User talk:Walter Görlitz

Archives

to 2007-12-31 to 2010-12-31 to 2011-12-31 to 2012-12-31 to 2013-12-31 to 2014-12-31 to 2015-12-31 to 2016-12-31 to 2017-12-31 to 2018-12-31 to 2019-12-31 to 2020-12-31 to 2021-12-31

Hey, something similar happened at ASC San Diego related to the move of this page. I'm still trying to figure out what precisely is going on with this merger, but thought I would let you know. Jay eyem (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP editor for their legal threats, but your behavior in that conversation was inappropriate and way too aggressive. Nothing useful will come from discussing where an IP address geolocates to. Do not get into pointless back and forth exchanges with disruptive editors. You know where to file reports. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I agree, and I'm sorry. I did what is common—referring to an anon by their location—and did so in what I thought was a whimsical fashion on the anon's talk page, but then it digressed. I will avoid doing so in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anon" is not a synonym for an IP editor. A registered user who studiously avoids disclosing any personally identifying information is clearly much more anonymous than a garden variety IP editor. Please amend your common practice. Cullen328 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually refer to them as anons, but I have seen them referred to by their location. I was just trying to be social, but not only was it not appreciated, it got out of hand. Thank you for the advice and taking the time to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not refer to IP editors as "anons" and do not mention their geolocation data, which may or may not be accurate, but is utterly irrelevant in conversations with IP editors. If you want to be "whimsical" as you said at User talk: Drmies, then edit the plot summary of an article about Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Woody the Woodpecker, The Flintstones, or some other whimsical show business topic. Do not try to be "whimsical" in your interactions with editors you are in a dispute with. That debating tactic never ends well, and you should know that very well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps whimsical was the wrong word then. I was trying to speak to the editor as a human using shared places. If you would prefer me not to write to editors in an effort to alleviate hostilities and create a raptor with them, I am not sure how to edit to please you. I also see no problem with writing about an anonymous editor as an anon, but clearly you do, so that may need a fuller discussion at the Village Pump. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you meant "rapport " in the sense of a personal connection rather than "raptor" as in a bird of prey. If so, your efforts were unsuccessful because they were inept and perceived (reasonably) as insulting. You are, of course, free to argue at the Village Pump (or elsewhere) that "anon" is an acceptable moniker for an IP editor who is clearly less anonymous than a registered editor who takes a modicum of precautions to protect anonymity. Of course, you will be expected to justify telling the specific editor in question to take a walk on specific frozen rivers based on their geolocation data, and I expect that may be a difficult conversation for you. The choice is yours. 07:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I made a typo. No, as someone who was raised in Winnipeg, it is not uncommon for youth (and others) to walk on these rivers in January. The point was to ask for the editor to cool off, They have a year to do that. The unfortunate consequence of that action was perceived as an outing of the editor's locations. Clearly that was a wrong perception since there are warnings for every editor who chooses to edit without an account that their IP is exposed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music § Colin Larkin references. We could really use an experienced editor with this matter, and I hope you're able to provide some input. Thanks. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You actually explained something in an edit summary that's more than just linking to whatever. Was that so hard? That's what you should do in instances such as this. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you can see how one could mix them up. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would not be the first to confuse WP:REPEATLINK with WP:OVERLINK. I will not be changing my process. The links are there and it is the responsibility of the editor to follow the link to the page to determine why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and welcome message, I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to share what will work best for my editing skills instead of berating me like the other editor did. If you can provide any other feedback as I continue my editing journey, I would like that. Wtfsteph (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody views that page. It would not be likely to gain a fair consensus there. I will take it to the WikiProject instead. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing a bit of copyediting on the Mario Gómez article and I noticed the method of reporting scores in games was not consistent. The section in the loan to Beşiktaş uses an – between scores (5–1 win), while the International section does not (2–3 loss). Is either method preferred, or are both acceptable? Perfect4th (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect4th: I believe that it is regional. For me, saying win, victory, etc. as opposed to defeat loss is the key to understanding the situation. I would always place the larger score first. I would follow-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to seeing scores with the home team's total reported first, but both could make sense. Is it better to use any particular kind of dash or hyphen with it as well? Perfect4th (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's a regional preference. The en-dash is used for scores. I am used to seeing colons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Might it be similar to the {{British English}} versus {{American English}} issue? Perfect4th (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 13 years editing here I've never seen this. I thought it was a burp in the mark up. Old dog, new tricks, I guess. Tiderolls 13:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: I first saw {{citation needed span}} (the full template name) about six years ago. It is usually used by experienced editors to highlight dubious material without requiring a long discussion as is required by {{dubious}}, or occasionally to shame the person adding it. This case is a good example of how it should be used. Rather than placing two {{citation needed}} templates, one for each piece of information that should be sourced, it is added once and we understand that they should each be sourced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realize the problem with my edits, thanks for helping me notice! 68.97.131.85 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you may have any citations that I could add to the ‘tailor’ article. A 4chan user emailed me about it a couple weeks ago and I would like to know if you have any knowledge of places I can find a good citation to save the article. If you have any you can either respond here to the talk:Tailor page. It would be very helpful if you can find any. Thanks 68.97.131.85 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone redirected the MLS verion of the Whitecaps 2 to the USL version of the Whitecaps 2. Shouldn't there be separate pages since the USL team played in the second division and was dissolved while the new team will play in the third division of soccer's hierarchy? Different leagues, different divisions. The only common thing about them is the name. Thoughts... Roberto221 (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Whitecaps FC 2 and it's not a redirect. There is also Vancouver Whitecaps FC U-23 and Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010). I saw a bit of change at the first article, but no redirects. Which article are you thinking of? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: It's been redirected again to the USL Whitecaps. If you read the article, you'll see it's referencing the USL team and records. What needs to happen is that the page "Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2" needs to be renamed/moved to "Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2 (USL)" and that gets redirected to "Whitecaps FC 2 (USL)" to maintain the USL page. Next is to get an admin to free-up the "Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2" name so that the MLS Next Pro team can use that name and any redirects. That way there are two separate paths, one for the division two(USL) team and one for the division three(MLS Next Pro) team. The key here is being getting the original team name, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2", changed. Another solution would be to move the division three team page, "Vancouver Whitecaps FC MLS Next Pro team" to "Vancouver Whitecaps FC 2 (MLS Next Pro)". I like the first solution because the new team won't have the (MLS Next Pro) attached to the page name. Roberto221 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I was typing, somebody combined both pages into one. Roberto221 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you get a lot of abuse so.. A nice hot cup of tea to calm you down. Govvy (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: Going very nicely with my bagel and cup of Earl Grey. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't really care one way or another about Hillsong, but just to let you know, there are plenty of Australian templates with redlinks! I can't think of the names of all of them now, but I know I've seen quite a few. Template:Islands of Tasmania is one example. Just for future info! :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: Well, you should read WP:EXISTING and start removing redlinks from any templates in which you encounter them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the little revert that you did the other day, can you provide me with a link to where this is defined? I was adding |30em based on information directly in the Template:Reflist, and some other Talk page discussions some time ago that it was to be preferred over Reflist|2 or reflist by itself. I understood it was also something to do with readability via mobile apps. but I cant remember. So any link you can provide me to a discussion or guideline to understand how this works or how it has changed would be welcomed. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matilda Maniac: You may have to be more specific, but I will try to explain what I know. {{Reflist}} links to its obsolete parameters stating "These parameters are no longer in use" and below, where | 30 em is listed is in a section that has been deprecated. It is automatically responsive to 30em when there are 10 or more references, otherwise, it is single column. You can try in your own sandbox. Find an article. Copy the source. Make sure that you have an undecorated reflist template and show preview. If there are fewer than 10 references, they should show in a single column; duplicate some of there references so that it is more than 10 and see how it changes. If there are more than 10 references, the preview should show that the columns are responsive. Remove copy and references until the preview shows fewer than 10 references. As the final experiment, adjust the decoration so that the refs are responsive to more than 30em and less than 30em. That is why the code is still present. You should see that, when there are more than 10 references, {{Reflist}} performs exactly like {{Reflist|30em}}.

That 30em is the responsive default for {{div col}} as well. It may change over time. So forcing it to 30em is unnecessary, and may change over time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect explanation. Thanks. I'm still sure in another talk forum a couple of years ago it was mentioned along the lines to force it to |em30 for reading Wikipedia through mobile app regardless of the number of references. Perhaps that is wrong or out-of-date. This will save me a bit of time whenever I add notelists and often update the reflist format while I'm there. Cheers.Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, the code did not not allow for automatically responsive, so I could see that making sense then, but not today. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the new MLS team in St. Louis are stylizing "City" as "CITY" in all their comms across their website, socials, etc, so that appears to be the official name. See their website. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UncleTupelo1: Having spent a lot of time on the music project, Wikipedia eschews stabilization of names, whether all caps, all lower case or otherwise. Unless we see it regularly in the press (not just press releases from the team and MLS sides) we should avoid it and stick to proper English capitalization. I can always raise this on the team's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyting that could be added, removed or worded betterr?? Drawbacks.Moxy- 01:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Q, I'm noticing that you're adding -pres. to player team histories. Is this a recent change to how we're supposed to edit that? Seems like an impossible task to try and change that on every active players page.

And it's not problem, I'll add edit summaries as you asked on my talk page, although I don't see that very often from others, and I assume they aren't being stalked like you've been doing with me over the last number of years. Very odd but ultimately if you feel the need to shadow me specifically, more power to you then man.

Vince193 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vince193: MOS:DATETOPRES Has been around for a while but I was only made aware of it a few days ago. The advice on the MoS talk page was to apply it and see where it goes. I don't think I have been shadowing you, but I have been applying it to a few articles when I see it is not present (pun intended). ~

Not really impossible. If a years parameter ends in an en-dash, a bot could easily see this and make the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just letting you know as I have seen you remove headline= from Template:Track listing. I know it may be "redundant", but captions are required for all tables per MOS:ACCESS. The documentation of Template:Track listing also says headline= is required for accessibility. There was a consensus on all of this in 2020, and they were found to be necessary even where considered redundant and repeating information "obvious" to readers: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 15#RfC on table captions. Ss112 22:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation does not state it is required for accessibility. I have been watching the documentation and template for years and do not recall this discussion or consensus. Feel free to link to that.

I have also participated in ACCESS for years and recall that actual tables should have them.

Perhaps we should request that {{track listing}} should be modified to supply a default heading, when needed for accessibility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation does state this. Template:Track listing#Parameters, in the headline = field: "Table captions are required for accessibility". Koavf changed this, I believe. He made plenty of changes like this to templates in 2020 citing accessibility concerns without getting consensus first. Looks like he and others (for example, on Template talk:Track listing/Archive 19) consider track lists a table. You say "actual tables" but the template documentation refers to the template as a table, so MOS:TABLECAPTION applies. Don't get me wrong: I was against them at first too but the consensus at WT:ACCESS I just linked was said to be Wikipedia-wide and local consensus could or should not override it. It was also raised there that some headlines repeat information from section headers. Regardless of that, it was still considered necessary. Ss112 23:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I was just looking at it and searched for accessibility and did not see it, but it is clearly there. Not sure what happened. Ignore "actual tables" part. I know that they are formatted as tables. The option to change the table still stands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your partial revert of me on Seven (Brooke Ligertwood album): the column header already says "Label". I do this in line with dropping "Records" from the label= parameter of Template:Infobox album, next to "Label:" in wikitables on discographies, and per the precedent of other album articles dropping "Records" from release history tables too. Putting "Records", "Recordings" and all of these in all these tables makes them unnecessarily wide and wordy. Ss112 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erik ten Hag is seeing a lot of edits by IPs changing his current club. Would an RFPP be appropriate here? Perfect4th (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt it is because Erik has accepted the new management position with Manchester United, although he is still managing Ajax for the remainder of the season. I'm sure nothing has been malicious. ForefrontFollower (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this; I forget not all WikiProjects use current class, and too early in my morning I forgot to double check before I reassessed the article. My bad. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  08:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment at Pep Guardiola GA review. Can you use the script which changes the date formats at Federico Gatti? I don't know the reason but the script doesn't work to me. This article is being GA reviewed (by someone who's not very active). Dr Salvus 18:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Salvus: Done. And I applied the international WP:ENGVAR while it was open for editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the tricky things about oversight that generally, we just don't talk about it on-wiki, which is why I did not really reply to your posts on my talk page, just took the actions I felt were appropriate. It's a little odd to me that @Uncle G: blocked them based on edits that he could not actually see, leaving me little choice but to convert it to an oversight block as there is no way for non-oversighters to review a block based on suppressed material, but it is a requirement that all OS blocks be reported to our mailing list for review by the team so that process is already underway. My point here is that part of the idea of removing outing content is that we just do it, quietly, and generally starting a noticeboard thread is not the best idea. Requests for suppression (oversight) or revision deletion are best made off-wiki through the process outlined at WP:RFO. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the introductory greeting Walter. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for years now but generally just small and quick edits when I run across obvious passages that could use improvement (with most being done on the fly without logging in). Decided I'd do it a little more formally now, complete with a user page. :-) If I need help, I'll know who to turn to. Thanks for reaching out. Socalville (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I was making corrections and didn't realize how laborious the Code of Ethics page would be. Had I known beforehand, I would have started it in my sandbox. It was late, I was tired, so I just published it unfinished. haha. I'll get better with more experience and better recognize what should probably be worked in the sandbox first.

Hope you ave a great Good Friday, and Easter weekend! ForefrontFollower (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walter, I have a question: I am interested about joining WP:RCP, how I can join in? There is a page that you can click in a part and you can inscribe? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 01:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEncyclopediaReader: That's a noble goal Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol#What to do says that there's nothing to do other than get started, although you could add {{RC patroller topicon}} to your user page to indicated that you're participating. I don't know if that adds that page to a category, but it would help identify your intentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're meaning that if I just put this template ({{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}}) in my user page I automatically form part of the WikiProject? TheEncyclopediaReader Contact me! :) 01:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEncyclopediaReader: I don't think it's a project. It is among the Wikipedia:Patrols. No less of a community, but a different protocol and support process. I think that should do. You can always ask on their talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to dial back the rhetoric in your comments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. You've been blocked for personal attacks and uncivil conduct before. Given the length of that block, you're well on your way to earning an indefinite one with comments like this. The implication that the other editors involved have brain damage is entirely unacceptable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Feel free to offer your opinion as to why a project can elect to reject a manual of style that applies to the entire project in that discussion then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this[1] edit is an exaggeration. In the vast majority of the infoboxes flatlists are preferred to commas. Do you really expect me to start a long discussion about replacing a comma? Okay, I don't want to start an edit war, I will leave that style unchanged, that article will be the only one to retain a style that apparently no one likes. Blueberry72 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. It is neither required for lists of fewer than three items and just because other articles do something is not a valid reason to "fix" this one. As for styles no one likes, that is why several editors fought to have the wording that is present in the documentation, so clearly, your last comment is hyperbole. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheEncyclopediaReader reported by User:Moxy (Result: )Moxy- 04:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,

Sie haben meine Bearbeitung auf der Seite zum FC Bayern rückgängig gemacht. Ihre Ausführung war diesbezüglich sehr knapp und somit schwer nachvollziehbar. Der Klub hat seit der vergangenen Saison den fünften sogenannten "Meisterstern". Dies ist hinsichtlich der Erfolge des Klubs durchaus relevant. Des Weiteren stellt der Gewinn der Fifa-Klub-Weltmeisterschaft (2013 und 2020) weitere Meilensteine dar. Dies lässt sich durch das Abzeichen sehr gut darstellen.

Ich würde mich daher freuen, wenn Sie mir ihre Beweggründe näher erläutern.

--Bildersindtoll (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bildersindtoll: Well, on the English project we have MOS:IMAGESIZE so we do not want to have forced sizes 150px and MOS:IMAGELOC, so there's no need to place the image on the left. The additional images weren't really useful either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The size ist one point but not a problem. But your explaination on the additional images is not really hepful. >Why< are the additional images not really useful? I explain my point, but you doesn't.

-- Bildersindtoll (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bildersindtoll: MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE is the main issue. You're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page. Others may agree with your assessment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In September of last year TonyBallioni warned you that further edit warring would likely lead to an indefinite block. Between your recent conduct at 2022 FIFA World Cup, We Cry Out: The Worship Project, Dennis Villeneuve and your MOS:DATETOPRES related changes, you've clearly not taken that warning to heart, and I'm left with no choice but to make good on it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: I do not believe that I exceeded three reverts and I was blocked for doing that. In each case I opened a discussion, often with the project and in most cases, the other party continued to edit war. However, you are taking a literal view of edit warring so I am willing to voluntarily consent to a WP:1RR to continue editing if you will remove the indef. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is very illustrative of exactly what the problem here is. It conflates edit warring with the three revert rule, and implies that the conduct of others or an attempt to engage with them justifies further reverts. So long as you maintain that what you did was okay, I have no confidence that you won't do it again. After all, this sort of thing has been a problem with your editing for over a decade this at this point. Unless that position credibly changes, I won't be lifting this block for the foreseeable future. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: I made no such claim. I merely stated that I did not go past three reverts, and not only opened discussions that the other editors did not always engage in.

I recognize that I was edit warring, and have made an offer to consent to a 1RR to continue editing. I do not know if you did not see that or if you feel it was not made in earnest, but I understand the issue. In other words, I will not revert more than once in a 24-hour period, and will in all cases enter WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you self-revert at Lucas Cavallini and stop reverting at all in relation to DATETOPRES (until there is consensus)? GiantSnowman 08:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? What Walter was doing was essentially a correct edit, it's the footy project which has been doing it wrong for years! I don't see the point of an indef-block either, maybe a week for the edit-war. Govvy (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot self-revert there as it is not in DATETOPRES format. I will gladly not do any further DATETOPRES edits on the football project articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've made these sort of promises of non-repetition before, and yet here we are. As it stands, I see very real risk that if I unblock you right now, in few months time you'll push the envelop of whatever revert rule you're on little to far without technically breaking it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: I have not made this sort of promise before. In the past, it was my understanding that TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s block was for violating 3RR, which is also labelled as edit warring. I assumed that I was not to go past three revert and I have not. You did not want me even to edit war and telling me that would have been enough for me to comply. Proof: you told me I went overboard on a comment and I agreed and struck it. So if you that that I am dishonest, your a mistaken. I will honour 1RR. If we are here or ANI in a few months with me requesting that 1RR be reviewed, then we will be here discussing that. If you do an indef in a few months because I reverted someone twice in under 24 hours, then that is up to you.

As it stands I have made my point clear and if that is not good enough for you, then I cannot be more clear with my intentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After god knows how many blocks for edit warring, no one should have to warn you about it, and yet you ignored several warnings in recent weeks, and no one should have to explain to you that violating the three revert rule is not required for conduct to be edit warring. I do not trust you to not repeat the behaviour that made this and so many previous blocks necessary. As such, I will not be unblocking you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: After I explained that I understood that the block was for violating the 3RR rule and I have given you assurances of my behaviour going forward.

You offered no edit warring warnings. Feel free to show them at your leisure. I do not recall having seen any either. However, you're acting like god here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, perhaps put a formal unblock request in and see what the reviewing admin says? GiantSnowman 10:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Thanks. Have you often seen an admin (like yourself) revert a block placed by another? I may do so at some point, but clearly Sir Sputnik does not accept this argument:

1. I am a rules-based editor.
2. Since my last block, I was working on the rule that should not break 3RR.
3. I have promised not to break a single revert.

I will wait for a response from Sir Sputnik. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blocks are often over-turned. GiantSnowman 17:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are now also engaged in block evasion, this clearly isn't going anywhere. I won't be engaging here any further. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What block evasion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your activity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FWalter_G%C3%B6rlitz&type=revision&diff=1086266051&oldid=886796468 There are now more than 700 employees at my company and I know not to edit while blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wouldn't disagree that the IP address range has been used in the past for block evading by looking at the Walter sock archive page.

As to the latest response: 700 does seem to be a lot of people working for a company, which could indicate other people are using these IP addresses as well and sometimes overlap with what the time edits made by Walter by comparing both sets of contributions. I can't estimate how many people out of 700+ actually edits Wikipedia as well as Walter and some may use different IP networks, giving different IP ranges. There is a chance the edits made on 4 May was done by Walter though I'm not certain about that. Also most people who have been on Wikipedia probably edit from their own homes, I think. I never known anyone who edits Wikipedia using their main accounts in popular places where many people use the same IP address. That question timed at 5:19 UTC on 5 May 2022 could be asked in the right way, i.e. Walter not knowing someone else was using the IP address to edit Wikipedia. I'm guessing Sir Sputnik here assumed that the IP address was used by one person before the 700 employees response became visible. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not block evading in the past, but as an alternate account.

Start of May we did get a load of new co-op (American English: interns) start. Not going to flog this horse to death though. If at some point I were to come back, Sir Sputnik we be no less diligent in inspecting my activity—both real and imagined—to fit his interpretation of the community standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone contacts me and indicates that they are inconvenienced by the block I will suggest that they create a new account at home and sign-in using that while in the office. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello;

Could you help me out please? I created season 16 under List of episodes, but the link isn't working. Thank you. RiverviewPatches (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter, a number of fair minded edits you made to this page have been reversed and made more inflammatory by a contributor named “nicetryearl” who has made it his mission to discredit mr Noormohamed, as evidenced by his own profile page. His edits are inaccurate and inflammatory (as you previously noted) yet his edits continue to be allowed to stand unchecked. His edits violate a number of Wikipedia policies and I would ask if you could please assist in correcting what “nicetryearl” continues to do as it is both misleading and defamatory. 2607:FEA8:760:3400:BD65:8B8B:4B3B:1B69 (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that WildComet (talk · contribs) has it on his watchlist and can address your concerns. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project 86 has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider your edits at User talk:Metalcub back in May to August 2021. That user was subsequently banned indefinitely in February this year. Almost all of their edits were to supply Wall of Sound as a source. They started editing in late October 2020.

Consider also User talk:Brownypaul87, where they also contributed almost exclusively by adding Wall of Sound as a source. They stopped editing in late October 2020 not long after our discussion at Talk:Amy Shark.

Did you follow up with raising your concerns about that website at WP:RSN?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know I haven't edited much but I'm not exactly new. Simply put, I'd like to edit NF's 'Personal Life' Category. He now has a child and it wasn't mentioned. Xinegod (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctus Real has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 02:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Walter Görlitz! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]