User talk:Walter Breitzke

Not sure what your rant was about, but the discussion goes on the AFD page, not the talk page. You were notified only because you were the page's creator. As you can now see, the page has been split into multiple pages, all of which will probably be kept. Again, not sure why you were ranting... pages are nominated for deletion all the time, it's nothing personal. — Timneu22 · talk 10:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Eldzier Cortor, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eldzier Cortor until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE AWAY WITH MY BLESSING!!! Walter Breitzke

The article

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

Hi Walter. Thanks for your new recent creation. Please remember to complete an

Thanks for correcting an article I started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpky (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Erna Lazarus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has had no sources inserted since it was tagged in 2007. That's long enough. It should be rescued or deleted. If rescued, the filmography should be turned into a "Selected filmography" and cut down to six notable films, per guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for deletion, after the PROD notice was lifted. The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007.

Please delete away!!! Walter Breitzke (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	for your work on Ø 01:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Well, thank you!!!! Walter Breitzke (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, I think you have removed some bona fide content from the section Matrilineality#In mythology, today. In that section was the following clause: "as well as the Oedipian cycle where Oedipus weds the widow of the late king at the same time he assumes the Theban kingship." The content you removed was the word "late".

In good English, the phrase "the late king" means that the king died recently enough to qualify as recently-dead, i.e., "the recently-dead king". If you'll take the time to search the article Oedipus for the phrase "recently widowed", you'll find the phrase used for Jocasta at the time that Oedipus marries her. I think this is bona fide information that helps the readers of the above-quoted clause and should not be removed.

I should add that I agree with many of your edits removing the word "late", such as in 1941 using the phrase "the late President Wilson" when Woodrow Wilson died in 1924. At the extreme, in some rare contexts being dead for a few years might possibly qualify as recently-dead, but not the 17 years in President Wilson's case. I hope you agree that "the late king", when correctly used, does mean "the recently-dead king", and that this added content can help the readers.

Please either undo your edit or explain here on your Talk page just why you choose to not help the readers by your removing the word "late". On behalf of the readers, For7thGen (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The LATE king" does NOT imply when he died!!! Where do you get that? "Late" means dead - it doesn't matter when the person died. He could have died five minutes ago or fifty YEARS ago! You can't be the widow of a LIVING person, so "widow of the late king" is TOTALLY REDUNDANT!!! Why I choose to "not help" the readers??? OMG, that speaks volumes! Why don't YOU help the readers and leave my revision alone!!! 74.94.114.52 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You ask me, Where do I get that? I answer, from the Random House Webster's College Dictionary (or any other adequate dictionary). Meaning number 6 (out of 12) is "recently deceased". Can you find a dictionary which lists your "dead", as a possible meaning for the word "late"? I'm sure you can't. So I hope our communications here on your Talk page will enable you to better help the readers in the future, For7thGen (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of

Please note that I really have no desire to further this discussion. Please change ANYTHING you wish with 100% assurance that I will NOT change your wording in the future. I defer to your judgment. Life is too short. Trying to improve Wikipedia is like trying to count grains of sand on a large beach. It's best left to those who have the patience for it and know what they're doing! Walter Breitzke (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, please be wary of the

WWGB - I thank you for the heads up, but quite honestly, I'm not going to let someone refer to a person getting hit by a train as "train impact". Stupidity to me is not a small thing. I wasn't aware of the three-revert rule, but, like most everything about Wikipedia, I find it ridiculous. What's the most ridiculous thing of all, however, is that I waste even one MILLISECOND of the time I have left on this earth being concerned with it! If the half-wits who run Wikipedia want to block me, I say "HAVE AT IT!!! You know where I am!" It might just be the best thing. What's that old saying, "If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas"? I know this sounds incredibly harsh, but please know it's not directed at you. I appreciate you looking out for me. It's just that with all life has to offer, getting black-balled from Wikipedia is WAY DOWN on the list of things I plan to worry about! Walter Breitzke (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit

]

Thanks

Thanks again for figuring out that the social security death index could supply verifiable proof that my great uncle Oscar Brodney had passed away. I found it unsettling that he was 'undead' on Wikipedia, but there were no published obits to cite. You might be interested in my blog post about the whole thing: http://nextbison.wordpress.com/2013/05/28/the-speed-and-accuracy-of-wikipedia-a-family-story/

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For tireless walking the death beat Asbruckman (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]