User talk:KatanAkuma

Walter Görlitz Refusal to Correct Inaccuracies
Copy of Response that was most likely deleted like others. In regards to the Flyleaf band page. Prior messages ignored then removed. I pray other contributers aren't as unreasonable and unwilling to listen to those who may actually know the topics or 'people' therein better than they do. --- That answered nothing and only tells me what i already knew. I posted here as it was the best way to approach you seeing other methods have failed in the past. Because it's your way or no way. Hide behind being a true Christian person and rules you've used to keep anyone else from doing the right thing for those you misrepresent. By all means continue to misrepresent people, groups or whatever. Your the reason why people don't trust any of the information on Wikipedia. God forbid anyone should have their own opinion or correct anything that's wrong or inaccurate that you 'own', because I was wrong and you do own it all. Don't worry I won't bother in the future to try and do right by the people or organizations I'm interest in. It's clear you know what's right. I now know what Lacey meant when she said how pointless it was for anyone to try and fix the band's wiki page. It mayhaps could have been done differently. ..but you and I know you'd just have found another way or reason to delete it all and return it to the inaccurate page you control and love. Who cares if it's the truth as long as you get your way and get to place your name down the bottom of the page. Which is why i never used my name or anything on my corrections. I don't need to make it about me. It is supposed to be about the band. I also didn't want to use my name as I wanted them to see that it could be fixed by people other than close friends. So don't worry. ..we will all continue to just agree with the Colleges about how inaccurate Wikipedia is and continue not to source it. The important thing is you taught me a lesson about Christians and about the true Freedom of Information. Congratulations. Now you can go back to burying your head in the sand and tell people how Childish this all was of a person who only tried to do the right thing and help a friend correct the incorrect Information on their bands Wikipedia page. Thank you for your guidance. KatanAkuma (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. You have completely missed the point. Check WP:V. That has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with referencing statements. You decided to remove referenced statements and add unreferenced content. If you wanted to only do the latter, I would tag it with citation needed, which is what those templates are for. However you removed referenced content and that is what the problem is. It's not anything that you wrote about. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No, my point; MINE, was that it shouldn't have been so hard to correct inaccuracies. There are many. And it has a LOT to do with Christianity as that was the only parts I altered or removed on the page. The references to the band being a 'Christian Rock' Band. That is what I removed as it isn't correct. That was what you kept RE-adding; along with dead end citations, back to the page each time I made amendments. So Christianity having nothing to do with it...... NOT true. As for reference content that was removed. ..certain citations either not only had nothing to do with the information stated before it or was not needed when the information was removed. Hence, citations were no longer needed for what clearly had no connection to the content or what wasnt there. Go back through and check each one yourself and you'll see certain citations were incorrectly tagged to articles or information that clearly did not pertain to the document, quote etc. that it was intended to validate and support. Unless of course you were the one that set the page up in the very beginning. In which case you clearly "cant see the forest for the trees", as it were.

Wikipedia has always welcomed people who know not only the topic of the page but the people within it. Someone with actual first hand knowledge. I read through all the documentation on the Rules and Procedures years before you so kindly pointed them out to me again. I have contributed to Wikipedia since its inception as I am part of the community that helped promote it all those years ago when it first starting out, and have never had problems with anything submitted before along with my citations and content. It is not mandatory to login and register a name to do an amendment, hence the option for anonymity. And I see no reason to 'promote' myself for something thats either common knowledge or well known through the subject matters community. Contributions were offered by me long before you made an account and your shiny profile page. The fact that I need to have this conversation with a person who joined so long after me is ridiculous. ..but I understand why. You believe that your knowledge base within our community is more complete than my own. ..its not. Im not going to waste time explaining who I am and what Ive done to further the Wikipedia name and knowledge database. Nor am I going to waste further time with the endeavor as its clear your unwilling to listen regardless of the fact your knowledge is inaccurate or plainly wrong. But people like you are why I ceased contributions the past few years and why now Universities and Colleges across the country and indeed the world openly advocate that citing Wikipedia as a source to be unaccepted.

I find it interesting that its only the references to Christian Rock thats been the problem. Its known publicly that the members are Christians; as am I, and its not a thing they have hidden or needed or wanted to hide. But its the pigeon holing into the one market which is the issue. Many bands can and have crossed over into this market and are thankful for having been able to do so. The point being missing completely is that its about the music and not the 'label'. When you go done the supermarket and buy goods you don't have to line up in the Christian lane, nor would you want to be referred to as 'The Christian Mr.Walter Görlitz'. And thats why they wanted it changed. Why does it have to be 'The Christian Rock Band Flyleaf'? Because all they're doing is being true to themselves and their Faith shines through their lyrics anyhow. I mean come on, really. They are Flyleaf. ..a Rock Band. And thats all it should be. The music business is hard enough as it is to make a living in without being shot balled into one genre. And they have been or don't wish to be. They have families and are trying to make a living doing what they love. Anyhow. .. Im seriously very much over bothering anymore and I made that perfectly clear. The page is as you want it to be so I guess... you win and thats all thats important. I tried. I failed. The Band remain disappointed. What else is there to say. Show quoted text

Response to Walter Görlitz about Inaccuracies, his refusal to allow others to correct them.
No, my point; MINE, was that it shouldn't have been so hard to correct inaccuracies. There are many. And it has a LOT to do with Christianity as that was the only parts I altered or removed on the page. The references to the band being a 'Christian Rock' Band. That is what I removed as it isn't correct. That was what you kept RE-adding; along with dead end citations, back to the page each time I made amendments. So Christianity having nothing to do with it...... NOT true. As for reference content that was removed. ..certain citations either not only had nothing to do with the information stated before it or was not needed when the information was removed. Hence, citations were no longer needed for what clearly had no connection to the content or what wasnt there. Go back through and check each one yourself and you'll see certain citations were incorrectly tagged to articles or information that clearly did not pertain to the document, quote etc. that it was intended to validate and support. Unless of course you were the one that set the page up in the very beginning. In which case you clearly "cant see the forest for the trees", as it were.

Wikipedia has always welcomed people who know not only the topic of the page but the people within it. Someone with actual first hand knowledge. I read through all the documentation on the Rules and Procedures years before you so kindly pointed them out to me again. I have contributed to Wikipedia since its inception as I am part of the community that helped promote it all those years ago when it first starting out, and have never had problems with anything submitted before along with my citations and content. It is not mandatory to login and register a name to do an amendment, hence the option for anonymity. And I see no reason to 'promote' myself for something thats either common knowledge or well known through the subject matters community. Contributions were offered by me long before you made an account and your shiny profile page. The fact that I need to have this conversation with a person who joined so long after me is ridiculous. ..but I understand why. You believe that your knowledge base within our community is more complete than my own. ..its not. Im not going to waste time explaining who I am and what Ive done to further the Wikipedia name and knowledge database. Nor am I going to waste further time with the endeavor as its clear your unwilling to listen regardless of the fact your knowledge is inaccurate or plainly wrong. But people like you are why I ceased contributions the past few years and why now Universities and Colleges across the country and indeed the world openly advocate that citing Wikipedia as a source to be unaccepted.

I find it interesting that its only the references to Christian Rock thats been the problem. Its known publicly that the members are Christians; as am I, and its not a thing they have hidden or needed or wanted to hide. But its the pigeon holing into the one market which is the issue. Many bands can and have crossed over into this market and are thankful for having been able to do so. The point being missing completely is that its about the music and not the 'label'. When you go done the supermarket and buy goods you don't have to line up in the Christian lane, nor would you want to be referred to as 'The Christian Mr.Walter Görlitz'. And thats why they wanted it changed. Why does it have to be 'The Christian Rock Band Flyleaf'? Because all they're doing is being true to themselves and their Faith shines through their lyrics anyhow. I mean come on, really. They are Flyleaf. ..a Rock Band. And thats all it should be. The music business is hard enough as it is to make a living in without being shot balled into one genre. And they have been or don't wish to be. They have families and are trying to make a living doing what they love. Anyhow. .. Im seriously very much over bothering anymore and I made that perfectly clear. The page is as you want it to be so I guess... you win and thats all thats important. I tried. I failed. The Band remain disappointed. What else is there to say. Show quoted text KatanAkuma (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Again you have the wrong focus and completely misguided. The only thing left for you to say is sorry because your edits were poor. Sorry you can't see that. IF you've been editing Wikipedia for as long as you you claim you have, you know WP:V, and I'm simply keeping the content supported by the RSes in the article. I have done that on many, many articles, not just Christian rock articles. Not just Flyleaf articles. So take your point to Wollongong because it's not welcome here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)