User talk:Walter Breitzke

A category you have created, Category:People_who_lived_to_be_nonagenarians, has been nominated for deletion. For discussion, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_12#Category:People_who_lived_to_be_nonagenarians. --Tom (talk - email) 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been nominated, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be deleted. You can vote to keep it if you want. Just click the link above. --Tom (talk - email) 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I created a Wikipedia page for Wade Mainer, if you wanted one to link from your site. Cheers, CP 04:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course. But this time I'm sure. --ubiquity (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/mnames-nf/Muhammad+Ruby. She is 101 and a memeber also found this on Rootsweb:

ID: I521510149

Name: Ruby GRIER

Given Name: Ruby

Surname: Grier

Sex: F

Birth: 03/20/1906 in Sandersville, Ga

Father: Lee GRIER b: in Kingston,Jamaica

Mother: Rosa HOWARD

Marriage 1 Colman TRAVIS

Living Children 1 Colman Travis

Marriage 2 John PITTMAN

Hankzimer (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mr. Hankzimer, I found that. Check out my site http://www.the110clubsite.com/falseandunknowncases Plyjacks (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this garbage Mr. Breitzke. It's called original research, and it's not allowed per WP:BLP. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Hankzimer and Plyjacks are the same person (Keith Cody) and User 71 is Canadian Paul. But the bottom line is, Wikipedia rules don't apply off-wiki, and "original research" or not, the Ruby Muhammad claim to birth in 1897 is unverified, yet we have substantial evidence to support birth in 1907. I'm simply withholding judgment on Ruby Muhammad due to political reasons (she lives near George Francis). Bottom line: she is 101 years old.Ryoung122 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Deaths in 2008, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed my portrait/image of Saul Steinberg. Is there any particular reason? My idea was to have some visual of him and I thought it added to the entry. Many thanks.Simonfieldhouse (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter, Thanks for the reply and I'll replace the imgae.Saul Steinberg is a great artist!!Simonfieldhouse (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you removed this, which is perfectly in line with the requirements of WP:DATE? Cheers, CP 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a recent contributor to Deaths in 2009, you may be able to help decide on a proposed new policy. It is proposed that:

A month should be deleted from the "Deaths in [CURRENT YEAR]" page ONE WEEK after the month ends.

Please opine at Talk:Deaths_in_2009#Proposed new policy. Don't just say

• Support.

or

• Oppose.

Also state your reasons and participate in the discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving the word "former" to precede a person's nationality; they aren't formerly American! Thanks. - Dudesleeper talk 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will NOT stop. "American former actor" sounds stilted and is incorrect. It should be "former American actor". "Former" is modifying actor, not American. Ask the Wikipedia "council" or whatever it is Wikipedia has. They'll tell you the same thing. In the meantime, here are some examples taken from www.Britannica.com. Unlike Wikipedia, at least THEY know what they're doing: former American railroad (Norfolk and Western Railway Company); former American corporation (Bethlehem Steel Corporation); former American telephone system (Bell System); former American holding company (USX Corporation); former American petroleum company (Gulf Oil Corporation); former American flour miller (Pillsbury Company); former American slave (Joseph Hayne Rainey); and on and on and on...

Walter Breitzke 12/7/09

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of centenarians. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

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 Alexander Eliot has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Usb10 ^Connected? 14:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter. Thanks for your new recent creation. Please remember to complete an WP:Edit summary for each of your edits. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will do!!! Walter Breitzke

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 deleted for any of several reasons.

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. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	for your work on Seachange (horse). You rewrote most of the article and did it perfectly. Good job and happy editing! pluma 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 your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Archdeacons of Lindsey, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.—GrahamSmith (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com), "late" means "dead, especially if only recently deceased", which, I'll be honest with you, I didn't know. But note: it's ESPECIALLY recently deceased, not EXCLUSIVELY recently. So again, if you've been dead for five minutes or five YEARS, you still would have to be DEAD to have a widow. And again, "widow of the late John Smith" is redundant. Living men don't have widows. If you have a widow, it's understood (or should be) that you're “late”. "WIFE of the late John Smith" would be OK, however, since not all wives have dead husbands. But all widows do. And surely there MUST be a better way to express the shortness of time in which someone has been deceased - if that's what you want to do - rather than using the word "late". "Widow of the RECENTLY DECEASED John Smith" I believe does the job.

Whoever welcomed me to Wikipedia, thank you, but you're about five years too late. I've been here for a while. And if correcting what I see as poorly written text is considered to be nonconstructive, then I'm happy to be nonconstructive. But I actually DON'T consider correcting what I see as poorly written text to be nonconstructive. I consider it helpful.

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 three-revert rule at Deaths in 2012. It is really not worth risking a block over such a small thing. The Deaths page is undergoing rapid change at the moment, much of which does not please me. Nevertheless, wise heads like you need to still be there when the dust settles. Keep the faith! Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 File:Steve Brodie, 1950, in The Admiral Was A Lady .jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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 the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to 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]