User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2009-12

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 ^talk_contribs 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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" ([2]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

stub section in Software Testing

hmm - why? I gave a reason, which you did not: 20:39, January 6, 2009 (hist) (diff) Software testing ‎(Undid revision 262306073 by Tedickey Tedickey (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Switchfoot "obscure" awards.

Ok, let's address your arguments point by point.

1. "All of the awards are obscure. They're all gone. Thanks for setting the standard."

My first response is that, NO, the awards listed currently are not obscure. ASCAP and GMA are two major organizations. ASCAP is the big-time "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers," and GMA is the "Gospel Music Association." The San Diego Music awards are also highly respected by music critics nationwide because of the eclectic and thriving music scene in that town (thus, it has its very own wiki article). Awards with Wikipedia articles generally are not "obscure." These awards are still around, they are not CLOSE to being gone, and no, I set no standard. The standard was set before I even made my first edit on wikipedia!

2. "Just because you don't know an award doesn't make it obscure. You need a much better definition of which awards should be kept and which should not."

First off, I DO know which awards were being posted up on the awards section, I'm not stupid. The "This Is Home" award that was posted was NOT a Dove Award, it was a small Gospel Music TV award... therefore, it certainly didn't belong there. Oh, Switchfoot won NO Dove Awards this past year by the way!

Secondly, the added random Australian song of the year award is NOT major... it's based on Christian Australian radio station's airplay. Last time I checked, artists and bands don't get real awards for getting the most plays on radio. Maybe recognition as a "song of the year" or something, but no real awards. Perhaps next time, you can do your research before jumping to conclusions. Thanks. Joberooni (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Functionality

I so hate that word. What's wrong with just saying function?

I also think I changed it in more than one place. :)

SimonTrew (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In two months you have not said why it is wrong to say function instead of functionality, before my immediate reply that there is a difference. SimonTrew (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. See User_talk:SimonTrew#Function_vs._Functionality. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine

Who cares if The 77's give credit to Johnson. Many people haven't even heard of The 77's. It's a trivial non-notable event. The whole edit warring on the article has been nothing but disruptive. MegX (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The 77's and you are incorrect. The song is traditional. Johnson may have recorded a version but he did not write the song. The Grateful Dead credited it as "traditonal" not to Johnson, and since the song is public domain the claim Led Zeppelin stole it can not be proven in court as no-one actually owns it. And lets do bring this to a vote. Given the number of editors you've warred with over this I suspect you might not get the support you claim. MegX (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Teitur Thordarson

There is absolutely no guideline even advising the use of only 26 characters in the English alphabet. Also, see Ayumi Hamasaki for an example of a foreign-language FA that uses the appropriate infobox. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't like the way the request turned out, I'm not disputing the move, I'm disputing the contents of the infobox, which IMO should be the way they are in the FA article I presented as an example if we stick to the "English" version of the name. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, I'm an admin, so I might just go and argue with myself and change that infobox, but I don't really care any more. Good night. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

A comment has been left on the Wikiquette page regarding Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine#Connection to Blind Willie Johnson discussion. MegX (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitecaps merge proposal

FYI, Cmjc80's close of the merge proposal was not "vandalism". While it may be a good idea to request an admin to close a merge discussion if it is contentious, it does not have to be an admin who closes it. Anyway, I have now closed it as there is no apparent consensus for a merge. In addition, I have reverted your edit to Cmjc80's user page; he/she is under no obligation to create a page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Walter, that's not it at all... there had not been any discussion since March 27, and there was no apparent consensus to merge. Perhaps Cmjc80 should have requested outside advice, but the fact that he closed it after 17 days of inactivity is not comparable to your stated intent to "close merger discussions that I feel are not going the way I like". --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Walter Görlitz. You have new messages at SimonTrew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Added a bit about functionality (and thanks for your reply) SimonTrew (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian Music

I was looking at the Adult contemporary article and someone had made that addition. I thought it was useful in that Christian music seems to be divided up into several different styles. I suppose most of the stations would fit under "Christian AC". But from what I'm reading there's something new called "Christian CHR".

I'll go back to the other article and see what needs to be done there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's at the end of this section. To be fair, if you do it to me, you should do it to this person too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_contemporary_music#History_and_evolution_of_the_format Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would rather have kept both articles the way they were. I'm not reverting this person just because you say it's wrong, but I can use your edit summary to make changes.You seem to know this music. I take the attitude that we should all be listening to the music of Germans who died 200 years ago. Nevertheless, when I know stuff but can't pinpoint a source Wikipedia would accept, I make the necessary additions.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

On the whole Good Charlotte thing

you asked Good Who? lol, actually Good Charlotte is a very famous alternative rock group (At least to modern day teenagers like myself). And I don't know if all the members are Christian, but I do know that both the the lead singer and the rythym guitarist/backing vocalist in the band (identical twins Joel & Benji Madden) come from a very religious background. Also, the band refers to God in many of there songs, and even has two songs (We Believe and The River) that have Christian themes (look up the lyrics to the two songs and you will understand). Take care, and God Bless. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Music

I restored the "expanded list of CCM artists who were never considered to produce Jesus Music but Contemporary Christian Music" since they all created Jesus music and are important to the article. Granted, Sweet Comfort Band is definitely a late entry in the list, they were very evident in the mid-seventies at Calvary Chapel. If you want to discuss each artist individually, we can do it on the article's talk page. I left your festivals paragraph though. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that Jesus Music happened during a specific time period *before* Contemporary Christian Music came along. Pretty much every one of the bands listed in the section I deleted were/are considered CCM, *not* Jesus Music. When you start adding jazz-fusion, country rock and hard rock to the mix, you have gone into CCM and completely strayed from Jesus music (and the type of music is even denoted in the paragraph above the one you restored). It was the evolution of the music and the genre that caused the term CCM to be coined - the time period for what was truly called Jesus Music was a small window in comparison to what you are attempting here. Not only that, but you have bands in that grouping who were definitely considered (by those in the business as well as themselves) to be CCM, and not Jesus music. Along with removing the "it was immature" POV comments, I am restoring it back to what it was when I went to bed last night. The section on those bands you listed would be much more appropriate in the article on Contemporary Christian Music - why not work it in there? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. The page has been edited and reviewed by many experts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? *Which* "experts" are those? Do you have names? And from where did they receive their "Jesus music/CCM Expert" credntials? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added references and cited peer review on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The artists you removed were in existence during the time of the Jesus movement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well...of course they were "in existence" (I didn't imagine them as infants playing and singing onstage) - but were they actually a part of the Jesus movement and performing Jesus music prior to the genre's morph into CCM *as* the groups you listed?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I added references and cited proof that they were in existence as bands during the era of JM on the article's talk page. Your suggestion that I was implying that they were alive is an attempt to discount my claim by reducing it to the absurd. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Their early albums all have "file under Jesus music" on their spines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where is the evidence of that claim? Do you have a refernece or references you can cite to back this up? And if so, were those labels placed appropriately?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is right here in my music collection, and in the collection of many others. If I didn't write that "File Under Jesus Music" was written on the spines of the albums, I'm sorry. It was common practise during that era. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do what asked and discuss this on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Who asked that and when?SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked. When I reverted your edits. In the summary comments. I asked you to make all further discussion on the talk page of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I will provide album scans to prove my point. Do not touch the list of artists until you have vetted your reduced list through the talk page, citing why each artist should be removed and I will do the same. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you a Wikipedia administrator? If not, don't presume you have a right to tell me what to do in Wikipedia.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. didn't mean to imply that I was an admin. However, when you go in and harshly edit an article like this--one on which I've worked for a while--without fully understanding the reason that the article is the way it is, it's upsetting. In fact, Wikipedia's policy is to edit hard, but you have to take into account that in this instance, you were inserting opinion on the bands and musicians who were listed. One that did not fit the facts. While we must present evidence when we add new material, apparently deleting material doesn't require citations. That's wrong. That's why you should talk about your evidence on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A have specialized in Jesus music and early CCM. I know the difference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It would appear otherwise. I have also "specialized" (if that is what you want to call it) in Jesus music and CCM - not just because I experienced it when it actually occurred, but also because I have been a participant as a professional musician within the genre.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know who was in each group. I know who did and didn't make the transitions. Please don't try to teach me what you don't know, it's really condescending and rude. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean like you are being right now? Sorry, but since I'm not behaving as you are, I can safely say that I am not being "condescending and rude".SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I meant more like you were being when you made your edit summary comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't been around for the four years that I've been editing that article and I don't appreciate your deletions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there some rule in Wikipedia I am not aware of that states an editor can claim ownership of an article? If there is, I must have missed it.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point of the article doesn't mean that I think you're immature, you're just missing the point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When I said "immature", I was referring to a POV statement within the article, not something you said or possibly implied.SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A few more points. It's not 1970's, it's 1970s. It's one space after a period, not two. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ad-hominem noted. So you're not being "condescending and rude", eh? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have ignored the remainder of your attacks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

edit-war over "lyrically and musically simple"

Please don't edit-war or add it until there is a good cite to support the claim, so it's clear that some reliable source is saying this, not a wikipedia editor's opinion or analysis of cause/effect. OTOH, once there is a good cite, it's definitely includable and an interesting idea! DMacks (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Walter Görlitz. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fair use rationale for File:Sheila Walsh-Future Eyes 500.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sheila Walsh-Future Eyes 500.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Japanese flag

That's odd... it shows up for me fine. Maybe it's an error on your computer rather than a problem with the Wiki image? --JonBroxton (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Rock

Sorry about that, I didn't really look to see what exactly was going on. Now that I looked again, you're definitly right. Free (talk) ^(HRWiki) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nobody's Fault but Mine

Do you know who the IP is that is on this crusade against you? I have protected the page for longer this time to stop it wasting any more of your, or anyone else's, time and effort. Mfield (Oi!) 23:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Re: User:SockpuppetWG, I am not a checkuser so I can't check the IP personally. His appearance certainly does look suspicious and I will certainly keep an eye on him. If his editing pattern/behavior becomes problematic then we can open a SSP case with an associated checkuser request. Mfield (Oi!) 17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Please stop creating new cases for the same individual. You can add new accounts to the existing report here. — Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

White space

White space can be necessary if it improves the readability of the article, like in this case. Digirami (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the browser. It has to do with the resolution of the screen. If you have a screen at 1024x768, the infobox messes how the table is supposed to look. Digirami (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vancouver MLS 2011

To me, if a team's paid its league dues and officially been announced by the league, it's a member of that league, regardless of when it begins play. So Vancouver MLS 2011 is officially a member of Major League Soccer, it just doesn't begin active play until 2011. Just to clear it up, Tom Danson (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Incivility warning

I am putting you on notice that you will be reported for inciviity if you continue to attempt to bully and intimidate me on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting

Don't let User:Afterwriting get under your skin. He's not too bad of a problem overall. He's clearly lost the argument at this point and will simply get himself banned if he keeps it up. Given some of the comments I see he's getting elsewhere, it's possible he's intentionally trolling people this way, too. If he keeps this up, we can do an RfC. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Churches"

I didn't want to get into an edit war with you, so I'm coming here first. Seems to me that the word "churches" in that heading (on Baptism) is not a proper noun, as it is not referring to any particular church or group of churches. And technically, the word "church" transliterated "ekklesia" from the original Greek means nothing more than an assembly or gathering of people. As such, I believe the word "churches" in the section heading should not be capitalized.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a proper noun. The [Roman] Catholics refer to themselves as The Church. Most protestants and post-reformation denominations don't take such a narrow view. I am in the latter camp and with you would prefer to see it uncapitalized, but if you look at the change history, I'm sure you'll see someone making a stink over it remaining capitalized for the reasons I gave above. If that's not the case, then I really don't mind it changing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:36 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Oh, ok, I wasn't aware that had been disputed before.

By the way, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to messages where they are (to keep all parts of the discussion together), or at least use my talk page rather than my main user page. Thanks!
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for References

I'm not too experienced with Wikipedia protocol, so I'm not trying to be contentious. But regarding your removal of a reference I added to contemporary worship, would that reference still be considered illegitimate if it includes content that informed a revision of the article itself? In this case, the sample job description in the "Worship Leader" resource suggested additional responsibilities that were added to the Worship Leader section of the article. Thanks either way for your help! Timbugtoo (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Timbugtoo

Not a problem. It actually makes more sense to discuss this on the article's talk page, but we're here now. The issue is that the resource is a $15 document. If it backs up a specific point you're making, it's best to use a <ref></ref> tag and {{cite web}} citation (see WP:CT). But a bare reference looks like an ad. Thanks for taking the time to talk about this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert on Baptism

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Baptism: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. Thank you.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)