;

That user "Flameboy" has messed up the main page again. I took a look but can't see what he did. BlackW76 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flameboy182, took longer than expected but it concluded with Daveguy18 getting a indefinite block. I was thinking that Flameboy182 would get a block extension, but it looks like that account got an indefinite block as well. If you see anything else that looks suspicious and think it's another sockpuppet—like adding syndicated US networks to infoboxes—feel free to add something to the sockpuppet investigation, or ping me to help you look at it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Will do. BlackW76 (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chosen
Hi Walter! I hope you don't mind me contacting you here. I went back over Gwapong's edits on The Chosen and it seems they have a history of disruptive edits. I believe them to be good faith, simply being new and not understanding Wikipedia standards. But since it is affecting article quality, I will be addressing the issues in the cast list as well as the season 2 table. Per MOS:TV none of season 2 should be there other than mentioning details of it being in production, provided that can be sourced (hope you agree with that?). I've already taken this out of the cast, noted why in the edit summary, and left some notes on the talk page. I am waiting to see how they respond. Depending on that response, I'll move forward on addressing other issues with the cast list and removing the season 2 table, which should not be included until it can be complete without any "TBA." The end goal is to address article quality issues while at the same time trying to channel Gwapong's enthusiasm in a constructive direction. If you have any concerns, advice, criticism, or anything else, please let me know. Butlerblog (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your revert today. I've blocked the other editor - they clearly think that they can add material and that others should find the sources, they once again stated that in an edit summary today. Doug Weller  talk 08:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The material was just removed by over the past few days, with full explanation on the article's talk page. The other editor has different ideas about inclusion. I responded on the article's talk page literally as you were writing here. To be fair, I've seen some odd edits with TV shows. No need for references once an episode has aired, and odd rules about inclusion, so my concern has primarily been in keeping truly unconstructive edits from happening on the article, but I recognize Butlerblog's project-based concerns and would like the other editor to address them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, for some reason I thought you'd reverted Butlerblog. Anyway, the other editor is indefinitely blocked. If they agree to stop adding unsourced someone might unblock them, but the chances of them understanding our policy and knowing what sources are reliable seems slim. Doug Weller  talk 08:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've stopped counting the number of times I've seen "reverted to revision ... by _" and mistaken it for "‎reverted ... edit by _", so I understand the error. Thank you for your involvement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your guidance and efforts. My concerns were primarily listing of future events (i.e. season 2) as they are not encyclopedic, and a consistent pattern of reversion even when issues were brought up and policies explained. I tried to reach out on their talk page to thank them for their efforts, give some information on NOR and how to cite sources, and asked for dialog on moving forward. I was hoping to be encouraging and draw them in, but the response was that they simply blanked their talk page. I wanted to assume good faith, and hope I didn't act in bad faith in my approach towards them so if there's any feedback for me from a growth perspective, let me know. Thanks! Butlerblog (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts on The Chosen, Walter. It's the first time I've dealt with that kind of conflict, and it was a learning experience to approach it the right way. I'm wondering if it might make sense to move the two Big James credits next to each other, since they're now only one credit apart. I wonder if it might confuse people and lead them into a good faith edit that seems to make sense to them. The reason I ask you here is after all that's happened, I didn't want it to seem like now I'm moving away from what I had supported (broadcast order of the credits). I saw last night's edits and I wonder if that was actually someone else who just thought they may be doing just that? Just wanted to seek your guidance and input on that. Butlerblog (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not seem to be someone else. The initial WP:SPI showed behavioural evidence that the Philippine editor was the named one. The new IP is also from the Philippines and the same ISP as the first anonymous editor. An admin looked into it and blocked the new IP for six months, but we all know that IPV6 addresses change quickly and so the block will likely be ineffective. I have also asked for the page to be locked to new and unconfirmed editors, but that may not solve the problem either.
 * I support the broadcast order credits as well, and since I'm not really a participant in the TV project, I don't have much advice to offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, that makes sense. It's all unfortunate because we did try to channel his energy in the right direction, but he just would not bend. I'm sure that kind of thing happens on a regular basis, but I've never dealt with it before. Thanks again. Butlerblog (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most editors just walk away when they realize that their ideas and process is in conflict with the culture and process used on Wikipedia. Every so often, we find a crusader who will not let go. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Only Way
Hello Walter, I hope you are well happy new year 2021, I would like you to please help me in the article Only Way. In reference 11 I get an error in the appointment, you can help me. Thank you very much, greetings and many blessings in this new year 2021.GJFBR (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the benediction, and blessing to you as well.
 * The named reference was not defined anywhere else. I assume you mean the 365 Days... entry, as it had been reused a few times though the article. I cleaned it up and the error is gone. If that was not the correct reference, please substitute the correct one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, in fact I already cleaned some errors, on the other hand you can check this article Heaven on Earth (Radio Single), if there is something wrong you can correct or clean. Thank you very much Walter for your help. Blessings.GJFBR (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

About Echolette, and Arthur Klemt (at least the English Wikipedia article) as well
Hi Walter,

2012 was a long time ago. I must admit I can't recall creating the article at all. Back then I was a fairly well established editor, and can't understand why I would create Echolette without any references at all. But obviously I did. I guess it was because I was a little bit bedazzled by the Arthur Klemt (Erfinder, 1913) assertion that the company made effects units used by Chuck Berry and the Beatles.

I note that the 2008 de Löschkandidaten for Arthur Klemt (Erfinder, 1913) resulted in bleibt. That is of course a matter for that Wikipedia.

While looking to see if I could remedy the WP:PROD, all I could find was pretty much either:
 * advertisements for antique audio equipment
 * reminiscences in online forums about... antique audio equipment

My initial response to the WP:PROD was, WP:REDIRECT to Arthur Klemt. This again was an article I started without any references in 2012.

I personally have no objection to a WP:PROD for both Echolette, and Arthur Klemt. However, it would appear to me that WP:AFD discussions may be appropriate here. I ask your opinions and guidance about this.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My PROD arose from a contested PROD that went to AfD where the most recent editor argued WP:OSE and pointed to this article among others. I did a WP:BEFORE after checking the lack of sources, and PRODed. I did not click through to the Klemt article, but if I had, I might have gone the speedy route. Taking both to AfD might be appropriate with one merged into and being a redirect to the other, or possibly deleting both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

HTTPS links
You reverted about 5 updates I made from HTTP->HTTPS links. Could you please cite the Wikipedia policy that says that links should use HTTP? In these cases, the web servers are are sending a "301 Moved Permanently" response to the HTTP URLs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301. Further, there are countless cases on wikipedia that the link is stored in wikipedia as HTTPS when the HTTP version does resolve - for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House - are you proposing that all articles like the White House article get reverted to HTTP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But you're not linking to a 301 page, you are changing a link to a server that would listen on TCP port 80. If the browser is capable of a secure port, it will be rewritten. If there is a firewall that prevents such communication, it won't be. However, if you force TCP port 443 and the firewall prevents it, you are prevented from going to the site. In short, you should not change the link. It's a problem that you do not seem to understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have not cited a policy in your reply - please link me to the editing policy that talks about this so I can learn more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact that you pinged me when you were writing on my talk page and did not bother to follow MOS:INDENTGAP when replying are problems and show your inexperience. So let me know what policy you're following to change a good external link to another one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The HTTP response status code 301 Moved Permanently is used for permanent redirecting, meaning current links or records using the URL this response is received for should be updated" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301. I did not claim to be an expert Wikipedia editor :) I am just asking for a link to the editing policy that talks about this so I can learn more ... you have not yet provided that, and instead insulted my skills :(
 * Per here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#HTTPS_vs_HTTP%3F: "If you are referring to links to external websites, WP:EL says that https links are preferred" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, unsigned, you do not have to ping me on my own talk page and wrong indent level.
 * I have no clue what you're saying. Are you implying that URLs that you are changing from HTTP to HTTPS were all returning 301 errors, because I checked the first three I reverted and they are not.
 * No, HTTPS is preferred for wikipedia's own links, not external links, nice try though. I work on the EL project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not "trying" anything - just trying to figure out what is the proper way of doing things. Are you saying that the policy listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#HTTPS_vs_HTTP%3F is incorrect? If so, please cite the correct policy. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is how to see the 301 redirect: 1. Open a browser's developer tools. 2. Click the "network" tab. 3. Clear the log. 4. Check the box to "preserve log". 5. Navigate to http://www.nashvillesc.com 6. Click on the first entry that says "301" 7. Notice the status code reads "301 Moved Permanently" Gavreh (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * YOu need to fix your browser then. When I go to http://www.nashvillesc.com/ it returns a 200 status code. Within a few milliseconds it has returned a redirect and my browser loads https://www.nashvillesc.com/ so that it can load all of the facebook tracking and Google analytics that it needs to push out. I watched the whole process in my network inspector. Whole process from end to end was 116ms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, seems like we are getting inconsistent results. Perhaps a third-party service might show a consistent result? Try http://www.nashvillesc.com at https://httpstatus.io - here's the 301 I'm seeing: https://i.imgur.com/QYXiUHg.png Gavreh (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like your browser, a plug-in or possibly something else is causing a problem. I'm sure you are having problems, but they are not mine and since no one has complained bout the URL before, are likely not being experienced by most. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like you['re not even trying with your browser . I suggest that you do. If you're using most browsers, you can clear your cache and then open the network inspector (available in both Chrome and Firefox as a tool after hitting F12). It will show you the process. I suspect that tool refuses to do some activities that a browser will do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not having an issue getting to the site -- I am simply noting that the web server is sending a "301 Moved Permanently" response initially, which means "current links or records using the URL this response is received for should be updated" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_301). The browser does then redirect to the HTTPS version, but that does not negate the fact that the initial request indicated that "current links or records using the URL this response is received for should be updated". That all being said, I'm happy to abide by the Wikipedia policy. I assumed there is one since you reverted my changes, but I have not seen one referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavreh (talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not having problems going to the site, I am not having problems going to the site, and the tool is seeing a 301 error, that says a page the tool is seeking or is being forced to look for by the server (to prevent further processing by a non-human controlled browser) then there is no problem for users but for bots. That seems like a simple problem with a simple solution: don't use the tool and use a browser. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not referring to any errors or problems getting to the site. I am using the 301 redirect as evidence that the HTTPS version of the URL is the more correct version to use on the article page. Gavreh (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 301 is not a failure, and even your tool follows up with a 200 code. That 200 is what it gets when it redirects (server-side rewrite) to the secure port. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

All I Can Say - Thank You
Hello Walter, I would like you to help me in the All I Can Say - Thank You article. Check the article that I created in the background section. I think it lacks sense in that section. Better take a look at the whole Walter article. Thank you very much I need a review for you. Blessings and greetings.GJFBR (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The Amity Affliction
Hello Walter, I need your help with this page. Recently, there is this user who has constantly always new IP and he is messing with the page of the band members. I always reverted his edits, but he is always going back and revert my revert, calling me a vandal and also gave me an unreasonable warning. I don't know if you can do something with that, but I do need your help please. Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Three of the edits are from Barnsley, NSW while the earliest is from Mooroolbark, Victoria. Are you sure this is the same editor? I'll request page protection for the article, but we'll see how much will be offered and for how long. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't 100% sure about if he was the same. Maybe it's because the first four 4-digit numbers in the IP were all the same, so that's why I came to that conclusion. Anyway, even if they aren't the same person, they use the same explanation on me. So who knows. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. Protected until April 21. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Amity_Affliction&diff=prev&oldid=1001779396 b Be sure to send some Wikilove to the admin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem editor
Clear that Risery Voiple Yelty, Unknown User Double and 220.120.78.242 are the same person. I will be creating a warning for RVY and UUD Talk pages. If bad contributions continue, I will start either a sockpuppet or a not here to improve Wikipedia complaint (those BAD drafts). David notMD (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, Risery Voiple Yelty indicates that they are a meat puppet of Unknown User Double and 220.120.78.242, so let's assume that's true. Their prose is a bit different so I tend to agree, but the pages they've created are on my watchlist, so I'll see what happens. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, Lalah Sandalina. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Risery User page claims to have created three drafts, including two that Unknown claims to have created, so I am of opinion that we are seeing activities of one person rather than meat puppetry. In addition to Lalah Sandalina (first edits 22 Jan, including a new bad draft), also Sarah Lahi (edits 15-16 Jan) and Yerin Gu, no edits by, but edits on Yerin's Talk page by 220.120.78.242. I will start a sockpuppetry investigation. I suggest not bothering to work at reverting edits on the drafts, as there have been no attempts to date to submit any to AfC. David notMD (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/220.120.78.242. We will see what comes of this. David notMD (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I Remember
Hello, I hope you are well, I would like you to make me understand why the article I Remember has been redirected to the article Glory, Part One, why? First time I do singles articles, I think it is because of the lack of review of the song, or because it did not enter a Billboard list? The person who redirected the article placed this notice:  I don't understand this a lot of the notoriety in song singles, Walter who have more time on wikipedia, make me understand, please! Thank you. Blessings.GJFBR (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bitter Truth
Hello Walter, I need your help with this page. Recently, there is this user who has constantly always new IP and he is messing with the page of the album. The same situation we had was kinda the same like when they messed with the page of The Amity Affliction. I always reverted his edits, but he is always going back and revert my revert, calling me a vandal and also gave me an unreasonable warning. I don't know if you can do something with that, but I do need your help please. Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Anthem
I just created this article you can check: The Anthem. Greetings and blessings.GJFBR (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

192.249.199.158
Can you help me out and report this user? They have been messing up Frankie Drake Mysteries again. I don't want to undo this page again. 2001:470:1F2D:C:78EF:4AF3:28D2:17F7 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not seem as though is particularly problematic. perhaps  can offer an opinion. The best place to discuss the issues may be the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Devourment Timeline / Band Members
Hello! I saw that you have been protecting the band Devourment from a poorly sourced member section and timeline. Using the already listed references as well as credits for their discography, I was able to put together a correct timeline and list of members. If you find any problem with it, I urge you to let me know or attempt to correct it, but please do not delete it. Cameronsmiley2345qwerty (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries/Frankie Drake Episodes
I noticed the episode count is upto 217 and episode 211 just aired. Yes, I know I've been changing the episodes but it's off - I think. If the three TV movies are included, wouldn't it be 214?

Also user: 2001:470:1f2d:c:78ef:4af3:28d2:17f7  keeps changing the way you and I do the references for Frankie Drake Mysteries, to the point they change the episode count back to 38, after I changed back to 37. I acciendly jumped ahead with the episode count and realized my mistake. BlackW76 (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This user keeps disruptive editing these pages by using bare links and not using the RTitle or titleR option to put the linked refs in the correct place. Also they are adding unreferenced titles.  Most users would be in trouble for reverting back pages as this user consistently does. 2001:470:1F2D:C:78EF:4AF3:28D2:17F7 (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This user has been editing Frankie Drake from the begininng..... BlackW76 (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That does NOT justify adding unsourced material that hasn't aired or using repeating bare refs. I have no idea why Walter Görlitz seems to to condone your blatant disruptive editing actions. 2001:470:1F2D:C:78EF:4AF3:28D2:17F7 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

About whether to use Template:n/a for non-album singles discography
Hey Walter! I noticed your edition of NF (rapper) at discography section. In most cases, we use Template:n/a for non-album single(s), like Rihanna singles discography and Calvin Harris discography. But the community does not reach an agreement on whether to use that template, like Taylor Swift singles discography (no usage). My opinion is to continue using the template in NF discography, for reading habits of fans and editors of WP:DISCO. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  13:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They're not necessary and add overhead to page drawing so I do not use them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , maybe we should discuss the topic with other Wikipedians at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. :) -- BrandNew Jim Zhang   (talk)  03:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That already ignores MOS:ACCESS with the tables. While I checked with ACCESS a few months ago and they indicated that it was an acceptable WCAG contrast level (I think it was 1.7) it is still unnecessary. Also, the more templates a page has the more problems there are in rendering that page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for editing For Love Not Lisa instead of just reverting it again
That page desperately needed more information on it, and for the past 10+ years I kept wanting to improve it, and finally got around to it. It's always a bit jaded when trying to clean up an old article in 1 big edit like I attempted (usually I don't do so much at once, but this time I did), so thanks for making parts of it more uniform + structured.Xanarki (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding New CCM Artist "Holly Halliwell"
== Hello Walter! I'm trying to add a new CCM Artist to Wikipedia named "Holly Halliwell". I created the page in my sandbox, however cannot figure out how to publish to Wikipedia.

I'm newer to Wikipedia, so I'm not 100% the steps that need to be taken. Any help or wisdom here would be greatly appreciated, thank you! Wilbur Wallace (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Humorous
Hi,

my apologies for the broken pipe in The Avengers (TV programme), somehow my mouse pointer went to the wrong place... However, I think my other modifcations, also in The Twelve Days of Christmas (song) and in Untalkative Bunny, were correct. "Humorous" is not only the correct spelling in American, but also in British English. I took this mainly from WP:Lists of common misspellings/H, but also a quick Google search shows, e.g., this and this. More than that, it seems that this is also the case in Canada, see here.

--Cyfal (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Chris Marion
Good morning! You did something with the infobox on the Chris Marion article that is far beyond my technical expertise so I am afraid to mess around with it. But, if you look at the page, it messed up the actual appearance of the box so that what is now at the top of the article is a bunch of code. Anyway, would you mind taking a look at that and seeing if you can figure out what went wrong? Thanks! Novellasyes (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for telling me. I did that late yesterday. I deleted a closing bracket when I deleted the break. It's fixed now thanks to your comment here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncle Slam
Did you mean to undo my edit? Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I think it was an edit conflict, but I was not alerted to one! Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Formatting fix
Hi Walter, this edit caused some issues with the italics not ending - which then caused all other debates on the page for that date to have italics! I wasn't smart enough to fix it myself, so I made this change. Feel free to correct what I've done however you want to! Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching and correcting that. It was the closing emphasis tag that was malformed. Since it used HTML and not markdown, the fix would not be immediately obvious to most editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

in re: Nate Rothacker
If only, but it's already survived one PROD. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Liam Millar
I made the change to Liam Millar's profile as someone keeps changing his goals scored to two when he's only scored one goal for the club. Understand your decision to revise it however, but think it's worth noting when he leaves to avoid future vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKennedy157 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

RC3
Thank you for voting to disambiguate RC3. I honestly don't remember why I created that redirect in the first place. It was 10 years ago. Bwrs (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

He was doing good....
....but I see their running into trouble again. Is it best to block or keep an eye out?? Editor Interaction Analyser. Was going to ask but not sure if they are still doing this kind of blocks.

Sockpuppet investigations/Charles lindberg/Archive -- Moxy - 11:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have a duck here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Football articles
Seems to be a new range - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/27.125.240.0 --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/27.125.240.0/24 Yes. I Saw that yesterday. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Musician Article Feedback
Hi Walter!

Reaching out to see if I could get some feedback regarding this page. It was quite quickly marked for speedy deletion for "promotion" by CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you seem to be somewhat the Wiki expert in articles about musicians, so I wanted to tap you for advice. Def wanna write more of these in the future and not make any mistakes the first time! The possible mistake was that for some reason I didn't realize a lecture of his was behind a paywall, which I have since removed. Other than that, although it was my first article, I remained objective, sourced everything, and referenced numerous other articles on musicians. And to be clear, since I don't know what assumptions could have been made when tagging for speedy deletion, I don't know this figure, only his work, otherwise I would have declared COI. Would really appreciate feedback on what else could be the issue so I can remove anything not consistent with the guidelines ASAP. Thanks!

Falvitesse (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's actually G11. It's not written well, but doesn't seem spammy. Granted, the refs don't mention McCloskey in detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Falvitesse @Walter Görlitz If you do not agree feel free to remove the CSD Template altough I have to admit that in its current form it is very, very likely that it will be taken to Article for Deletion since I do not see sufficient notability per Notability (music), there is no chart placing, the refs barely mention the subject etc. etc. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Walter Görlitz@CommanderWaterfordThanks for the responses, trying to learn here. Could you let me know specifically how it's not written well so I know what to work on? Curious as to what you mean about "chart placing" as well. I understand about the sources and will work on them and review the notability requirements. appreciate both of your time.

Falvitesse (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Secret Band had been deproded
Hi, your prod nomination at Secret Band had been removed by an IP - I suggest taking it to AfD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Episode summary edits
Someone came in to The Chosen with a flurry of edits to the episode summaries. Quite frankly, IMO they're good and improve on what was there. But I'm fully expecting that it will set off a firestorm of MPS reverts. Should this occur, my approach (unless you object) is to tell him his original work is a good start, but it's subject to improvement through the input of other editors and if he has a valid objection that he should discuss specifics clearly on the talk page to seek a consensus. Ordinarily, I wouldn't feel the need to reach out pre-emptively, but I think in this case "past performance IS indicative of future results." (BTW, as an aside to this, I have the nagging feeling the user is somehow related to Gwapong. The primary pages focused on are the same - The Chosen and Superbook - and I've even noticed a couple of specific edits on other pages that were exactly the same and were reverted for the exact same reasons. Maybe I'm off base, but it just seems too coincidental.) Butlerblog (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm just checking and haven't seen them. Be WP:BOLD and try to gain consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

- This continues to be somewhat frustrating. I share your concern about MPS's statements. He makes every supported revert an edit war and then turns around and talks like he actually believes he is working collaboratively and he's simply being attacked. He has made comments on my talk page that indicate he thinks I have something personal against him. I've tried to give him guidance and have been clear that it's not personal, but he persists. At some point, it's no longer WP:NOTHERENORMS. WP:OWN still remains an issue ("I will let you...") as do WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 2, 4, & 5. Is he slow to get it? Or is he WP:NOTHERE? Am I off base here? Butler Blog  (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, even after all the discussion, MPS came back and re-applied his edit. I rolled back to a previous edit, noting that his edit was contrary to current consensus. I'm assuming a bit of good faith here because he applied his change after making his case on the talk page, possibly not understanding that simply stating his case does not mean consensus has changed.  I posted a warning to his talk page about disruptive editing.   Butler Blog   (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Standing Under Bright Lights - Article page submission
Hello Walter, I don't know if I'm contacting you at the right place to discuss this but I saw the recent edits you (or someone else) did to the page for the article about "Standing Under Bright Lights" and I'm grateful for that :) I haven't created or edited many articles at this point, so any help is appreciated. I read the wiki terms for creating articles and made changed to the page, edits, added citations, adjusted texts, etc. Would you mind having a look and tell m what's left to adjust before it can be published?

Also, I added details about Standing Under Bright Lights to Alex Henry Foster's main article page since the article I had created about the album wasn't published. I saw your comment about this detail, I can go ahead and take those off to keep everything about the live album on the live album article.

Thanks for all the help! Mme Gogo (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Mesut Özil stats table footnotes
Hi there, Walter. Some of footnotes at Mesut Özil's career statistics table don't look quite right. Can you have another look? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

TDG Member Timeline
Hey Walter thank you for leaving that message on my talk board! I would like to know if I could get some help fixing a few thing on the timeline so I could maybe publish it. I have the timeline on my sandbox page.

Thank you and have a good day.

Soviet-l-Sailor (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Terreberry
Walt I gotta ask, why spend so much time improving the article just to try and nuke it from orbit after the fact? All that time debating... I know sourcing each song individually took a while, too. You got a good chuckle out of me! Mbdfar (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It only took about 15 minutes to source the songs, and I did it because it was needed. I can't expect others to do what they don't want to. I had always been on the edge with the subject, so when it was nominated, it was not a hard sell. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up
Hi Walter - You may have seen this already, but MPS got himself blocked for socking. He was writing a draft for a split of Superbook and it was tagged as copyvio. The copyvio banner says "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" and long story short, he used a second account to remove it. Due to his relative inexperience, I doubt he'll prevail in his request for unblocking because in his second attempt to request unblocking, he applied the wrong template (so it appears as it has already been reviewed rather than a new request). Anyway, I thought you should know because if he does not get unblocked, I would not be surprised to see another sock account being used on The Chosen. Butler Blog  (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Carman (singer) editor
I found this online: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carman-licciardello-80648672/. Carman Licciardello (aka Carmen (singer)) was the president of a company or organization named "CWO". Given 's self-identification of "CWO Board", I have a feeling this may cross the line of WP:ORGNAME and possible shared use. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Do you want to take that to the conflict of interest notice board, or should I? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you have filed at UAA, so let's see what happens there first. If they aren't blocked, then I think COIN is definitely the next stop. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries Season 14 & 15
I noticed the coloured line under the episodes synopsis is missing for all of season 14 and the first episode of season 15. Could you take a look please? Midnightkitty21 (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Football squad player2
Hi Walter.

I'm contacting you, because I noticed you were a contributor on CPL club pages.

I'm very new editor, long time wikipedia user. Recently I noticed an Atletico Ottawa table changed to the Template:Football squad player and I'm digging around trying to figure out what led to all members deciding to go with the layout it uses.

Personally, I not a fan of it, because it breaks the table up into two weird separate tables.

Were choices made because Desktop users wanted the table to use more desktop screen space? If so, did any of you discuss adding more columns to the tables? Such as, dob-age, Apps, Goals or other such data?

Why currently does the CSS of the template not use some more advanced property:value pairs to alter the size of the table for desktop users?

I'm aware that I am late to the discussion, but since wikipedia is a free service provided to all users, I'm trying to understand where I can dive into this problem to maybe help, and/or offer input without stepping on toes.Tamccullough (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the second template was proposed about a decade ago to address accessibility (and other) issues in the older template. It was adopted for all North American league articles after that happened. The other leagues did not elect to use it (for various reasons). As for adding additional columns, that cannot be done using the standard templates. There is a proposal to make some changes and merge the tables, but there are issues preventing that from proceeding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A decade ago!? Yikes! A lot to wade through then.Tamccullough (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. And that accessibily correct version split almost immediately. football squad player2 and Fs player2 sort being the two variants. The former can be seen in use at Vancouver Whitecaps FC while the latter at Toronto FC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey walter.
Please revert my edit on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_national_football_team > Competitive Records > Copa America > 2021 Results Someone else was using my account. Please revert the changes. Don't ban me, please.🙏🙏 Basix.cs (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin and I can't block you. Feel free to apply constructive changes at will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

For Thanks
Hi! Thanks for your advice I will do my best at any time need help I contact you. Boom Boom 3030 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Citing YouTube videos
When citing YouTube videos (per WP:PRIMARYCARE), "YouTube" should be in the "website" or "work" section, not the "via" section. "Via" is how the source was created, while "website" and "work" are self-explanatory. An example of "via" would be Gale; Gale has the ability to export citations, so when they're imported to Wikipedia, they should say "via Gale". An example of a website or work would be Fox News; Fox News is a website, where the content was published, so it should say "Fox News". I'm explaining all of this because Walter Görlitz used ProveIt to move "YouTube" to the "via" section in citations to Steve Terreberry. L33tm4n (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I did not use ProveIt to move "YouTube" to the "via", that is the correct place for it to be placed. YouTube is not the source. YouTube is a self-publishing platform and not the publisher itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (Tag: ProveIt edit) – This is the tag that's used in one of your edits, "I'm going to fix this again, please don't break it again.- Reference edited with ProveIt, Script-assisted fixes: per CS1 and MOS:ITALICS". Also, the "publisher" section is not for the website itself, but rather the publisher of the website. Plus, if it's a self-publishing platform, it can go in the "website" or "work" section (YouTube is a website), and it won't need a publisher name next to it. And like I said before, "via" is how the source was created, not for the name of the website; Twitter created a proper method of citing tweets, so they include "via Twitter" in citations of tweets. L33tm4n (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statements about my actions are correct. Your statements about how YouTube should be listed in a reference are not. YouTube should in the  parameter. This tool correctly moves it there. While it is a website, that is not the correct parameter. It is most certainly not a work. You should be raising this as a question at a citation template not demanding a change from this tool or from me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I have had a bit of time I looked at Template:Cite web. The  parameter states that it should be used for the "name of the entity hosting the original copy of the work, if different from the publisher." It then lists YouTube as valid use here. The problem that the subject in your example is also the publisher (a self-published work) which is why I nominated the article for deletion so long ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But we're using Template:Cite AV media, not Template:Cite web. I'm using a paragraph explaining "via" to prove my earlier point, "Name of the content deliverer (if different from publisher). via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail. It may be used when the content deliverer presents the source in a format other than the original (e.g. NewsBank), when the URL provided does not make clear the identity of the deliverer, where no URL or DOI is available (EBSCO), or if the deliverer requests attribution."
 * "via is not a replacement for publisher, but provides additional detail." – YouTube is the name of the publisher. Also, what you're failing to acknowledge is the en-dash separating "via" in the same sentence as the retrieval date; because of this, we can conclude that "via" is how the source was retrieved, not the name of the website/publisher. L33tm4n (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And that's the wrong template even for that. That template is for physical media such as vinyl recordings, DVDs, etc. At best you should be using cite web for YouTube videos. Regardless, Cite AV media has the same criteria: via: name of the content deliverer. In short, Terreberry is the publisher, not YouTube. It does not matter one bit which template you use, the works are self-published and YouTube is simply the way the publisher is pushing the content to the planet.
 * PRIMARYCARE makes no claim to support your position. No template supports it. YouTube is not publishing anything, they are simply a medium that others use to publish works. Whenever YouTube is encountered as a source, it should be in the  parameter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am continuing this discussion on this talk page due to a bug. Anyway... one, I never used WP:PRIMARYCARE to support YouTube vs. the "via" section; and two, what do you think of this citation format for YouTube videos? I'll be using Cr1TiKaL as an example, " ". L33tm4n (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AProveIt&type=revision&diff=1033168552&oldid=1027910451 you wrote When citing YouTube videos (per WP:PRIMARYCARE), "YouTube" should be in the "website" or "work" section, not the "via" section. So I'm not sure why you linked it. It certainly seems that you are making a case from that If you did not "use" it, what were you hoping to achieve by linking to it?
 * 2) It seems you do not understand that YouTube is not a publisher. They are a medium for others to publish their works. Can you acknowledge that fact?
 * 3) The reference you supplied is flawed. While it has a publisher, and via parameters, it should not be using cite AV media. It should be using cite web. The former is for physical media. The first sentence is "This ... template is used to create citations for audio and visual works." I have seen it used for YouTube videos, but it is more correctly used for DVDs, and other films, (as well as physically distributed albums). Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I clarified the guideline because YouTube videos should be sourced carefully. Plus, I've already looked into the cite templates and understood the "via" parameters, so I've been acknowledging that since nearly an hour ago. L33tm4n (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you for clarifications. It would still be better to use cite web. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * redirects to, so maybe, it wouldn't be best to use . L33tm4n (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Incomprehensible revert on The Nixons page
, you just reverted an edit I made on the Nixons page that contained clear improvements to the article (updating timestamp, removing deprecated infobox parameter, fixing three grammatical errors). What's the matter with you? You were unhappy with my edit summary, so you undid a good edit?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revirvlkodlaku (talk • contribs) 00:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You mean the one where you added an unsourced genre, which goes against WP:GWAR? How is that a good edit? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh now, you mean this edit where your summary was "Fixed grammar", yet you unnecessarily updated Use mdy dates, applied a template to the article's two genres despite the templates' documentation stating that it is not necessary to do so until there are more than three, and correctly changing one instance of the collective verb to American usage? Sorry. I restored your collective verb in a subsequent edit and corrected the first use at the same time. I also applied the correct LANVGAR template, corrected the use of the {{tl|reflist} template, and removed some unnecessary words. You really should have been discussing this on the article's talk page though. I'm not sure why you decided to remove it there and move it here despite the large edit notice here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Straylight Run WP:CAPLENGTH
I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish, but can you please revisit the caption on the image in Straylight Run? The way you left it doesn't make any sense grammatically. D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 04:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

OVERLINK RfCs
I suggest you invite the editor to withdraw the other RFCs, and if he doesn't, raise at WP:ANI for wider input from admins. GiantSnowman 08:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I made an invitation and it was rejected. Will discuss at ANI later. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you move draft to the mainpage
I have fixed all the draft issues as per said by one of the administrators can you move it to the mainpage Boti2481 (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . I'm not a reviewer. I can tell you that it should be modified before moving to main space. Both Krushal Ahuja and Aanchal Goswami link to different television programmes, not an actors. I'm not sure Bengali links to "Indian". India itself should not be linked.
 * The article has no body. For instance, one of the programmes already linked, Ki Kore Bolbo Tomay has a lede (or lead) section, and a body. There is a cast section. There is also a production section with appropriate sub-sections, including air-dates. If you don't have that sort of detail, it's not a deterrent, but it would help fill the article out. The most important point is to have an introduction and a body that are separate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you help it? Boti2481 (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Walter Görlitz, you are so kind to offer this impromptu review to an inquiry from a new editor. Unfortunately, he's just been blocked as a sockpuppet. Only lasted one day. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the details! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Added "Deep Cuts" but had album template trouble
Hi, Walter... I added the Deep Cuts album entry to The Choir, and also updated the album template at the bottom... but the latter does not seem to show up properly on other pages, even though I tested setting it at "expanded." Maybe you can add your genius to fix this. Oh, and I didn't realize that Kickstarter links are banned, so I wasn't able to source the Kickstarter statement. Any thoughts on that? Thank you!--TARDIS (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The linking on other articles looks OK to me. It may have been that you had a cached version in your browser. You can force the refresh of a page by holding the shift key down while selecting refresh. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks good now.TARDIS (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Walter,

Thanks for the welcome. Greatly appreciate the information package and you taking the time to educate. I'm working to get up to speed as best I can.

Kind regards,

Balancingakt (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI
Just wanted to give you a courtesy heads up about this. Teahouse I didn’t realize you were blocked. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Yes, blocked for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Regional at Best
Dead refs and all the previous AfDs. None of the sources at Regional at Best show GnG. Should be deleted and salted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Grow up
Until the fans in LA grow up, both LA team articles should be procted due to childish edits like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_FC&curid=44255607&diff=1048817161&oldid=1048390962 Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Great
Now we have consultants editing articles: Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Jvpriori14
Jvpriori14 has been making edits to other MLS articles as the editor made to the Sounders' article that you reverted. Do you have a bit of time to review their edits while I'm out of commission? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Also good to see you're back in commission. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions of Jeremiah Scott and Jon Dunn
Hello, I received a notification about the proposed deletions for Scott and Dunn's pages respectively last night. I just now saw it a second ago, although, the two have been redirected since then, without giving me a chance to contest the position. Is there any way to fix this issue? --Metalworker14 (Yo) 21:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can always revert the redirects. I'll take them to AfD as soon as you do, so it's your call. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, the rationale for Scott was "Aside from the two WP:ROUTINE pieces on the subject joining Demon Hunter (their press team should be lauded for their work on that) the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Despite having worked in some capacity with multiple bands, the subject has still not garnered coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and certainly WP:GNG." For Dunn it was "Despite having worked in some capacity with multiple bands in some (unexplained and unsupported capacity) the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. still not garnered coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and certainly WP:GNG." Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back
Walter, welcome back! So glad you're unblocked, Wikipedia needs knowledgeable and level-headed people like you! Merry Christmas (slightly late) and happy New Year (slightly early). Achar Sva (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Christmas greetings are valid for a dozen days starting December 25, so I appreciate your welcome! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am Nicole C Mullen
the information on the Nicole C Mullen page is not correct. I am not married to Donnie McClurkin. Check my social media pages 107.77.234.202 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Empty sections in Nativity article
Hello Walter. I created the empty headers because I was (and am) rather annoyed that my summary of the nativity chapters was reverted or deleted with the explanation that I had infringed copyvio. I don't believe I have - any summary of the bible text is bound to look like any other summary. In creating the empty headers I wanted to show how much more detail is needed than I'm being allowed. However, I see your poin t about sandboxes and will leave it until the process of review is complete. Achar Sva (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is best not create empty sections regardless of your level of annoyance in reverts to your changes in a high-visibility article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)