User talk:GrosseWelt

Your message
Please see my response here--Johannes Rohr (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

GfbV /Society for Threatened Peoples
Hi, thanks for undoing the deletions. I feel, however that the deleted paragraph should be reinstated in its entirety, i.e. not just the allegations, but also the public rebuttal the organisation has delivered. Hence my latest edit. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

GfbV /Society for Threatened Peoples
Hi Johannes Rohr. Your information is not accurate. The vice president and chair of the Society for Threatened Peoples board of directors are not "former", they are still in charge, reaffirmed by the court of Germany. You should inform yourself, before you repeat what the Society for Threatened Peoples staff and their boss Tilman Zülch are saying. Fact is that three lawyers, members of the board of directors, including the chair and vice chair, uncovered enormous irregularities in the Society for Threatened Peoples' accounting. Once they found out that huge amounts were missing, that payments have been made to third parties with no documentation, they began to question the staff, and the chief Tilman Zülch himself. Their investigation was met with denial, defamation of character, slander, and no cooperation to explain and to provide documentation that could explain the where about's of very large sums of money.

It ended in a well orchestrated coup "putsch", Tilman Zülch and his staff tried everything to get rid of the entire board of directors. But - the German court decided that this action was illegal, and re-installed the board of directors, including the chair and vice chair. Therefore you reinstated a third time false information !

The other sentence that you reinstalled again, and again, and agin, is not a fact, but a tactic by the organizations staff and their boss to orally revoke any guilt. I left the sentence that they deny any wrongdoings, but the argument that accountants checked their accounting I deleted again, because these accountants only checked "numbers" and never checked the receiving sources nor if people claimed to have received payments actually exist!

This is what the board of directors did, they checked, and to their great dismay they found out, that money had been "stolen". The fact is, that proof, the documentation that major sums have been embezzled,  are so grave -  that it is now at court.

I left parts of your reinstated sentence, but not in its entirely, because even so you claim something else, you become a mouthpiece for the organization, that has done wrong and was uncovered doing so.

I suggest that you leave it as is, and we both wait for the court case. As you say, I have no problems to correct / add, once the court has made its decision. Kindly keep the facts intact, and do not repeat your actions to include irrelevant oral claims that come from the organization's boss and staff that try to defend themselves. Let the court decide! Grosse Welt (talk) 04:47, 05 April 2012 (UTC)

GfbV
Hi, ich schreibe Dir jetzt mal auf Deutsch, weil ich den Eindruck habe, dass Dir das Englische nicht so ganz leicht fällt. Diesen Edit habe ich rückgängig gemacht, denn die von Dir gelöschte Aussage stammte aus einer reputablen Quelle, eine Löschung war daher nicht gerechtfertigt.

Du hast in diesem Edit die Behauptung aufgestellt, ich arbeite für die GfbV. Das ist Unsinn! Ich habe nie für die GfbV gearbeitet und war niemals ihr Mitglied (mein letzter Arbeitgeber im Menschenrechtsbereich war die International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs in Kopenhagen). Dass mein Name auf der Website der GfbV offebar sieben mal auftaucht, ändert daran gar nichts, wie Dir ein genauer Blick auf die Suchergebnisse schnell verraten müsste.

Vor allem aber ändert es nichts daran, dass das Göttinger Tageblatt eine zitierfähige Quelle ist und dass Deine Löschung daher nicht gerechtfertigt ist.

Und, um es Dir noch einmal auf Deutsch deutlich zu sagen, weil Du es auf Englisch offenbar nicht verstanden hast: Ich habe den Absatz mit den Vorwürfen nicht gelöscht. Dies war ein Account mit dem Namen GfbV-Int, siehe. Dieser hat übrigens auch meine Ergänzung gleich mit gelöscht.

Und Deine Behauptung, ich hätte in der Wikipedia irgendwo zugunsten der GfbV editiert möchtest Du mal bitte mit ein paar Difflinks belegen. Die ist nämlich auch Unsinn. Dass man für Menschenrechte indigener Völker arbeitet heißt mitnichten, dass man der GfbV nahe steht.

Also: Ich habe keine aus reputablen Quellen belegten Vorwürfe gelöscht und werde das auch in Zukunft nicht tun. Ich habe gegenüber der GfbV keinerlei Loyalitäten. Wenn also morgen ein Gericht ein Urteil zuungunsten der GfbV fällen, würde es mir überhaupt nichts ausmachen, dies in dem Artikel zu ergänzen. Hauptsache, die Angaben kommen aus einer zuverlässigen Quelle. Von daher erwarte ich aber auch von Dir, dass Du Dich ebenfalls an die Spielregeln der Wikipedia hältst und aus reputabler Quelle stammende Informationen stehen lässt, auch wenn sie Dir nicht passen. Das ist beim enzyklopädischen Arbeiten nämlich eine Kernkompetenz. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Response above in english -Grosse Welt (talk) 04:47, 05 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yanomami-Hilfe e.V.


A tag has been placed on Yanomami-Hilfe e.V. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)