Talk:Mike Warnke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

I see the page was moved from Mike Warnke to Michael Warnke. I read his book and even heard the man speak back in the late 70's, and I've never heard him called anything other than "Mike Warnke". His website is at mikewarnke.org and google returns about 8,250 hits for "Mike Warnke" but only 938 for "Michael Warnke". Can we move this back, please? Jonathunder 21:44, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

Moved, per above, after hearing no objection. Jonathunder 00:55, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Some notes

Even a cursory reading of The Satan Seller reveals it to be a ludicrous fraud to anyone with a drop of skepticism. The book reads likes a badly written pulp horror novel. He claims to ascend to the high priesthood of a massive satanic network in California, police complicity as the "coven" ritually rapes and slaughters its unwilling victims, satanic involvement in a massive drug ring, supernatural satanic spells (such as hexing a bar that later catches on fire) and demon invocations including a "wishing potion." Warnke also claims that the highest order of the priesthood is the Illuminati, that jokesters fooling around during rituals were crushed to death by demons, etc etc. In his book, women are "chicks" and people spout ridiculous lines like satanic Zaphod Beeblebrox-hipsters. An altar is made of "black marble granite"--I'm no geologist, but marble is a metamorphic rock and granite is igneous. Such a meaningless insertion could just be an ignorant mistake, but every page of the book is peppered with such crock.

I say all this because the book was indeed a huge seller in the '70s and '80s, mostly in the evangelical Christian community but also beyond, and played a huge role in fueling the Satanism panics of those decades. (Warnke even appeared on such shows such as Oprah to talk about his "experiences.") That it took until 1991 for a Christian magazine to discredit the man is outrageous. Also of note is that while Warnke did accept punishment for his affairs, he stuck by his story and never admitted to lying. Many evangelicals to this day believe in the allegations contained in this book and he is still respected by many--some of whom are unaware that Cornerstone has debunked him (as if it were necessary) and some of whom are simply unwilling to listen to the voice of reason. The article should also talk about his subsequent career as a "Christian comedian." See Mike Warnke Christian Comedy From Hell. NTK 14:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Current Article

I want to note that I was the original author of this piece back about 3-4 years ago. It was flagged NPOV, and I just want to note that I typed it under durress at a library on a timer and did not have time to go back and alter it. I concur with many of the changes that were initially made (and please note it was my first Wiki submission - I've gotten better). That said, the current article distresses me on a number of fronts. Much of it seems to be reworked plagiarism of the 1992 Cornerstone article. Yet there are a number of errors.

1) The article was in July 1992 NOT 1991 as the lead paragraph states.

2) The personal slam 'later proven to be a lie' regarding his conversion is NOT an article, it is PERSONAL OPINION and should be removed.

3) The book "Selling Satan," which came out of the Cornerstone article quotes Carolyn Alberty as saying their marriage ended as described here. However, there are numerous stories told in the book, and it seems to me a bit presumptuous to side with Carolyn. The bottom line is that they did in fact divorce whatever the circumstances.

4) The Halloween tape was not released until 1982 as anyone who read "Selling Satan" knows. It was TAPED in 1979 but it was not released until 1982 due to the aforementioned feud with Word.

5) Rose Warnke's book that told of Mike's affair was "The Great Pretender," released in 1985 (not 1984).

6) The claim that in 1982 Warnke began to exaggerate his achievements is somewhat misleading. He began to exaggerate his ACADEMIC achievements. The article should at least acknowledge that he received an HONORARY doctorate in 1988 although he did not have an earned Ph.D.

7) The claim that Warnke was a 'bishop' is based on hearsay evidence. Cornerstone says person X said that person Y (who was dead) ordained Warnke. This should at least be acknowledged.

8) Cornerstone never conclusively proved that Warnke was a member of Campus Crusade for Christ while in college. This was the testimony of only one witness 25 years after the fact, hardly proof.

9) "Where Warnke claims to have been converted" is NPOV.

The section 'Aftermath' is almost a verbatim plagarism of the Cornerstone article - even in the parts that are not acknowledged as such.

Furthermore, time has shown Cornerstone's article to be somewhat less than fair although they did conclusively prove Warnke's non-involvement in Satanism. Consider one of the claims of this article that is further developed in "Selling Satan." Trott and Hertenstein claim that in 1976, Gretchen Passantino was in charge of the late Walter Martin's speaking engagements. She claims that Martin told her that he had advised Warnke to leave the ministry. Set aside the conflict of interest (Passantino was one of the investigators) - how do we know this is true? She said he said way back then? (It is even more ironic in light of the fact that in 2003, Passantino herself was caught embellishing her own credentials with academic achievements she never attained by Christian journalist Bill Alnor). Although Warnke was indeed a fraud, the investigation failed a number of basic tests despite proving the case.

199.91.34.33 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Maestroh

Were we more naive back then?

I read Warnke's book back then and was appalled by the purulence of it but I believed it, too. I think with all the work done on urban myths and the high profile evangelist scandals that many more of us read these things with skepticism. But I'll guess that, even today, people find his book somewhere and read it in full belief.

It was, after all, a pretty good story in a trashy sort of way... not unlike something Dan Brown might write!

I still don't understand how someone could believe a claim that 2 million people were being sacrificed by Satanic cults every year. I mean the nation's population is under 300 million. Even on the surface a claim like that should appear patently false.--137.54.161.161 (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting by not Wiki style and not neutral!

This article is very interesting and probably accurate but it's not Wiki style. Lines like "Asked to respond, Warnke hid behind lawyers" needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone.

For example this -- On August 27, 1966, Warnke allegedly had a religious experience where he received Jesus into his life as his personal Savior. "allegedly"? C'mon! It would be better to put, "According to Warnke's account in The Satan Seller, he had a religious experience where..." --Calan 11:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the NPOV writing, and added section headings. If no one objects, I'll remove the "not neutral" tag from the article in a few days (if I remember). :KarlBunker 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I'm the one who put the not-neutral tag and I think it is fair to remove it. I was thinking of taking a stab at "neutralizing" the entry but your revision is fine.

By the way, even though I flagged this article as biased, I think it is a pretty good article. I read his books/bought his albums and read the Cornerstone articles. For people like me, this is a great "Oh yeah... THAT guy. Whatever happened to him?" article. --Calan 06:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know... we should really consider the source either case. Dan Brown's book is known to be a complete lie by historians, and yet people still buy his book, go to the movie, and now they have a children's computer game on it. People believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of the truth.

I did some research on this last night and found that the ones who accused Mike of lying were the "Jesus People USA" and according to their website they are a group of 500 (450 depending on which pages you look at) who all live at the same address and live in a commune! How's that for sane? (Can we say Wako?) And, what a surprise, the Cornerstone magazine was published by them. Hmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaboe (talk • contribs)

oooh, an absolutely stellar usage of ad hominem argumentation. "No, I can't explain why photos of Warnke taken at the time he was supposedly emaciated from drug abuse and sporting waist-length white hair show him healthy and clean-cut instead. No, I can't explain how Warnke's claims that Charles Manson was a member of his coven fit with the fact that Manson was in federal prison then. But I can and will attack those who brought these facts to light! They live in a commune! I will fail to identify a connection between communal living and insanity but I will talk as if there is one anyways, and I will furthermore try to imply that the facts they brought to light are somehow less significant because of who brought them to light!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I merely believe that if "you're going to point fingers at someone, you should look to yourself, first". And, I believe that one should look at an entire situation before placing someone up to be crucified for forever and a day. In this case, those that exposed Mike Warnke for his craziness and lies, should look to themselves and the way they live. Are they so righteous? Are you? Fact is, that - not a one - of us are so perfect. It's been, what, 15? 20? years since Mike Warnke wrote the book. He fully admits that he expounded on some parts to the story, and also a part of what he does is that he's an entertainer and didn't fully expect the book to be put under the microscope. People do that, writers do that, to make the story more interesting. That doesn't mean, however, that NONE of the story is true. It falls under the "Based on a life history", that's not so far fetched an idea. And, regardless, we weren't there, how can we pass judgment on any of the people involved? Those that DID pass judgment on him, legally, have reinstated his ministry. So...in other words...quit your complaining. Get over it. He's a minister, like it or not. And if you have so much hatred of him, 20 years after the fact, perhaps you need to look at yourself to see where you need improvement. (Isaboe)

Please be aware that an article talk page is for working with other editors on the associated article, not for general debate on the subject of the article. Jonathunder 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually he does raise a point, or a nonpoint rather, saying that Warnke "fully admits that he expounded [sic] on some parts to the story." Firstly, the charges are not that the story was exaggerated in part but that it was nearly entirely a fabrication cut from whole cloth. Secondly, I have never seen an outright retraction or unqualified apology from Warnke. It seems to me that he has only tried to continue to profit from his "fame," which pretty much wholly comes from this book, and to reaffirm his prior "Satanic" involvement despite there not being a shred of evidence for any of it. His belated "apology" in 1993 started with a reaffirmation of his story confessing only to some nonliteralism, and his official website bio describes his "painful past history as a satanist high priest, hippie, drug addict, pusher," all of which have been debunked. NTK 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing OR

I've made quite some cuts to the article. If they are put back, you must add references and citations, or explain here that these are from existing references. Since Warnke is still living, we must carefully adhere to BLP.

Dislaimer: When I was younger, I was a big fan of Warnke. I owned several of his albums, including Hey Doc!, Coming Home, and listened to others. I read about him in Bible classes, and went to a liver performance of his when I was 13 or 14. Several years after my de/conversion from Christianity, I began investigating all the claims that had influence my spiritual beliefs. Someone on usenet notified me of the Cornerstone article. Several years later, by that time a skeptic and atheist, I actually read that article, and then later, the book published which further expounded and documented the claims made in the original article. I concluded that though their investigation had flaws and was replete with innuendo, they were essentially correct in pointing out that Warnke was a fabricator, and I agreed with their picture of him as a guy who sucked up the limelight and told people what they wanted to hear. Years later, I became a big fan of conservative talk radio. Guess some things never change :)

--Otheus 14:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Satanic ritual abuse

I have removed the categories again for two reasons. The first is that the Cornerstone article and later book proved that his entire story regarding being involved in Satanism was manufactured. The fact that people have cited him in the past as a source and that he continues a ministry to those who were or are a part of occult practises is inconsequential. It was a lie and should not be referenced. The infobox even indicates that he is Known for [being a] Discredited "expert" on Satanism. The second is that I don't think you need both entries. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be confusing a category with a template; categories are used to link related articles, templates have a variety of uses, one of which is providing a group of related articles with a standard set of wikilinks (navigation templates). {{satanic ritual abuse}} is a navigation template, while Category:Satanic ritual abuse is the category. Your undo removed one category and one template.

The Cornerstone article did indeed prove his story false, I'm not disagreeing with the falseness of his story. However, Warnke has been cited as part of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic - see inside Cult and Ritual Abuse (41 and 138) and many other books - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Warnke seems clearly linked to the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, as demonstrated in many reliable sources. It's possible that this link should be made clearer in this and the SRA pages, but I see it as pretty clearly established by these sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the difference between a template and a category. I'm sorry I confused it earlier. I now understand your point and agree that Warnke has certainly advanced feelings of panic and misinformation. I suppose my final question is: is the category Satanic ritual abuse or Satanic ritual abuse moral panic? If it's the latter, Warnke certainly fits. If it's the former, does Warnke still fit? Are there other articles related to Satanic ritual abuse moral panic in the Satanic ritual abuse category? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your last question, yes there are but it's a fine distinction. Most of the articles in the category refer to cases where SRA was accused and discussions of the whole moral panic issue often come into the article out of necessity. If you are saying that only articles were SRA is a FACT relevant to the subject or where it actually has been proven to exist, you won't find any of that. Sure, people have been convicted but usually on the highly manipulated testimony of very young children. If the FBI says SRA has never been proven to exist, then SRA is in and of itself, a moral panic. I see no need for 2 categories. Just use SRA as a category for any person, event, media item or other where SRA plays or played an important role in the subject of the article. In this article, Warnke is MOST famous for being one of the original proponents of the SRA Conspiracy theory. His career as a comic probably wouldn't be considered notable by most editors had it not been for his past fabrications of a life as a Satanic Priest. I would argue that it's just easier for readers to find such articles if they are all grouped under the one category because that is logically where they would presume to find more info on the Moral Panic as well as any "real" cases. Of course, this is just my opinion. I'm offering it without any stake in whether you agree with what I suggest. if you don't, I understand your points made above. LiPollis (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would delight in seeing SRA renamed "SRA moral panic", I even suggested it, but was firmly told "no". It's in the most recent archive I think. After lengthy and onerous debate, the essential thrust of the SRA page is "yeah, our bad, we freaked out over nothing". An editor actually got banned for trying to push it the other way. So SRA is, on wiki, essentially viewed skeptically. For all intents and purposes, Category:Satanic ritual abuse is Category:Satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Sorry if I came across as lecture-y re: temps and cats, I didn't figure out the difference until well after my 10,000th edit. Thanks for replacing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Mike Warnke Christian Comedy From Hell

An editor just removed this critical account of Warnke's 1988 performance as a "Christian comedian" from the further reading section stating that "it only contained biased, scolding information - an encyclopedia does not include biased information, or links to such information.". I thought it offered a critical, non-Christian view of Warnke's "ministry" and a very critical view of shallow Christianity. Any comments? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This should have been removed. Even though it is a non-christian acccount and it has some critical merit, the entire article is laced with editorial comments and opinions, which makes the journalistic integrity of the article questionable at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrdaniels1 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"However"

It's already been established several times over that Warnke lied about his testimony for years. Reverting something that is syntaxially and grammatically correct in order "strongly state" Warnke lied is plain silly. The correct usage of "however" is called for here - not an editor's personal need to tell the subject of the article he was a bad man over and over again. For the correct usage of "however", see: Strunk and White "Elements of Style". A sentence should never start a with however when the use of it is to mean “nevertheless” or “on the other hand”. Moreoever, it is against Wikipedia policy to revert simply to be "right" (see: WP:POINT). Reversions of the correct usage of the word "however" are a good example of this type of unconstructive editing behavior. Anything else is just disruptive editing. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm grammatically incorrect, but have a spell-checker, I'll find another way to change that sentence to make the point more forcefully that Warnke lied. Over the past two years this article has been made more neutral and avoid the fact that the entirety of Satan Seller was a work of fiction, to put it mildly. To the point that Warnke couldn't even keep his stories straight. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The point he lied is in the sentence, Walter. The "however" makes it "forceful" and the point he lied is throughout the article. Your need to be "forceful" almost seems like a personal vendetta (not to mention you just seem to really, really hate having what you've written edited). Again, you might want to look at what Wikipedia has to say about editors who push their own ideas of how things should be through their edits - just for the sake of being right. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vendetta at all. I'm not pushing my ideas onto the article. The same goes for the ideas of his defenders who have edited the article to remove and to soft-sell his acts of deception. The point must be made, and made forcefully. That's not a vendetta. It's an accounting of the facts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an online encyclopedia, not an online service to "make a point", about those who have used "acts of deception", Walter. By pushing for a point to be made, you are, indeed, pushing your ideas, and you have obviously lost the bubble when it comes to what NPOV means and what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. In fact, your above statements about how this article should show that "the point must be made" indicates you are editing with bias and without a NPOV. IMO, you should recuse yourself from editing this article until you can do so without a personal agenda. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kelly. I'm tired of your preaching. You did this in the Jesus music article and you were wrong there. You're equally wrong here. I have no agenda other than to tell the facts. The facts have been glossed over in this article and need to be made. If you feel that you need to defend Mr. Warnke, please do it elsewhere. I have no bias. You have once again shown yours. I will be editing this article at will as is my prerogative as a member of the wikipedia community. I do so without any POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't indent my edits. I don't need your help. I put it on the outside level for a reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tired or not, you *are* trying to push a personal agenda - this was made clear by your own words, "The point must be made, and made forcefully" in regard to Warnke's "acts of deception". And, once again, you are dead wrong about what I am saying - I have no interest in trying to defend Warnke. What's more, unlike you, I have no interest in trying to filet him. State the facts, but do it without the vitriol, please. Anything else is personal bias and a violation of the Wikipedia standards of editing. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Kelly. Stop telling me what I'm doing. You're lying and I'm tired of it. Warnke lied. He deceived people. On purpose. The article glosses over this. Editors, not you in particular but others, have reduced the impact of this shocking fact. That's it. I don't want to do anything to Mr. Warnke. I won't question your motives. I suggest you stop making statements on mine. I have no personal bias. Stop attacking me. I am only going to warn you one more time Kelly. You are defaming my character by doing so. This is a personal attack. I will report your next violation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No one's defaming your character, Walter. Your paranoia, however, is once again noted. Any more of this bullying and attempts at intimidation and I will be forced to report you for incivility (what's more, I note this is not the first time you have read similar words from another editor today). And BTW - I'm not lying about anything. Please, for the sake of Wikipedia, get over yourself. Seriously, you're really not that good of an editor to be so arrogant about what you do here. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I never accused you of anything, least of all lying.

You are defaming my character by stating that I want to filet the subject.

You have stated that I am making NNPOV edits when it's obvious that what I'm doing is restoring facts to the article. When the article is about someone who deceived the public those have to be about his lies. Glossing over the lies, as previous editors have done, and it seems you are doing now, does not make the article without a POV, it imposes a different one. That is the point that must be made: Warnke lied. Many times. It's not introducing POV at all. It's like going to the solar system article and deleting, or rephrasing to minimize, any statements that support a heliocentric viewpoint. I'm making edits to state that Warkne lied and your edits try to minimize them. That doesn't mean I have a POV. It means I understand the topic and want it stated clearly and unambiguously.

Finally, I haven't made this about me. You have. Once again framing the argument on your terms. That's of what I have tired. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My responses are below:

>I never accused you of anything, least of all lying.

Really? Then who, if not you, said the following... "You're lying and I'm tired of it"

>You are defaming my character by stating that I want to filet the subject.

You defamed yourself when you stated, "The point must be made, and made forcefully", in regard to Warnke's "acts of deception". It's clear you think Warnke needs to be skewered with this article - and you even confirmed you feel that way in another statement you make below.

>You have stated that I am making NNPOV edits when it's obvious that what I'm doing is restoring facts to the article.

What's obvious is that you are making a point with your edits. Your words betray that fact. Doing so is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. See WP: GREATWRONGS

>When the article is about someone who deceived the public those have to be about his lies.

No, the article is about Mike Warnke - his lies are only part of who he is. You are trying to center the article completely about his "acts of deception" (as you put it). This is not good editing practice and clearly shows you are focused on the wrong thing(s) in editing this article.

>Glossing over the lies, as previous editors have done, and it seems you are doing now, does not make the article without a POV, it imposes a different one.

Oh, baloney. I am not "glossing" over anything. I've corrected your grammar and syntax, your incorrect usage of certain terminology, and Wikified the article - nothing more.

>That is the point that must be made: Warnke lied. Many times. It's not introducing POV at all.

It most certainly is, because the article isn't titled, "Mike Warnke and his lies". You might want to consider getting a reality check here and revisiting your priorities when it comes to how to edit a Wikipedia article.

>It's like going to the solar system article and deleting, or rephrasing to minimize, any statements that support a heliocentric viewpoint.

That analogy doesn't even come close to being in relation to what's going on here, Walter.

>I'm making edits to state that Warkne lied and your edits try to minimize them.

Nope. Never. Not once have I tried to "minimize" Warnke's lies. I am, however, starting to notice a pattern here that you are seriously obsessed with Warnke telling lies. IOW, I think this is a personal thing for you. You were a Warnke fan and bought his schtick hook, line, and sinker, didn't you? Then, when he was exposed, you felt personally betrayed - right?

>That doesn't mean I have a POV. It means I understand the topic and want it stated clearly and unambiguously.

You state that you "understand the topic" every time someone tries to edit what you have written, Walter. In fact, I think you believe you "understand the topic" better than anyone else editing whatever article you have taken self-imposed ownership of. You *do* realize that's not healthy, don't you? I suggest you take a look at WP:DBF in order to get some proper perspective on how your editing behavior looks to others.

>Finally, I haven't made this about me. You have.

Sorry, but you most certainly *have* made this about you - you've made it so much about you that you have indicated above you are the only one between the two of us who "understand[s] the topic" (just like you did when I made edits to the Jesus Music article).

>Once again framing the argument on your terms. That's of what I have tired.

Wrong again (and I think you might be projecting a little). What *I've* tired of is you fighting over every jot and tiddle of your edits that get changed because you have an abnormal and seriously misplaced attachment to Wikipedia articles you seem to believe you own just because you "understand the topic" and have made some edits to. The fact is, you don't own any of these articles, Walter, and you really, really need to stop bullying and attempting to intimidate other Wikipedia editors who have just as much right to edit and change what *you* edit as you do. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to address things in your frame of reference once again. I apologize for saying I never called you a liar. In my original context I stated that you were lying about my motives. In the context where you were defending yourself, it was around the facts of the Warnke fabrications. Once again, you are lying about me. About my motives and about my edits. You're not lying about anything else. So to the rest of your comments I can only say, I don't respond to lies or misconceptions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet, by responding to me above, you just *did* respond to what you (incorrectly) believe to be "lies [and] misconceptions". Go figure. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As a third party just coming into this dispute, let me ask both editors to step back for a couple of days and agree to refrain from editing the article for, oh say until October 24th. The time may give you some insights that are obscured now due to the give and take. I understand where both of you are coming from. I will say that my experience with wikipedia has taught me that as much as we may feel "a point needs to be made" on a particular subject, such feelings can lead us to conflicts and to weakening of an article. Wikipedia is concerned only with verifiability of facts and not shading those facts with impied judgement. The best way to emphasize the seriousness of Mr. Warnke's past behavior is to quote from the Cornerstone article or the Christian Community that investigated him. That way, you are saying So and so says THIS about Warnke's book & backing it up with a citation rather than trying to craft sentences that imply disdain for those actions. Remember Walter Görlitz, Biographies of Living Persons are held to much stricter standards with regards to POV. I have faith that come Saturday, both you will have some fresh ideas and resources for this article. I'll come by and see if I can help too. In the meantime, I'll look for some good book references in Google Books that might help illustrate and verify the facts presented. I've gotten myself locked in debates too, so I sympathize with you both. Best wishes to you both. LiPollis (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, Lisa. But in all honesty, I'm really not in any stress or distress about this article, just bothered by the way Walter bullies other editors who dare to change anything he's written. His need to claim ownership of articles goes back at least a couple of years - I'm not the first editor to notice, and/or comment on it. He and I went round and round over the same type of attitude he exibited about five months ago in another article. Other editors have had similar experiences with him in regard to his bullying and attempts at inditimation. It needs to stop. As far as editing the Warnke article, I don't see any reason why it's not fine as it is - unless someone (such as Walter) decides to turn it into a "statement" that Warnke has sinned and needs to be dragged over the coals via Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for your concern and words of advice. It was good of you to try to intervene. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't own this article or any other any more than you do. Your need to assert your spin on this and every other article using your own ad hominem attacks and intimidation are not unknown to others Kelly. You've been accused of it on your own talk pages. I don't mind you bullying other editors provided that it improves the articles. When it's just because you want something you're way, I'm not willing to relent. I never said that Warnke needs to be dragged over any coals. I said that the facts need to be displayed. Another twist of the facts to suit your quirky view of the world. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Has it been a slow bullying week for you? Is that why you see a need to dredge up something over a week old and start attacking me for no reason whatsoever, Walter? "Every other article"? Puhleeeze...LOL!

SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem attack. Puhleeeze...COL! I'm not attacking you. Unlike you, I actually take the advice of people on wikipedia assuming that I'm not the smartest person out there. You always know better. LiPollis asked us to step back so I did. Then I responded by stating my case both for my edits and against your attacks on me. You, in your infinite arrogance and ignorance ignored her and commenced defending yourself by attacking me. Then you responded to my discussion of the topic by attacking me and not discussing the topic. You attack people rather than discuss the issues. Thanks for showing who the real bully is Kelly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe whatever you need to, Walter. Seriously, I couldn't care less how you see me. It's obvious to more than just me that you have been living in denial about your bad behavior in Wikipedia for quite some time. This incident is just more proof of your bad behavior. Your need to dredge up something out of the past that didn't need to be dredged up for any reason says volumes about you. Now, here's the juice - unless you have a question or comment about something I'm editing in the present or very recent past, please...just leave me alone, okay? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothering you. I'm writing on an article's talk page. Feel free to ignore it. However, thanks for making my point: you can't seem to discuss the edits yourself, you just attack editors. That was my first point in the paragraph above. Unless you want to talk about this article let's just agree that we don't like each other and leave it at that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wives?

I ran across this section which is clearly either incorrect or poorly worded.

"At this time, Warnke began courting Hall while still married to his second wife, Carolyn. His second marriage came to an end when, as Alberty stated in an interview, [1]"[Warnke] threw me into a wall and split my head open. He said, 'If you go to a local hospital and tell them what your name is, I'll kill you.'"

His second wife is clearly listed as Alberty in several places, but in the first sentence quoted she is listed as Carolyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.32.224 (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Carolyn Alberty. Carolyn is her given name. Alberty is her unmarried family name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)