User talk:Klock101

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated,

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really have to revert the entire edit? In reverting my removal of *some* information, you've removed *far more* information from the page.

Also, the Manual of Style page for television episode lists does not say that Title references as a requirement. As per the Template:Episode List page, they are only required for future episodes. The episodes that I removed the references from aired months ago. As such, I'm reverting your revert. Klock101 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about deleting the new episode content.

However, what the template documentation you pointed to, states is, "Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." It does not state that "they are only required for future episodes". That is a misinterpretation of the documentation.

WP:ANI

why removal of references and maintenance templates is acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

One thing further. There's an edit notice on my page. Every editor who adds a comment there sees it. It clearly states that responses to a discussion in one place should be left there. There at least two ways of notifying me of discussions here: {{

ping}}. If you would rather discuss this at the article, it's on my watchlist and I will see any comments you leave there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Walter Görlitz: I disagree about misinterpreting the documentation. From what I've seen, no other episode lists on Wikipedia have references for episodes that have already aired, including this page which the MoS lists as a good example of an episode list. Regardless, arguing about it here isn't going to solve anything. Is there somewhere we can escalate this in order to get proper clarification? Klock101 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the same argument that Mickeydee15 made, yet Mickeydee15 was blocked twice for removing references. There are many places you can "escalate" this, but don't make List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes that place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz:I think you misunderstand what I mean by escalate. I mean take it to a higher authority - we're clearly at an impasse. Somebody else (like a group of admins or someone who knows more about MoS stuff) needs to sort this out.

I did not mean that I'm going to start edit warring on the page - I don't plan on touching the references until this is clarified. I've made a post here about it. Surely you can see where I'm coming from here - no other episode list that I've seen on this site includes a reference for aired episodes. Why should Murdoch Mysteries be the exception (unless there are others I'm not aware of)? Klock101 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. You don't seem to care to look into Mickeydee15's edit history to see that I am telling the truth. There are many ways to seek resolution. If you think that this is a dispute, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I would suggest pinging the admins who blocked Mickeydee15 or the other editors who reverted Mickeydee15 on the article in question. There are many other avenues though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz:I've just looked into the page's history, and from what I can see, you're the only editor who reverted Mickeydee15's removal of references. In fact, you even broke the three revert rule in the space of just a few hours on the 10th/11th October 2016.

You have yet to provide a convincing reason why the references should remain, when seemingly every other Episode List article on Wikipedia does not have them. Somebody (with a lot more experience than me) answered my query with a view that supports mine. I think there's more than enough reason for me to remove the references from the page, but I'm not going to (yet), because the last time someone stood up to you on this, you had an admin ban them for "edit warring", despite the fact that you were just as guilty under the 3RR.

If you can agree to just drop this, I'll remove the references, the article will be in line with all the other Episode Lists articles, and everyone can just move on. If not, I'm going to take this to an admin, because you're treating the article as if it's yours, and having people punished because they're making perfectly reasonable edits that you don't like. Klock101 (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't drop this because

WP:3RR to see what they say. Before you go, answer why Mickeydee15 was blocked (and not me). WP:V and Mickeydee15's block are the only convincing reasons that I can offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Walter Görlitz: I'm not entirely sure where to take this so I've created a post on Third Opinion. We'll see where it goes from there. Klock101 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." -

@Walter Görlitz: I propose we remove the references from the Murdoch Mysteries page, and put a link to CBC's official episode guide in the External Links section. This will bring the page in line with all of the other Episode List articles on this site.

I've done everything I can to prevent taking this to an admin (by posting on the Template page and by seeking a Third Opinion, and the above proposal is based on their recommendations).

So I hope you can accept the

consensus on this. If not, I'll be taking this to the admin notice board. Klock101 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:V

.

Klock101. Feel free to remove the references. I'll then report your removal of references to

WP:ANI and we'll let the block log decide whether CONSENUS or V is the threshold. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, @

Wikipedical (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Clear case of

WP:CANVASSING

not third opinion. The cabal/project has every need to protect its opinion against the rest of the project.

PRIMARY is not relevant. V is. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Canvassing is notifying only specific editors to sway the direction of a discussion. This is not what was done; a discussion was posted on the talk page of the template and its documentation that are in question. The above editor obviously has no intent to accept any other policy other than their own (even if the policy that accepts the content as-is is mentioned in V), and has no intent to discuss the dispute civilly after reverting my typed-out discussion on their own talk page.

? 05:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Makes them easier to find"? That makes no sense. The reference is used for three episodes back to back. Trust me, it will be very easy to find.

I moved it down to the third episode, again, because this way it won't be deleted and doesn't have to moved for the next two weeks. Mickeydee15 (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. This isn't worth arguing about. Klock101 (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Klock101. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]