User talk:Walter Ching

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 10:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Canonizationescriva.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Canonizationescriva.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hi Walter,

Alecmconroy has also proposed the deletion of your picture Image:PerottetOpusDeisupernumerary.jpg. I would recommend to save the file and eventually put it into Commons. --Túrelio 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

commons:

If you need any help transferring images, just let me know! I am commons:User:pfctdayelise as well.

Hmm. I just had a look at your contribs and the images seem to be missing... what happened? :?

--pfctdayelise 04:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually meant if you need any help using commons, getting used to the commons system, etc, but I see that I didn't explain myself very clearly. Sorry. :)

I am quite busy these few weeks, but I will try and help if I get a chance. Happy editing, pfctdayelise 03:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your creation of the article, James Martin (Jesuit writer), but we cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more information on this topic, or generally, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice placed in the article or repost the suspected infringing text. However, if you would like to rewrite the article in your own words, follow the link in the posted notice to create a temporary subpage. If your new article is appropriate, and not a further copyright violation, the reviewing administrator will move that new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved. Happy editing! Douglas Whitaker 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Images of the American HQ

Hi Walter, could you help us get some photos of the American Opus Dei Headquarters. This was discussed at the mediation. I'd appreciate your help. Thanks. Thomas 01:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walter! Thanks a lot for your ideas on the photos. :) After more thinking, I am convinced that it still is the right way to go. The building is beautiful and it portrays Opus Dei's middle-of-the-world culture quite well. I asked for it from the US HQ itself and they gave permission quite easily. Thanks anyway! Thomas 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei article history

Thank you for your query, and the answer is yes.  :) I went ahead and added in my best guess as to the IDs of the various article versions +/- 24 hours. If any are wrong, and you know which precise version that should be used, please let me know the diff, and I'll get the template updated for you. :) --Elonka 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got it fixed, please take a look when you have a moment.  :) Also, you had some good ideas on changing the template! Can I get you to post them at Template talk:ArticleHistory? That'd be the best place to get approval for them. Best, Elonka 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Smoe small misunderstanding on Talk:Opus Dei...

Hmm, honestly I do not understand about half of what you wrote, and from the other half I can easily infer you did not understand what I did. 1) as to your conditional apology, the premise is not true, so none needed. 2) if by "has been contrued", you meant by me (B4H), you would be wrong. Honestly. OTOH if you really meant "could too easily be construed in general", I would heartily agree and in fact that was my entire point. The next point adds good context: 3) I simply disagree there can be any nontrivial suppression of either kind you mention, or any other I can think of, in this type of project, unless the definition chosen is a logical consequence of Wikipolicy and structure itself, and thus an empty issue in the context of one article. Adding "glaring" evokes images of vandalous deletions and such. When your edits show to not be reversions of that type of thing, reactions can vary from "he really meant something quite less serious" (my reaction) to "It's what? ...better keep an eye on this guy!..." I hope you agree which respective faith assuming is good and which is bad. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

An addition: now I understand that last paragraph. 4) What I actually was intending to due was to contrast your good name with the most clearly not such so as to make the clearest possible false outcome in the absurdum type of argument, to contest your strawmen labeling. It wasn't a comparison at all. I am aware of that type of association fallacy but only conceived of it in the comparison sense, never the contrast sense. But yeah, if that's how you took it, my apologies whose retrospective acceptance I acknowledge. I only point out that there was an alternate good faith, albeit sloppy, interpretation.

By the way, if this helps, I want to point out that I think your edits to that article are quite good; I don't know much about the topic but was mildly involved in some disputes some time ago. My only critique would be that (I think) you tend to use stronger language than what is ideal sometimes. I point that out because maybe that's just you, since in a nutshell that was the point about your edit summary Talk page comments. But please note it is not a coincidence that AFAIR I haven't reverted any of it, so I consider the matter small. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you have a legitimate concern, but I guess we differ on how best to describe it, and that's OK if we both recognize it. But I do not wish to continue this type of hair splitting on usertalk pages; the effort is better spent on the articles. Thanks again, and let's carry on. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:IESEbusinessschoolopusdeicorporatework.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IESEbusinessschoolopusdeicorporatework.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this

Hi Walter, :) I've just been given this and am passing it on to you, because you deserve it for all the work you've put in.

This user helped promote Opus Dei to good article status.

Hope you can continue helping in bringing the article up to FAC. Marax (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. I took the initiative to place it as well in your userpage but you might want it moved elsewhere.

Truth article 'edit wars'

Hi; you've asked that edit wars stop on this article, though it is you who has re-instated the newer-version of text which is being argued over. Between an article at state 0 and it at state 1, if the large edits made to reach the second state are the ones in question, the article must be left in state 0 while the discussion consensus is reached (lest any nutjob be able to force an article to remain in a state containing falsehoods while they argue their point). Your edits are forcing the article to remain in state 1, from what i can see in history. (Please correct me if i'm wrong about that). (I'll watch this page, so you can reply here.) Quaeler (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Quaeler, state 0 is Marax's version of April 2008. It is a version running April to August 2008. Hundreds of Wikipedians scrutinized it and bearing excellent reasons accepted it for several months. Recently Kenosis changed it to state 1 - to a version of 2006 but whose reasons for being have been duly contested in numerous arguments. The talk page of Truth is an excellent page where you can appreciate the reasonableness of my edit and Marax's many arguments. I enjoin you with my whole heart to read Talk:Truth. You are most welcome and encouraged to join our discussion - to give reasons why you prefer state 1 or version 2006. I repeat - no arguments for version 2006, no reversion, no edit warring. Walter Ching (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the information -- i now see that the situation is the opposite of what i supposed. Quaeler (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:IESEbusinessschoolopusdeicorporatework2.jpg

File:IESEbusinessschoolopusdeicorporatework2.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:IESEbusinessschoolopusdeicorporatework3.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:IESEbusinessschoolopusdeicorporatework3.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Stjosemariagettogethermen.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Stjosemariagettogethermen.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this notification, Magog the Ogre. I have received a copy of the email sent by the authors of the image (Opus Dei Information Office) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Kindly do inform me if the email they sent suffices. I will wait for your reply. Thank you. Walter Ching (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The OTRS volunteer will mark the image accordingly if it is sufficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:JohnPaulIIordainingfirstbishopprelateofopusdeialvarodelportillo.jpg

The file File:JohnPaulIIordainingfirstbishopprelateofopusdeialvarodelportillo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Escrivagettogether.gif

The file File:Escrivagettogether.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Opusdeilaststone19march83.jpg

The file File:Opusdeilaststone19march83.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphan image with no evidence that the OTRS process was followed/completed after being explained on the uploader's talk page in 2011.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:IESEmadrid.jpg

The file File:IESEmadrid.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphan image with no evidence that the OTRS process was followed/completed after being explained on the uploader's talk page in 2011.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Benedictxvistjosemariastatue.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Benedictxvistjosemariastatue.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  ★  Bigr Tex 20:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ourladyofpeaceopusdeiprelaticchurchsjosemariaremains.jpg proposed for deletion

See here. Veverve (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

GAR Opus Dei

Opus Dei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)