User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2014-09

< User talk:Walter Görlitz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PhilKnight (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 7 September 2014 (→Request for clarification: rephrase). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:58, 7 September 2014 by PhilKnight (talk | contribs) (→Request for clarification: rephrase)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

Archive 1

Three Days Grace

Sorry... still had more to say. This appears to be sourced yet you still reverted it. Surely you see what I'm getting at; I'm not trying to pester or belittle you, I merely want to justify this IP's actions and make it clear there was no wrongdoing. I also see that you issued the user a final warning. The concerned edit is of course not vandalism at all, but furthermore please understand 4im warnings are appropriate for severe cases of vandalism and defamation only. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. You do understand that it was the lack of discussion and changing IPs. The former could be controlled. The latter may not be withing anon's control. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And the source may meet WP:V, but certainly not RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Bro, I'm not being unconstructive, I'm just trying to help out. I asked you for support as to why the band belongs in the Christian Music portal since they are not Christian anymore.SkaterLife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask, you reverted a section that clearly belonged and left an edit summary. Only add or remove projects that you're a member of or that are obviously wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in that edit summary I clearly said, can you give me a reference. Please double check before you accuse someone of being unconstructive.SkaterLife (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the edit summary is not discussing. Talk pages are discussing. Reading the article would have also answered your question. It's fine. You'll learn how to be a constructive editor eventually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I apologize. I should have read through more clearly.SkaterLife (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles (cont. from archive)

I found this on the forum boards of Skillet's website. It is not much for reliability as it is a forum, but is is a mention somewhere online of F&F being a single - this says relased in October. So iI say for now not necessarily cite this as it is a forum, but leave F&F on Misplaced Pages as a single, plus it has charted. http://skillet.com/boards/index.php?topic=22022.0 Hard to Find i think i will remove as a single cause I have found no such evidence like that about it being a single, plus it has not charted at all. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the best. It was released to Christian CHR formats, but without a charting source, it's not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I overhauled the Rise discography on Skillet discography with correct dates and chart info that was missing, and removed H2F. However there are some coding errors i guess and a few parts of the table are jacked up. I cant figure out what coding error I put in. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nvm figured it out. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that part of the request. Glad you got it figured out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hello! Could you run your WP:ENGVAR script on the List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies article, as well as the knockout stage article and the other group articles? Thanks in advance, Hey mid (contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A user's causing a problem

A user with the name Dan56, keeps reverting edits on the Unapologetic page, there are ones that provides sources that the album uses R&B, dubstep and pop and he keeps reverting the edits and tells the users that they will be blocked for persistent vandalism, genre warring, etc, I'm not the only one who has picked up on his behavior and quite frankly I think it is unfair and he is not really a good Wikipedian, can you please help? 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvmeorHateme (talk • contribs)

It seems as though there was a poll on the talk page that was evenly split and the closing admin argued that consenus was weak toward excluding the genre. The real issue is that there is only one source to support that genre.

Find another reliable source
Add it to the music and lyrics section
Re-open the discussion on the talk page with the new source, but expect optimism and skepticism.

There's no need to edit war. While I don't agree with Dan56's approach—the editor should be opening a new discussion when new editors not involved in the earlier consensus discussion want to change the consensus—the editor is mostly correct in stating that a consensus exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back at me, I'll just do what you said; would you like an update? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a new discussion, can you have a look and see if it is OK please? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this user's complaint came soon after I had reverted the blocked @Lisa Bathgate:, who had been reverted and warned several times for edit/genre warring at articles like Unapologetic and A.K.A. (album), which LuvmeorHateme has also edited, I find this pretty dubious. It wouldn't be the first time either that socks tried to undermine this article's consensus (Talk:Unapologetic#Genre_change_poll). Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are solutions if you think there's sock-puppetry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind when I commented the other day about the other matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I just wanted to apologize in case I seemed at all defensive on the Hillsong articles. I was never trying to get in the way of your edits. I'm very new to the editing aspect of Misplaced Pages, and I generally have a hard time letting go. So you might understand why I tend to vote more in favor of keeping articles. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that I did not intend to frustrate you in any way. I'd like to help out more with Christian Music articles in particular. I'm willing to learn the ropes. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You did seem defensive, but it's understandable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How Great Is Our God

Hi, I want to bring your attention to this page. Talk:How Great Is Our God Thanks, The boss 1998 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

question

Obi Wan, have you considered enabling email? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have, but I have received personal threats twice, related to edits and blocks, and that is without it enabled, I don't think I want any more direct contact than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I've had problems with the email being enabled. Just thought it might be helpful right now. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Turning album articles into redirects

Please advise You should retain categories and add {{R from album}} to album redirects. Cf. WP:ALBUM. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notablity in comparison of issue tracking systems

For clarity sake can you please confirm if these products are notable or not: The Bug Genie, Teamwork and Axosoft. Thanks. —Jude Dread) — Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked close at the references for The Bug Genie and it looks like it may not be sufficiently notable. I'll have to investigate more closely. No clue what Teamwork is. Axosoft has won some awards and so it meets notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All I Can Say

I don't mean for this to become a contentious issue, but could you explain your edit here? The result of the first debate is stated as "no consensus". You nominated the first time and voted delete the second time, so it's obvious you're firmly in favor of this change, but it also puts your objectivity into question, considering your edit summary on the above. One merge vote the first time does not equal consensus. As the result of the second debate was "keep", I don't see how taking unilateral action to merge is appropriate here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First debate was me stating deleted and another saying merge. I'm not sure how Michig concluded that there was no consensus. And the recent discussion was that the material should be kept. All of that was honoured. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The first debate is practically irrelevant since there has been a second debate with a clearer result. And I wasn't aware that "keep" on an article deletion debate was interpreted as "merge". It might appear to an outside observer that you've chosen to interpret the debate in a way that is inconsistent with convention but happens to be more favorable to your position. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've caused you to break a pillar. All of the referenced information is present. the redirect was in-place. Nothing was lost in the merge except the album cover. I've self reverted, but don't believe that the article is in any way useful and have tagged it as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

question 2.0

What about that other thing. Did it go away, as well it should? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the ANI, yes. It was archived without action.

If you mean the 3RR breach I reported, it too appears to have passed into the night without action.

If you mean me enabling email, I don't have any plans to do it, no.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the ANI. Glad that went to archives. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Profile Interface Question

I apologize if this may seem like a silly question, but, how did you get your category boxes all neatly in a column on your profile page? I'd like to try to do that with mine. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all.

{| style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px"

Then create each box as if it was a table entry then close it with a

You can always edit the page to look at the "source". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! How would I make them like table entries? Jair Crawford (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I edited your user page to incorporate. Feel free to revert or keep what you like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a TON! It looks great! Jair Crawford (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2002 FIFA World Cup

Regarding the capacities, I posted a reply earlier today. Let me know what your thoughts are. Arbero (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rookie Blue (season 5)

I removed the American dates. Its already in the ratings section, so that's unnecessary duplication. Notice how the Canadian airdates and ratings aren't in that section. 66.87.81.16 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that and your comment on the talk page there. It looks good. I would left-justify the table and reserve center for the ratings and other numbers, but it's fine the way it is too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing sources for a band's genre is best done in a section that discusses the band's style. The section should reference any genres. Vague references are frowned upon in these cases. Things like AllMusic's genre cloud, the list of genres without discussion about those genres, are not considered reliable sources as well. Alternately, and you'll see this in articles where editors don't have time to create a full section, you'll see the genres referenced in the infobox. That's not ideal since the infobox is supposed to summarize the prose of the article, not offer new material.

Similarly, a style and composition section for an album (or single) should discuss the genres for that album (or single), but you'll see infoboxes often containing referenced genres.

The genre warrior essay describes the behaviour of a genre warrior as one who goes to multiple articles and changes the genres listed there, usually without support and generally without explaining why. It's not like an edit war where it changes frequently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

August Burns Red genre

Where do I cite my sources?

August Burns Red are Progressive Metal because their album "Rescue and Restore" is described as Progressive Metal in it's respective Misplaced Pages article. Also, further down in the ABR article it is said that ABR can be labelled "Melodic Metalcore" so it seemed sensible to put it there. I was thinking about putting "Experimental Metal" in there too, because guitarist JB Brubaker does mention in interviews - and in the band's website bio - that the band are experimenting with different musical... Things.

Though you are correct - I cited no sources. I probably won't bother going back to it. I'm not good with stuff like this, but maybe even you could change the genre? I saw that you're interested in helping with Christian music articles and this is one article that I'm particularly interested in. It would be a favour.

P.S. I'm not a genre Warrior. Almost. As in, I'm not going to go and change it all back.Lokky000 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, a style and composition section for an album (or single) should discuss the genres for that album (or single), but you'll see infoboxes often containing referenced genres.

Canada Politics Infobox

Is it acceptable to use the coat of arms on the Template:Politics of Canada infobox? Someone appears to have added it recently. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Which one? The copyrighted one? No. There's no fair use rationale for it there nor can one be made. The approximation? Why would you use that anywhere, and why there in particular? There are no copyright limitations for its use there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August Burns Red genre again

Ok, this is the second time someone has edited the ABR infobox and you've deleted their changes. Can I ask that if you're not happy with the way people are changing this, instead of just deleting it why don't you change it - properly - yourself. Lokky000 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Are the changes referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And to be fair, I have reverted genre changes at that article that have been undiscussed and unsupported more than twice. And Please don't delete material that I've already responded to. You may delete whatever you want on your talk page, but you're not permitted to do so on other talk pages, particularly if someone else has already engaged. with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles

I'm not putting this on article talk pages because it has to do with several articles. I added singles to the older Skillet albums. And you reverted saying it is not supported. Everything I put was out of Skillet discography. I'm assuming it's correct, but the singles are not cited on there either. So if they are not supported to be put on album articles, then why are they supported on the discography page? Jacob102699 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no references to support the singles and they should at least be tagged with {{citation needed}} on the discography article. I couldn't do that in the infobox, which would have been my preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shapeshifter

It has been reviewed by About.com (Chad Bowar), Revolver and Substream Magazine.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Then add them rather than simply restoring the poorly referenced article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aye Aye Captain, I fulfilled your orders.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries References

You still haven't explained why out of 18 episodes, those four are special enough to need references. Also two of them are no good, which I keep telling you and you can't or won't see. Zap2it changed their website a few months ago, which means past/current links for episodes don't work anymore.

I've cut and pasted them here for you to see, since you are having trouble with that. Also, you can't use Zap2it for UK dates, it's an American website.

<ref name="zapit">{{cite web |url=http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/murdoch-mysteries/episode-guide/EP01014682 |title=TV Listings - Murdoch Mysteries: Episode Guide |work=Zap2it |publisher=Tribune Company |accessdate=February 16, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="zapit">{{cite web |url=http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/murdoch-mysteries/EP01014682?aid=zap2it |title=TV Listings - Murdoch Mysteries |work=Zap2it |publisher=Tribune Company |accessdate=March 3, 2014}}{{dead link|date=May 2014}}</ref>

The second Zap2it reference, is shown beside the UK airdate for episode seven.

24.203.254.134 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why out of 18 episodes only four have references. They should all have references. Removing the few that do means that you're moving further away from the goal rather than closer to it. And I have explained that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Software Testing Edits

Before you reverts the changes I made to the Software Testing introduction, I ask that you explain in what way you see the previous content as better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atester (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my edit notice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to your message to me about Anberlin's new album

Walter, I was messaged about how an edit I made to the Anberlin album, Lowborn conflicted with Misplaced Pages's neutral standpoint. I changed the article to read "American rock band" instead of "Christian rock band" seeing as that's what they're categorized as on every other related article. If you take a look at the main article for Anberlin, you'll see that there's an entire section where the lead singer of the band, Stephen Christian, even says "I definitely don't classify us as a christian band."

This wasn't an edit I made out of spite or anger. The band has stated that they feel being labeled a christian band is a misrepresentation of their music and I hope this can be fixed.

2601:B:8F00:812:78BA:8D37:4BE6:45D3 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was made out of spite or anger, but it was made.

I understand your concern and looking at the edit history of the article, the genres were added by the original editor. Neither the original edits nor the ones you're making are referenced. What the band wants is immaterial though. If they thought they were a disco-revival band, and critics thought that they were funk-fusion, we would have to rely on the critics if they were reliably sourced. Since there are no sources I think the best thing to do is remove the genres from the infobox and keep the lede the same as previous album articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rookie Blue (season 5)

Hi, Walter. I removed the verification tag from Rookie Blue (season 5)'s episode section. Myself, I usually remove the airdate references after any new episode airs, regardless of the past date. As for the summaries, these are usually added by viewers of the episode after they air. It's borderline original research but usually accepted, unless inaccurate. If you still wish to know the Canadian airdates for season five, please see here. Thank you. — Wylie pedia 09:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not about me, it's about PW:RS and WP:V. I will be restoring the tags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Then why not here, here, here, or here??? Or any of those listed at WP:TV's Featured Lists??? — Wylie pedia 13:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You should tag them. I don't watch those articles and I don't police Misplaced Pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not tagging all those articles, since, as this post began, I don't have a problem with past titles/dates/summaries. What I should do is mention RBS5's tag at its talkpage and see who is against it. However, since 75% of the other editors to the page have 10 or less edits (and most are IPs), I don't really care. I just came here as a courtesy to tell you about the revert and am finished with this conversation, as well as RBS5's remainder. — Wylie pedia 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kits and User:Rizky Iconia

Hi, this editor has refused warnings before and kept adding kits with logos. Then after your final warning in June he seemed to have stop but an IP wrote to him to stop again 4 August and now I saw today he has added kits with logos everywhere. Can you help me keep an eye on Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) and perhaps tell him to stop (or report/block). QED237 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm spending less time on Misplaced Pages these days. Perhaps the footy project will be able to offer support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hypercorrection?

Hi I see you left me a message about reverting my change to Plautdietsch language with reference to the etymology of Dutch / Deutsch - I have reverted back and added a reference to the Etymological Dictionary - in English-native countries this is something like 'common knowledge' so I was surprised it was not referenced here as 'German' has an altogether different meaning and Latin etymology so is a little obfuscating and inaccurate (though I have left it in)- however I note that you did not remove all the other insubstantiated statements in the article, so I wondered why you singled my (correct) addition out? Were you to do so there would be very little left on the page...Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)

While that may have been its origin, it doesn't carry that meaning today, but it's referenced so there's no need to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflink

plz reflink Reza Ghoochannejhad--FutbalTeamha (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Please!

I think you have preconceit, because all I do, you wanna revert, please stop revert! --200.153.219.196 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I revert all bad edits, not because of bad editors. Please stop adding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:183.83.228.168, your comments regarding the edits I made

Yes I am new. The edit I made was to correct an error that the previous maker had made. the OP said a particular national park had Cheetahs, which have been extinct in the Indian Sub-continent for a while now. I then realized that the OP meant to say chital, but had used the spelling cheetal, which is perhaps wrong. I made the edit without logging in because I was in the middle of work and was lazy :P Er. I'm not sure I'm responding in the right way or anything. Forgive the newbieness. :) Thanks for the message. How should I have edited the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unwise fool (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit I warned you about. There's nothing about cheetahs, national parks or anything of the sort. I can excuse mistakes, but not deliberate damaging of articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

O Canada

Hi, please see Talk:O Canada#Category:Canadian anthems. Thanks. Good Ol’factory 03:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

2015 Pan American Games

Hi there. I've been following some of the Toronto Pam Am Games sites, and I've been getting the feeling their marketing department decided to use Misplaced Pages for their advertising. I corrected a ton of unsourced stuff today on the Venues of the 2015 Pan American and Parapan American Games. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

We will enter into an agreement? This article is very important!

Man, I thought you have to bias, you want to undo an article of mine that it took me eight hours to build and is considered a good article by major editors of Misplaced Pages, we will enter into an agreement, but that article can not be deleted!

It's been almost a year since I created this article, why just now you want to delete it?

We will enter into an agreement? This article is very important! --189.47.81.218 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Penetration test. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Mike V • Talk 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Walter Görlitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The anon was removing valid references, albeit WP:PRIMARY ones. It was clear vandalism. I gave the prescribed warnings. I entered into a discussion with the anon. This si not edit warring. Please give me a detailed explanation as to how this constitutes edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And while you're at, explain how the anon's edits were not disruptive or could not be considered vandalism. And also explain how I could have better handled the situation other than reverting what I considered vandalism (unexplained and inappropriate removal of references from an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ok, firstly, your edit summary is somewhat aggressive in tone, and I would advise against taking this approach. My role is to review the block, and you aren't helping your case by being aggressive in your edit summaries. Secondly, the anon's edits were definitely not vandalism, as the anon believed the edits were helping. The anon believed the linked website page was a spam link, and explained why in edit summaries, and on the talk page. Thirdly, the anon was edit warring, which was disruptive, and has been blocked. Finally, you should have used dispute resolution, and your description of the anon's edits as unexplained is clearly mistaken. PhilKnight (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Walter Görlitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK. It is aggressive because I believed that what I was doing was reverting vandalism and so I was blocked, without warning or discussion, unjustly. This is a clear difference of opinion that the block was edit warring rather than fighting vandalism. And to be clear, I did discuss with the editor so this block is not warranted. Walter Görlitz (talk) * How is this unexplained removal of content to be considered anything but vandalism? And following edit ? Then the appeals to WP:SPAMLINKS, which clearly doesn't apply and so I presumed that the editor was grasping at straws and then does so again. I explained on anon's talk page how SPAMLINKS doesn't apply and then anon claims to have made a full explanation on the article's talk page when the only thing anon added to the talk page was that other certifications were removed. The subject is fraught with in-fighting between the various competing bodies and I've tired of competing groups removing claims and self-supporting material from other groups so I have taken a fairly firm stance at the article to fight that sort of partisan editing. Certifications have been removed and the article needs review from an expert, but removing valid references is not the starting point. Blocking me because I tried to keep the references in the article is just stupid. If you take a look at my user page you'll see other instances where admins have made what I think are mistakes in blocking. Perhaps you assume good faith on the part of editors rather than blocking without warning. In short, I was reverting vandalism which is not edit warring. So perhaps if you looked at the evidence rather than assuming I'm wrong and the blocking admin is right... Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC) * And to be clear, I'm not sure how the first two of the five reverts I made there can be considered anything other than fighting vandalism which would mean that I am at 3RR not over. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Walter, the only thing I agree with you on is the blocking administrator was wrong, but only that the block was too short. You reverted five times. Neither you nor the IP engaged in much discussion. Claiming the vandalism exemption in this scenario won't wash. The vandalism exemption should be used rarely and only when the edit is egregious, e.g., poop vandalism. This is your fifth block for edit warring just in 2014. The first one in January (mine) was for 48 hours. They escalated very slowly from there until they reached four days. The last two blocks have been imposed by Mike V, and for reasons best known to him he has decreased the lengths. You should consider yourself fortunate because in my view you show no insight into your behavior, and I have no confidence that this won't happen again. Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that the anon's first two edits were legitimate. I'll keep that in mind. According to Bbb23, all unexplained removal of content is legitimate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And @Bbb23 and You're calling me liar: essentially stating that I didn't believe that I was acting to revert vandalism, which is an exception to 3RR, and acted maliciously to wilfully engage in an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Walter, apparently you're not only aggressive in your affirmative actions but also in your reactions. Nowhere did I call you a liar or malicious. I actually don't think you're either. However, if you'd like an adjective, I would say that your approach is misguided.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, you simply ignored my evidence and implied both. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I won't be so gracious. Since the first two reverts were reverting clear vandalism and do not meet 3RR, your claim that I made five reverts is wrong. As for escalating behaviour, that too is a lie. I have gone out of my way, when not reverting clear and obvious vandalism (which I still contend this was), to engage in discuss and alternate solutions. The fact that you conveniently ignore this is simply evidence of your bias against me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Walter, all reverts count, even if there isn't an edit summary, the exception being something like replacing a page with random characters, which certainly isn't the case here. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RRNO. Not all reverts count. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are other exceptions, however, your understanding of this is completely flawed. The edits by the IP were not vandalism, and your assertion that the first 2 were vandalism because of a lack of an edit summary is completely wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all flawed. They were unexplained removal of references. I'm not sure how a logical person could come to the conclusion that it's not vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And furthermore, no one, not the blocking and reviewing admins, and none of those who have commented here, have seen fit to remove the references, as they're still in place. That tells me that they were good edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

1 month block

I've extended your block to 1 month, because I have concerns about your approach to Misplaced Pages. PhilKnight (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'd be glad for you to explain them to me, because without explaining it's simply punative and I have no opportunity to learn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see. It's because you think I haven't addressed this issue. I actually have, but I accept this decision and trust that someone will actually comment on the current case, which I believe was reverting vandalism and yet no one can show my why or how it wasn't. As for the OpenOffice debacle, I'd be glad for an uninvolved admin or third party who understands the subject to review the situation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're overly confrontational, and try to resolve conflict by edit warring. I based the decision on discussion on this page and on the incident noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's clearly not the case. I have not edit warred at that article. The editor has had several others tell him he's wrong and he's been openly passive aggressive and combative, so based on the statement I made above, I'd be happy to see someone involved in that discussion over the next thirty days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, take a look at the work I've been doing at commons. I have seen a problem and have been asking editors to work around the problem rather than edit warring.

There were multiple times over the past two months where I encountered problems with editors. I reverted and then entered into discussions with them.

The case with this current anon was very different, and yet, no one seems to see that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you can continue editing at the Commons. PhilKnight (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You've missed the point again Phil. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I'm not sure why the edits are considered edit warring and would like an honest answer rather than statements to the effect of "your understanding of this is completely flawed" and explain how they are either not reverting vandalism.

I reverted this unexplained removal of references as vandalism
I reverted this for the same reason
Removed link spam references which have been covertly added in previous edits. They contribute nothing to the content and are misleading is not entirely true. A PRIMARY source does add to the content and is in no way misleading. At least it was explained.
Walter Görlitz: why are you so keen on spam advertising links appearing in this page? What is your vested interest? Violates WP:NPA but again and appeals to WP:SPAMLINKS, which doesn't apply from my reading of it.
Removed vendor spam links from page. Added full explanation to talk page. Walter, please do not put them back unless you can justify why these links in particular are valid. Again, not a spamlink and the discussion on the article's talk page reads

There are a cluster of formal certification schemes, and yet this page only lists one. Surely the reader would be better served with an unbiased, more comprehensive list? The list is not an onerous one, with less than a dozen candidates, many of which seem to have an existing wikipedia page. I think this would be better dealt with by the creation of a new "penetration testing certifications" page, and a reference to it, rather than having a single vendor certification listed.

It's not clear how these edits constitute edit warring, but I would be glad to learn from my mistake. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Sorry. I assumed you had my talk page on your watch list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you. If you want to be unblocked, use the {{unblock}} template. PhilKnight (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried that and you clearly told me that you "have concerns about" my "approach to Misplaced Pages". That was not explained.

How I was edit warring is not clear to me when in my previous unblock requests I explained what I did above and was reviewed by you and @Bbb23:. @PhilKnight:, you have explained neither and I am seeking guidance from one of you or @Mike V: who made the initial block. When I understand, I may consider an unblock request, but I don't believe I'll get one based on my current inability to understand what I did wrong in the initial set of edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

On the Zoroaster article there is a comparable situation. If you look at the article history I made my first revert under the impression that I was reverting a vandal. Ok, so I have reverted again, making two reverts. However, I haven't continued to revert. If I reverted more times, then I could easily be blocked, because the same rules apply to me as everyone else. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not the way I read the guideline, but if that's the interpretation, I can see why my behaviour was incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Following our discussion, I've decided to unblock you, as it seems the block is no longer necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Things to do after my block has expired

When by block expires, update the following kits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)