An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redirects are cheap. Since you had some involvement with the Redirects are cheap redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please, I need your input. There is a conversation about splitting an article because of its size, but I don’t care which way you would vote on if it should be split or not. My issue is that the other editor and a companion-in-arms are misusing, mistranslating Wikipedia:Article size. These two are reducing the size of the largest articles in Wikipedia, which sounds like a noble goal, but when I asked what limit there should be on an article size, the response was 100 kB characters. The Wiki-guideline does state that readable prose should be less than 100 kB, but readable prose is the article minus citations, lists, tables, footnotes, and images, so I find the interpretation dangerous. The other editor said to get articles down in size, a yearly list could be cut down in half, in quarters, or even monthly. I cannot picture the easy usage of lists that is divided by month for multiple years. The guideline mostly states lists and tables are excluded from the guideline, so my objection to the split is that there is no justification except a misused guideline.

Basically, I think these two editors are going beyond being useful in improving Wikipedia and are moving into damaging Wikipedia, so I would like you to come to Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment, read the discussions in the two section above it, especially Talk:List of 2017 albums#Redux, and provide feedback. I do not care if you say split or oppose, but to me the discussion is not about the split but the misuse of the Article Size guideline, and I want your and others I respect feedback on the conversation and the proper use of the guideline. Mburrell (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Walter, you know a thing or two about music. Can you have a look at this article and see what you can do? There's a dearth of sources, and there's a few disputes about names and dating. Whatever you can pull out of your archives, whatever you can add to the article will be greatly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Wow. The supplied sources include passing mentions of the project, but it might be better served with a section on Eminem's article, since most mentions are in articles about him, leaving a redirect (and one for Bassmint Productions). Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but there were a few records (well, tapes...), and I thought maybe you can find some more information to solidify as well as clarify. But maybe you're right. Thanks for looking at it--I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave all my main points on the thread, but one question regarding where you want to put it. Since this started on a song, wouldn't it make more sense to go over to

@

DannyMusicEditor: the reason I put it in the music project is that I felt that it applied to both albums and songs. A pointer to that discussion might make sense. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you so much for introducing helping me with Wikipedia on my talk page! Just4science! (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Real Salt Lake‎ ‎Head coaches

fully understood and agreed. if you look at the previous edit there was an error in the formating change of the table that messed up the rest of the page. I made eddits to try and find the error, i should have put notes to what i was doing. please preview all edits before publishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlater (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

How do you feel about me changing the "Discography" paragraph in Three Days Grace to have a sub-paragraph called "Studio albums as Groundswell" and including "Wave Of Popular Feeling (1995)" as a part of the discography? It's been days since I've applied the edit and you or any other editors haven't changed it. - User talk:Danielcool123 - 15:54, 7 March 2019 (GMT)

@Danielcool123: Sorry. I saw your message but had to start my commute. I'm fine with that option, but it has been removed in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

But that album is not notable and should not have an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Fine with that. What about the edits I made at the top of all existing TDG albums? - User talk:Danielcool123 - 7 March 2019, 18:04 (GMT)

They're a bit unnecessary, and similar edits have been removed in the past, but let's see what others think. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Per your edit on The Joshua Tree, did you see my explanation as to why I removed it? Template:Infobox album says that a microformat is emitted for the first duration detected if there is a recognised value. The duration template is only used because it emits a microformat for the length, so we don't actually need to use it when the album infobox provides what it does automatically. The template's documentation says to use the duration template for "more complicated values", and this is not a complicated value. Template:Duration itself also states: "In {{Infobox album}}, the microformat is added automatically if there is not one already. However, more complicated values might require this template." So it really doesn't need to be there and you didn't need to restore it. Nobody was disputing that the duration template is "correct", it's moreso that it's redundant. Can you please undo your own edit? You may revert this message if you wish, I don't really care, I just wanted to let you know because if you already did, I don't know why you restored it. Thanks. Ss112 08:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Walter Görlitz,

You've been identified either as a previous member of the project, an active editor on Apple related pages, a bearer of Apple related userboxes, or just a hoopy frood.

WikiProject Apple Inc. has unexpectedly quit, because an error type "unknown" occured. Editors must restart it! If you are interested, read the project page and sign up as a member. There's something for everyone to do, such as welcoming, sourcing, writing, copy editing, gnoming, proofreading, or feedback — but no pressure. Do what you do, but let's coordinate and stay in touch.

See the full welcome message on the talk page, or join the new IRC channel on irc.freenode.net named #wikipedia-en-appleinc ^connect. Please join, speak, and idle, and someone will read and reply.

Please spread the word, and join or unsubscribe at the subscription page.

RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} and Smuckola on behalf of WikiProject Apple Inc. - Delivered 15:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Since the thread amounts to a bunch of people sniping at each other to no good result, and since it appears to be metastasizing to a general display of grumpiness to no useful purpose, I would appreciate it if the discussion, having made its point, would remain closed. But I'm not going to let it make me grumpy too. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thanks for your involvement. I'm not sniping, at least I'm not trying to snipe. I'm actually trying to understand why one editor can remove another editor's comments on an uninvolved editor's talk page, and without a reasonable explanation. I'd also like to know why the other admin shut the discussion down so quickly. I'd be happy to discuss this in a more appropriate forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

As to the ANI discussion, I can't see that the affront rises to the level of ANI. I think you made the point that it's bad form to remove comments by another editor, but in this particular case, we have the equivalent of a long-established account. Would you template a regular for not using edit summaries? 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63's been around longer than many accounts, and gets fairly frequent warnings from editors who see an IP and assume a lack of clue. I'm not saying that's what you were doing, but it's getting into DTTR territory, and I've removed some warnings from editors who assumed 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 was just some random IP myself. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thanks again for the discussion.

I would and I have used templates on the talk pages of established editors when they do not leave edit summaries. It's one of the only ones I would place on a regular's talk page. The only other templates I would use are edit warring and ANI discussion templates. This anon, in particular, is quite inconsistent in their use edit summaries. See 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I did read the notice at the top of the talk page and selected the notice based on that. The reverts and "protection" was uncalled for in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I find an absence of edit summaries annoying myself, and I kick myself when I don't leave one - a concise summary, even reply, is more helpful than many editors realize. But I really try to avoid templates for people who one might assume know better. Even a short "Hey, can you give us some edit summaries? - tks" is more likely to get a useful result than a template that's aimed at new users. About the only warning templates I use with anybody who's not obviously new or inexperienced are 3RR (when there's any doubt about whether they know about the policy) and discretionary sanctions notices. A note along the lines of "why template?" would be a more optimal response to a notice coming from an established user like yourself. It works both ways. The best response for all parties would be "meh" after one round, including 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63, who can just chalk it up to being an IP and blank as they see fit. I'm not a friend to recursive arguments about who's following the rules the best, or lengthy discussions about something that's merely sub-optimal. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people (including me) find it hard to de-escalate. This event was a good candidate for breaking the chain of escalation. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Matthew hk (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

3rr=

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marc-André ter Stegen; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The general consensus was do not include league or nation. Feel free to raise it again if you think I'm mistaken.