User talk:Walter Görlitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
Archive 1 2007-01-30

Contents

[edit] Canadian magazines

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

[edit] Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating

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

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

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

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I think I understand it now. I've just written the instructions Wikipedia:Redirect#Checking for double redirects. Note Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken; article pages linking to redirect pages don't need to be fixed. --Coppertwig 13:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. It was useful and more-or-less necessary (as well as permissible, which I always thought) for the links to be changed as you did. (I read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#What to do with redirects to a page that was moved.) Thank you for doing that. The links as computer code (left-hand side of a link divided by a pipe) don't generally need to be changed, but in this case, the right-hand-side, which displays in the articles, did need to be updated to show the new proper name assigned by the government. I'll try to do better next time I move a page. --Coppertwig 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PROD

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

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

[edit] AFD

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

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

[edit] Aminopterin

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

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

[edit] C-NoEviL

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

thank you,

Jgray11

[edit] Deleted page - C-NoEviL

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

jgray11

[edit] Varieties of English

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

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

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

In the case of the Mennonite article, the spelling was originally given as "labor" ([1]). The most appropriate policy applying here states that "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated."

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

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

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

[edit] Keaggy / Cassar-Daley True Believer albums

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

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

Just to clarify, I never called this user stupid, nor did I imply it. I simply pointed out the problems that the user created by moving a page that had been created without cleaning up the redirects. If the user is feeling stupid, it's not my fault. --Walter Görlitz 06:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be my computer science background but 'Not "not stupid"' implies "stupid" to me. Yes, the problem I caused was that I moved True Believer (album) to True Believer (Phil Keaggy album) when a second article about another article with the same name was created, and accidentally left ALL THREE of the links to that article pointing to the disambig page. Yes, three. If you really think that is the worst thing to happen on Wikipedia then I suggest you spend some time doing recent changes patrol. -- Chuq (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Again to clarify. I never called the member stupid.--Walter Görlitz 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Correct, you didn't call me that directly. You just implied it. There was a "Not Stupid" barnstar a couple of posts above the bottom of the page and you stated "I'd like to revoke that award". Anyway, I don't really care what you called me, I just have no idea why you decided that such a minor mistake was a reason to lambast another editor. -- Chuq (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The editor was reading too much into the comment. I was simply commenting that the user did not deserver the "stellar" award that was given. I didn't bother to read the title of the award. --Walter Görlitz 14:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Twilight Sad

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

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

[edit] Free The Hops

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

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

[edit] Regarding edits made during August 20, 2007 (UTC)

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

Please cite your edits rather than pass them off as true just because you say they are. Controversial edits such as yours should be discussed first on the talk page. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. You want me to cite removal of vandalism and misinformation? --Walter Görlitz 20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Try to at least provide a reason why you believe the information is inaccurate or biased. Otherwise, it might appear as vandalism to people like me. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, go ahead then. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) 20:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)