User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2007-01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Thanks for the help2

Thank you, User:Nadia Kittel

Thanks for the help1

I am new to Wikiedia, and created a new article named "Spirit Body". I just noticed that you moved that article from the title (with quotes) "Spirit Body" to Spirit Body, without the quotes. I now see what the error was. I did not take note of it at first. What occurred is that I conducted a search of that name, using quotes to signify an exact name search. Once I saw that no other similar entry was made, I click the "Creating the article" link and it automatically included the quotes in the title. At least now I know what to do next time, thanks.

If there are ay other suggestions, I would appreciate it.

Mwarbinek 07:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Mwarbinek

Hi Walter

say, just to let you know that wikipedia lets you append letters to the end of a wiki link. usually this is for the purpose of linking to a subject with a title that is in the singular but the reference in the text is plural. an example is martyrs, so you don't have to type [[martyr|martyrs] for simply pluralizing most words. i dunno if it's contrary to wikipedia style, but it also works for martyred instead of martyred. (press "edit" to see what i typed.)

so some of those hanges made to Mennonite were superfluous. no big deal. just thought i'd let you know. r b-j 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


hi, i would like to thank you for your advice. safwaan --Safz 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Era names

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article."

at is the official guidance, the official style, the standard that you refer to. Furthermore, community consensus has agreed that stylistic choices should be respected and not changed; it is rude to change the acceptable style choice made by another editor. This is just like how no uniformity is required in British vs. American English across articles, just within articles; it is also not acceptable to go around changing spellings from one to another when both are acceptable. The CPU usage is de minimis and irrelevant. - Bantman 22:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Walter,

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (main page) states "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these rules." The previous quote I gave you from a subsection of the Manual of Style speaks to the acceptability of both alternatives.

There is no community consensus on whether BC/AD or BCE/CE should be preferred as a rule; that is why the Manual of tyle allows both. In such cases, the general rule is to defer to the most recent main editor of thearticle, as it is a stylistic choice and nothing is gained by pushing one option over another. The talk page does not reach consensus on whether BC/AD or BCE/CE is better; it reaches consensus that on the diamond article, BCE/CE should be maintained. The community consensus right now stands at "agree to disagree"; i.e. nobody should change one to the other merely to promote their favored alternative.

This is similar tothe previous analogy I pointed out to British versus American spelling; for example metre as an article on the unit of length, while meter points to a disambiguation page. This does not mean that all instances of meter should be changed to metre; instead it recognizes that boh alternatives are acceptable, but since we don't want duplicate articles, one must have the artile and the other must be a redirect. BC/AD and BCE/CE are similar; both are acceptable alternaives, but due to technical considerations one must be the article and one must be the redirect. Please refer to th Manual of Style for guidance on what styles are "Wikipedia policy", and refrain from inferring fro indirect evidence (such as redirects) what styles should be. The Manual of Style has been thoroughl discussed, and is the proper place to seek guidance on style. One more note - deleting comments from your talk page makes it difficult for others to participate in theconversation or for us to go back later and see what was said; it is common courtesy to leave iscussions accessible. Of course, if you delete them they are still accessible through the page hstory, but it is much easier for everyone if you just leave them up. It is your user page though, o do as you see fit. I'm glad you have decided to stop reverting the article in question, it is as annoying for me as I'm sure it s for you! -Bantman 07:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Bordeaux Mixture

Thanks for fixing he references. I ran into copper hydroxide on a random search (as is my habit) and found it gave o uses. So I fixed that (maybe not comprehensively) but saw that Bordeaux Mixture had no entry at al, and that's the more usual fungicide. But I get mixed up on notes sometimes - this kind you fixe needs single [] brackets and no vertical bar, for some reason - anyway I was lazy nd thanks! Carrionluggage 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A Girl Like Me(I)

I moved this article to A Girl Like Me (Rihanna) and removed the speedy deletion tag. I know very little about he singer but if the album's release date is confirmed, then the article can remain a stub unti there are some more details to flesh it out. Regardless, it did not fall under any of the criteri listed in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, so it was ineligible to be deleted as such. <pan style="font-family:Verdana;">howch</spane<span style="color:#33C"ng {chat} 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC

Test plan

Thanks. User:AlMac|(talk) 04:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Allies (band)

"Seminal" is a judgement (and is unreferenced). The Manual of Style (not only ours but just about everyone's) statesclearly that, in titles, articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc., should not be capitalised. Thats completely independent of how other people capitalise them. Some albums and books use all capials, or no capitals, but we're not bound by that, any more than other publications are. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 0:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Seminal" doesn't just mean "lots of bands have said that they were influenced by them". Perhaps you mean "influental".
  2. In any case, thos claims would have to be referenced.
  3. You don't seem tohave grasped the point of Wikipedia, nor of my edits here. Wikipedia isn't a place for fans andenthusiasts to come and write whatever they want, undisturbed by rules, policies, guidelines, etc. Te application of policies such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view isn't limited to people who know something about the subject. Note also that you're writing for people who know nothing about the subject; if you don't explain to them why something is important, good, bad, "seminal", etc., then something's wrong. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your message was rude, boorish, and mistaken. Telling people not to edit articles in line with Wikipedia policies because they don't know about the subject is tiresomely common and wrong-headed. My edit has nothing to do with knowledge of the band or the general area, and everything to do with Wikipedia's standards concerning neutral point of view and the need for references.

I see that you're also using insulting edit summaries. Your behaviour is beginning to stray very close to the line between you and a block from editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines

Hi. Two of the things that we agree to when editing Wikipedia is that our contributions are going to be "mercilessly" edited by other contributors and that all of our contributions must be verifiable and referenced. None of us own the articles that we work on, and it us up to us as contributors to provide sources for any claim that we wish to add to an article. In addition, we as editors further commit to working together in a collegial, civil manner. This edit summary and this comment seem to indicate that the above points may not be entirely clear to you. In this particular dispute, it is original research to describe the subject of an article as "seminal" if no a reliable source has done so. Further, unreferenced information in an article may remain for a long time if no one challenges the statements, but as soon as someone does, the disputed information should be removed until properly referenced. In the future, please try to accomodate any concerns about verifiability, and take as a given that everyone here is trying to improve the articles that they are working on. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 19:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Your response suggests to me that I failed to be clear in the above explanation. Wikipedia:Verifiability has nothing whatsoever to do with editors. It has to do with editing. Further, your mention of voting makes me wonder if you are confused about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not a democracy. I strongly suggest that you take some time to read some of the guidelines I have mentioned and linked to, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability. It really matters less whether a fact is true or not than whether that fact can be referenced. It matters not at all which editor asserts it and which editor disputes it. Jkelly 20:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
No insults were made. Simply facts. --Walter Görlitz 21:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Vojvodina

The article Religion in Vojvodina will be very large when I write there everything what I want, thus it will be too long to be merged with Vojvodina article, thus, I will remove the tag about merging. PANONIAN (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, is it not long enough already? There are many shorter articles than this, and it is already too much data for the parent page. But if you think that it is not long enough, I could to expand it further with the part about monasteries. PANONIAN (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Differences between iTap and T9

For CSD G4 to apply it has to be essentially the same article. I compared the existing one and the deleted one and although it was similar, IMHO there were enough differences for me to consider it a new version of the same topic, thus disqualifying it from CSD. Sorry, I should have let you know about it when I removed the speedy tag. I'm usually more diligent about it, but there was a huge backlog of speedy deletions that day and I guess I just forgot. howcheng {chat} 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Miguel Pérez Alvarado

Please tag non-english articles with {{notenglish}} instead of nominating them for speedy deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The page in question is a speedy delete in any language. --Walter Görlitz 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Having just translated the page into English, I can assure that it doesn't fulfill any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Being a published author and having won an award is an assertion of notability. So it doesn't fit any speedy deletion criterion. The point I was trying to make is that we can't judge that without translating it. If you still think it's not notable, feel free to push it through WP:AFD. If you're right, and the community agrees, I'd be happy to delete it for you. - Mgm|(talk) 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You may have translated it, but if you don't post the translation, it's very hard for others to see and agree with your judgement of the article. Next time you translate something, just post it, so it's clear for everyone whether it fits a speedy criterion. If do that, I don't have any reason to bug you about it :) - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurmuzgan poet

Translation is by myself, I know there are many grammatic English falses.


Diyako Talk + 16:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sell Outs

Hey. Don't remove AFD tags to add speedy delete tags. You can leave them both there, but the AfD tag needs to stay there until the debate is closed. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey. Don't use two spaces after your punctuation. I deleted it because it should not have been there it should have been a speedy. Why did you delete the speedy delete? --Walter Görlitz 05:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Removing the AfD tag doesn't stop the debate. You should never do it, because it orphans the discussion. I didn't delete the speedy. Check the page history, dude. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. --Walter Görlitz 06:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to stop the debate, I was trying to have the page deleted quickly. There was no debate on the AFD page so there wasn't any harm done. I checked before I removed it and I just checked now. Get over it. --Walter Görlitz 06:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sell Outs. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
WP:MOS#Spaces_after_the_end_of_a_sentence. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Switchfoot

T-Rex, phil, and I are all thoroughly fed up with this big dispute, and we're willing to just drop the subject. The "Switchfoot and Christian music" has been rewritten extensively, and I don't see how it can get any less POV. Now if its fine with you, I'm ready to make a Switchfoot talk archive, including the pages-long discussion on this subject, so we're just waiting for your okay. I speak for all of us — truce? —Akrabbim 23:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

speedying articles

G'day Walter,

we've had this discussion before. I had kinda hoped that you'd learn from it, but, oh, well.

Right at the top of WP:MUSIC are the following words:

Important note: This is NOT a criterion for speedy deletion. The fact that an article does not meet guidelines on this page does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under A7.

Now, for Routine Therapy, you may have a point ... but they managed to write two EPs, which is more than most of the band articles we get here can claim. As for The Fever, they've toured with two major indie bands, and released two full albums and an EP. I'm not even convinced they don't pass WP:MUSIC (though I won't remove the {{PROD}} tag just yet) — they're definitely not speedy deletable.

Are you allergic to AfD or something? Don't tag articles for speedy deletion just because you want them deleted (even if they aren't speediable), and don't get upset when the bloke whose job it is to delete stuff that's speediable won't delete them. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be more careful

and don't delete lots of useful information like here. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, someone else who has been having the same problems! I have the same problem -- Firefox 1.5.0.2/3 on both Linux and Windows does this to me. Do you have any extensions? dewet|✉ 20:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Its very odd; it happens on a regular basis to me, but only for about two-three weeks now. I wish I could pinpoint it. I also run a number of extensions, but I'm unsure whether that's the actual problem. I'll try starting firefox in safe mode to see if it goes away. Thanks, dewet|✉ 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Do/did you use FasterFox by any chance? I've switched to a clean profile, and started enabling extensions one-by-one. I'm trying to find some correlation. dewet|✉ 15:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

German Exonyms (Latvia) delete proposal

Hello,

I was just wondering why you objected to the List of German exonyms for places in Latvia page. While I agreed that this information should be copied to the German and Latvian wikipedias as well, I don't quite see why it shouldn't be included on the English language Wikipedia. There are a great many other pages like this on the English Wikipedia and no one has objected to them either. Travelbird 00:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good edit

Nice catch on Missing Epistle of Jude, et al. Thanks! I'd invite you to go through other texts on Lost books of the Old Testament to make a similar edit. --The Editrix 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

EMCA

Hello there, I just wanted to say thanks for fixing the vandalism at East Coast Music Award. Somewhat belated but nonetheless appreciated =) {{User:Consequencefree/Sig}} 08:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indoor bocce - why merge?

Have you read the article? It says that Indoor bocce (not the article) was created August 25, 2006. So it is a sport 5 days old. And it also says it gained popularity worldwide. It contradcts itself. It is either patent nonsense, or it is a vanity of someone who created some new version of the sport. But I do not see any valid reason for merging it. That is why I removed the merge tag. I believed (and I still believe) that you overlooked the date mentioned in it. --Jan Smolik 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully disgaree about Raid (band)

I'm not sure where the article "asserts notability" for the band, but you're the admin. --Walter Görlitz 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Raid pioneered the Vegan straight edgemovement" along with an EP is an assertion of notability. Me removing speedy doesn't mean it would survive AFD but, with links like this, AFD wouldn't be a slam dunk either. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Software Testing Certification

Im not sure why you have deleted the certifications details[[1]] that I have posted. The motive behind choosing only those certifications is that they are of indistry standard and they are defining software testing these days. I have created that list on my own and they were not copied fron anywhere else. If possible please review them again. Digitalfunda 09:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


figures on certification

Hi Walter, I saw your comments here Digitalfunda about "fewer than 40% of testers world wide report to having any certification (see tha annual stickyminds/better software salary and industry review for further details)" - Can you name this please? As you can see on my website about certification I have some info, which says that it is even less (only 24%) - same source but from January 2006, but perhaps you have newer material from the same source? --Erkan Yilmaz 12:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Winnipeg

Walter: Thanks for your support, but this isn't a vote. If you disagree with the "speedy deletion" notice on the main article, you should remove it. (I'm not allowed to do it myself.) CJCurrie 05:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an afd -- it's a speedy deletion notice. There's actually a big difference: anyone have take down a speedy notice if they think it's inappropriate. CJCurrie 05:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont really see the point in a civic election thread unless there is a reason why it is otherwise notable, even for a major city. Doubly so given this article is lacking any context what-so-ever. However, I will give it a chance. As I noted in the talk page, I may take it to AfD in the future to see if the community believes there is value to civic election articles. Resolute 06:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ad hoc testing

Hi Walter. Actually, the description I wrote was intended as a neutral description of ad hoc testing. I'm confident that most exploratory testers don't see ad hoc and exploratory testing as synonyms. Ad hoc testing + documentation + planning for next tests = more formal exploratory testing. If we are to describe another view it would be something like "ad hoc testing is sloppy and careless and should never be performed by professionals". I think this view isn't neutral, and shouldn't be included in the article.

So I think your section can be merged with the existing and/or added to the exploratory testing article. Epim 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


"No my information can't be merged with what you wrote since they are divergent ideas on the term. Please don't try. --Walter Görlitz 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)"

I think our views are similar. I agree with all you wrote, I only think that some parts belong to the exploratory testing article. The difference is that I think that ad hoc testing is a subset of exploratory testing, while you think they are the same. The concept of exploratory testing has grown the last 15 years, so even if the terms were very similar some time ago, they aren't now. The referenced article "Ad Hoc Software Testing" covers this well. I think that the 2 articles on Wikipedia should be different and complementary. Epim 14:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I think that ad hoc and exploratory testing are the same thing, rather the context sensitive school state that they are the same thing. --Walter Görlitz 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The Context-Driven School of Testing coined the term exploratory testing, and they derived some key concepts from what used to be called ad hoc testing.
They do not state that the terms are synonyms.
There is one sentence in Bachs article that could be misunderstood in this way: "Exploratory testing is also known as ad hoc testing." The referenced article "Ad Hoc Software Testing" was presented at a forum with several members of the Context-Driven School, so that paper should cover their opinion well. Epim 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Epim 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my syntax errors on the "Jewish right" page!

I just wanted to say thank you for helping out with the Jewish right page and cleaning up the errors. It is getting late at night and time to get some sleep.--Son of More 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Leet edit

Walter, I did not delete that section. I added a footnote to it. Ctrl-Alt-Dimension (Ragdoll) deleted the section. I restored the text in a way I thought would answer Ragdoll's objection, and Ragdoll deleted it again for a different reason. At this point our discussion is sitting in Talk:Leet#10100111001 waiting for other people to comment; so far no-one has. Please do add your comment there on the topic of restoring the information. That may help resolve the impasse. Thank you! – SAJordan talkcontribs 07:55, 17 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Casey dick

Hi, I've taken this to AfD, here, for the reasons noted at the AfD page. Please feel free to leave your comments there, or on my talk page. :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows "Fiji"

Sorry for copying an article directly in to Wikipedia. I am a new user and was not used to the rules. I have now re-written my own version.

Apology

I realize that I have been a mean, nasty jerk. Not that you've been the nicest, either, but yes, I call myself a 'believer' but haven't been acting like it. I'll do better.Hizzyhutch 14:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NPWatcher - re comments

Sir, thanks for your comments on my talk page. I appreciate the point, and I'm sorry for the mistake - having seen several definite non-notables in a row, I got a little bit snap-happy with them. I'm proceeding with a great deal more caution. Kind regards, Chrisd87 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Round Earth Theatre Company

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Round Earth Theatre Company, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jerry lavoie 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply concerning Jerusalem (band)

At the time, I was preoccupied with removing a spurious speedy tag from another band named "Jerusalem" and doing the natural thing under the circumstances: making Jerusalem (band) into a disambiguation page. In the process I forgot to check the links to the Swedish band.

You are welcome to fix those links yourself. Reverting the work I did, as you threaten to do, would clearly be disruptive. Under other circumstances, I would probably have been willing to help you out with this, but your calling my work "stupid" has removed any inclination I may possibly have had to do so. up◦land 13:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastedon and Mastodon

if someone misspells "mastedon" they will realise they misspelled it when they see the BIG title saying MASTEDON. --Dexter prog 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

CSD

Why the SD for Belief (disambiguation) ? -Ste|vertigo 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the category template Transportation in Edmonton?

I'd like to know why the category template has been removed and subsequently disabled. There should be a valid reason for doing so, otherwise, I will consider this action an act of vandalism. NorthernFire 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please forgive me on this, and I do have to apologize if I seemed rude. I just got your response regarding this. Thank you for your acknowledgment on this and I will keep that in mind from now on. NorthernFire 07:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • About the last message you sent me - thanks. :) NorthernFire 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Switchfoot GA

Walter Görlitz,

Thank you very much for your help on bringing the Switchfoot article up to Good Article status. It could not have been accomplished without your help. However further improvements to the article are, as always, welcome. Thank you.

--T-rex 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.