Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 10 February 2014

Archives

Archive 1

Happy New Year Walter Görlitz!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Walter Görlitz: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, HotHat (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I just hope your year of editing ahead will be great!HotHat (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Head over to my talk-page when you get a minute. I'd like your opinion on something. Thanks. -Creativewill (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi there WG, AL here,

per this message you sent this Brazilian person (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:186.225.12.36), can you please enlighten me on how is he cleaning up player articles? Seems to me (i could be wrong though, hence my messaging you) he's not cleaning up anything, merely creating unnecessary box spacings and similar. In Juan Bernat, for example, he has overlinked the intro twice (you reverted him now) and destroyed the player position wikilink twice (it's Defender (association football)#Full-back, he goes and removes the dash, just because).

Happy 2014, from Portugal --AL (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the thank you I left or the warning I left right after? The editor is really not helping, but I recognized the editor as Brazilian and really did not expect any further interaction with the editor. Also, many of the edits did some good. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Maximilian_Arnold&diff=prev&oldid=589082850 or https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robin_Knoche&diff=prev&oldid=589082805 updated stats. And https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Robert_Leipertz&diff=prev&oldid=589086336 made some improvements. I'll take some good with the bad. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your question at the very beginning of your reply, i meant the first message (the "thank you"). Thanks for the reply, keep it up --AL (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What?

I just added a category to the page. Something's wrong. – Michael (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability

So the EP Summer Happiness charted on two Billboard charts and was even reviewed by Jesus Freak Hideout, and you thought it was not notable enough and nominated it for deletion? You can now tell by my creation of David Crowder Band discography that it has charted.HotHat (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just recreated it!HotHat (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I loved your edit to the navbox template.HotHat (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It takes a real man of an editor to admit when they have made a mistake, and you did with respect to this article by the edit summary.HotHat (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

If you want to comment, go here to do so.HotHat (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Al Jazeera Sports aka beIN Sports

If you actually took the time to do some research, you would've find out the Al Jazeera Sports was renamed beIN Sports. in the beginning of this month. As such, I will revert your edit as the info was actually correct. JDamanWP (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If you took the time to explain that it would solve the problem. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've included an article from al Arabiya on the respective articles you targeted, so as to avoid future confusion. I didn't think that there was actually going to be any sort of confusion, because AJS/BIS is quite a famous and popular sports broadcaster around the globe. Thank you. JDamanWP (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment request

Hi. I'm trying to avoid another edit war with a certain editor and would like to properly get content restored to an article. Could you comment on whether it'd be appropriate to do so at this discussion? Dan56 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That last edit

There was an instance of vandalism that had been reverted by ClueBot (or some other bot), but still showed up on the page. Apparently, for some reason, it needed user interaction for the edit to appear, and the empty space was the best thing I could think of. --Asmetr (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That was in relation to this edit. Anon edit happened at 2014-01-24T14:56:40‎ and ClueBot got to it at 2014-01-24T14:56:44‎. You must have seen the diff before ClueBot got to it and tried to revert it after ClueBot did. I just removed the comment. Not a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Involving Eleventyseven

Could we please discuss these changes to all the notes on their album pages?

I work hard to research them and have corresponded with Matt Langston himself on some. I'm on his Street Team and know much of what there is to know about the band. When I see my notes gone without any explanation/discussion in the "Talk" pages.....I get a little unnerved.

I literally only edit/care about Eleventyseven and Twenty One Pilots. Those are the only two bands/anything I work on extensively, on Misplaced Pages. To see hours of work and research gone without a good discussion.....is uncouth.RhettGedies (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course we can discuss them. We should probably do it on the band article's talk page rather than here though. Before we go there though I should mention two things:

1. I only tagged the material as trivial and unreferenced. Another editor removed that material. I can't prevent other editors from doing that and I won't get into an edit war over over material I already think isn't appropriate.
2. By stating that you're on Langston's street team, that means you may be in a conflict of interest. You can be blocked for that sort of editing if you don't provide references to support your additions and keep all discussion neutral.

As long as you understand those two issues and are happy to move forward with them in mind, I'm happy to keep discussing how to fix this material. Since you've stated that you have researched the material, you should be able to provide the sources so this is extremely promising. I am of the opinion that editors with close ties to a subject are often able to provide invaluable content to Misplaced Pages and don't mind working with you to make those articles better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. :) We can talk on each Eleventy albums page if that's alright. Should I restore the edits and then we discuss them? Or just discuss them. (Btw: I can tell you, on my honor as a fellow Christ Follower, that I have not put in any biased info. My whole point of being on Misplaced Pages is to suck out all the juice/facts out about a band....and make sure the general public has access to that knowledge when looking at their articles.)RhettGedies (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Talking at talk:Eleventyseven may be easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Church Clothes 2

On 30 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Church Clothes 2, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the extended version of Lecrae's single "Round of Applause", from Church Clothes 2, was featured by Pepsi as one of "three songs you need to hear right now"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Church Clothes 2. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello, Walter. I respect your editing and consider you a style expert, and would appreciate it if you might contribute your third opinion on Talk:Simeon Jackson regarding a style and content dispute. Thank you. Nonc01 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps

Why exactly do we have Montreal Impact (1992–2011) and Montreal Impact along with Vancouver Whitecaps FC and Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010)? Kingjeff (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because a few editors are of the opinion that they're completely separate entities from the former clubs of the same name. There is some support for that in that MLS is actually the owner of the player contracts and not the individual teams. There's also a law suit related to the single-entity ownership that is used in the league (every team is an owner of the league and the league owns every team). However, each team operates its own academies and the Impact, Whitecaps, Sounders and Timbers all had development programmes before they joined MLS. I can also confirm that the front offices of the Whitecaps had no change. Same address. Same staff, although they hired more staff when they entered MLS. So it's really been a battle with a few vocal editors and one legal case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Every team is an owner of the league and the league owns every team." What exactly does this mean and what is Joey Saputo relationship to the Impact and MLSE to Toronto FC if they're not the owners of their respective clubs? Kingjeff (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Every team is an .... That's the actual, legal league structure. In other words, when you buy an MLS franchise, you become a league owner. That was not a typo. You are not a team owner but an owner of the league. Each of the 19 team owners are owners of the league.

Conversely, each team is run by its franchisee. Saputo, MLSE, Red Bull, etc. are all franchisees and they run local operations respectively in Montreal, Toronto and New York City. I don't know of any other league that operates that way on a legal basis, although NASL may, but I don't know enough about that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ottawa Fury FC season

I noticed that you have edited the Ottawa Fury FC article. I have started the 2014 Ottawa Fury FC season. Kingjeff (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean you're in the capital region? I cannot believe that Soccer Canada is forcing the Fury to have a play-off against the Eddies to see who gets to play the MLS sides. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not in the capital region. According to this season's Canadian Championship Misplaced Pages article, there is a two–leg tie in April. There are five teams in the competition and the format must change. I also don't wish to start a discussion on if it should be with FC or without. I simply added it because the NASL team article has the FC in it. Kingjeff (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I saw the information about the upcoming tournament. NASL teams play a two-legged tie. Winner advances to play last year's MLS points winner (or was that winner of last year's series?) in a two-legged tie while the other two MLS teams play a two-legged tie. The winners of each advance to the finals. It's not Pokal, but it will have to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Ottawa/Edmonton winner faces the defending champions; which would be Montreal. Kingjeff (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Startropic1

I don't think the user isn't new. If you check his contributions, then you'll see that not one of his edits are on an actual article and are based on reporting incidents and user talk pages. He knew where to report five years ago. I started a sockpuppet case on him. Kingjeff (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the edits were primarily used for administrative reports, but I'm not sure that the editor is a puppet master or even a sock. Editors can edit when logged-out and even if they have accounts, don't need to use them for editing. Let's see what happens with the investigation though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a puppet master or a sock. I'm not even entirely sure what these terms are referring to. I just don't usually bother logging in for most things on Misplaced Pages. First you make (false) assumptions about the information I add, and now you make (false) assumptions about me. Learn to check your own facts and stop relying on assumptions. Startropic1 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

More bad logic Startropic1. How can you claim to not be something if you don't know what that thing is?

Add to that your statement that I made false assumptions about the information you added. I did no such thing. The material is self-published and so does not meet WP:RS.

Please take a moment to read what I wrote. It starts with "I noticed" and ends with "investigation though." Nowhere in there do I accuse you of anything. Nowhere in there do I make assumptions about you. Nowhere in there do I impugn your character. I make a statement that your "edits were primarily used for administrative reports". At the time, that was the account's primary use. The first edit was at User talk:Efnet baseball2. The next six were at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Then almost five years of inactivity and two on my talk page and three reporting me to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. So nine of twelve edits were for administrative reports. That seems to be an honest interpretation of your behaviour. In the rest of my edit above, I simply state facts and essentially defend you to the editor.

I will ignore the rest of your comments about checking facts as they make no sense since I have just shown you that my facts do not need checking, but the facts of at least one editor here certainly do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems I misread this section in regards to who actually wrote which portion of it. Perhaps you should remove this from your talk page so no more unnecessary issues arise due to erroneous third parties, (as good as their intentions may have been.) Startropic1 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the discussion and your responses above. The "third-party" started the discussion and it was you who entered that conversation, which technically makes you the third party. And seriously, stop talking about others and assuming what their motivations may or may not be. The only motivations you should be discussing are your own: not mine, not Kingjeff, not Di Sabatino, not Flemming. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The SPI has concluded and as I suspected, editing while logged-out is not a violation. It obviously creates security issues for the editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CHP / Reimer

I'm sorry - but since a man who's led the party for 13 years does not have a separate article, my enthusiasm for one for Reimer is misplaced, and I believe the added detail should be in the CHP article, and the Reimer article should be deleted. GBC (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ron Grey didn't meet WP:N or WP:GNG. There wasn't sufficient press about him. I think I've found sufficient for Reimer, but if it's rejected, his article will have to be deleted as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Canada

Walter, I've blocked B. Fairbairn for 48 hours. However, your comment on the talk page ("Do not change the image again or add any other images to this article without gaining consensus. I reverted your last edit as vandalism and will continue to do so if no one else gets to it first.") could lead to you being blocked if you have an opportunity to carry it out. I can understand your frustration, but just because an editor defies consensus across multiple articles doesn't mean their edits are "vandalism" and is not an edit warring exemption. I don't want to see you get in trouble over something like that. Reporting the problem to the administrative noticeboards is fine, but edit warring, even in these circumstances, is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I will strike that statement because, "even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Silver City

Hey Walter, just wanted to post this so you don't think I'm undoing your edits. I meant to leave a note that I was still working on sourcing the Silver City (album) page, but it didn't go through upon second glance. Anyway, JFH updated their review page, as it wasn't supposed to be listed as a "reader review." I'm still digging up sources. It just bugged me that the page was still being redlinked. Peace. —Maktesh 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona

Greetings sir.

I added the Catalan portal to FCB as they are tagged as belonging to that project on the talk page. I was in no way intending to push that they are only Catalan and not Spanish, which was why I kept the Spain portal. But sorry anyway if I caused a problem. The Almightey Drill (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org

Hi, I've opened a thread a ANI regarding the verifiability of statements on OpenOffice.org. The issue mentions the approach of David Gerard regarding to the article. However, in essence, the thread seeks to move discussion to a broader community forum, such as Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard.

You may be interested in adding your view. --Tóraí (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)