User talk:EffK/Archive 2

Digital Gallows:Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/EffK has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be place at Requests for arbitration/EffK/Workship. Fred Bauder 20:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 Reply re his grandfather
Mr EffK, I see that I have strained your patience by not replying right away, but I first had to fully think about what to make of your post. Ann is right in supposing that I am fully open to accept your apology. However, I am not entirlely sure whether what you posted is actually meant as an apology. You say you will and do apologize, but you also state that you do it because Ann made it a condition. Now, she has stated above that she didn't set a condition and only gave advice. So you don't need to apologize to me in order to get a reply from her. You don't need to fully understand why you have offended me by your comments (I didn't always understand in regard to others and still apologized) - you only need to know that you did. Also, your post was, I'm afraid to say, about very many things and full of accusations etc. Nonetheless, in the interest of a cooperative spirit I am willing to accept your apology if you simply post a short (one simple line suffices) note of apology on my talk page. Please do so and I will answer all queries I can. Sincerely, Str1977 11:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Tanto lo Siento" :I can't help what Anne/MLinguist said, she insisted, against WP guides. I am sorry for hurting the family memory of your grandfather.It was stupid of me. It wasn't meant badly at all, rather the reverse, actually, which is why I am surprised at your reaction. Apology made, you know where we two are in cyberspace. I enjoy it when you use, as just now, your kind language because otherwise I fear you greatly. I don't want apologies in return ,and may not deserve them ,and I don't have allies and it's not best for me to judge. But please answer my question. If this is too long, please delete at will EffK 11:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EffK, for replying so quickly. Let me tell you that I wholeheartedly accept your apology. I also ask your forgiveness for anything I have done that has (against my intention) hurt you. For any further exchanges I will reply later, as I have to run now. Str1977 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by EffK at his ArbCom Trial, as of 24 Nov
Concurrent to this RfA I  posted [] my sole disputant,[],][], [],[] .[] ,[],[] ,[],[] ,[] ,User:Str1977 ,[] - [],[],[], and to  User:Robert McClenon ( talk )(false mediator [] ,[],[], [] ,[] ,[] , []. See :[], updated talk at []

McClenon does not understand ,[],[][],[], [],[],[][],[][],[],[][], [] the sources [] of  my bulk contributions [][],[],[],[],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,[], and WP corrections, [] ,[][], [] , nor my real disputant :  [][],[] ,[][]([] ,, McC thinks or pretends  that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source [],[]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP, and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977, pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany  for today 17 November 2005 , will  show that an anon &  Str1977 , after a  3/4 year edit-war  cf: [] ,[], has accepted the gist of my sources [] ,and NPOV  []. I believe that WP has finally/or never enabled me to correct the Str1977   ,and, after  irksome  discourse (filibustering to  McClenon) I repaired some  serious fault in WP.

Str1977 by  present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in  provocative manner [] ,[] ,[],[], []) over  12 months , the same day that    Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves   the RfA  a form of ad hominem ,illustrating  the  WP faith problem[] better than  my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed, a day late  an RfC against him as lying  bully. I take no pleasure here [],[], nor enjoy  intellectual provocation  and  denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation [].

I believe this RfA is  last ditch attempt to remove the  accusations made by the world  [] at large [], [], [] from Wikipedia  , following  from my  demands that [] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless  [], [], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The  new allowance of my edits to remain  within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker ,[],[],[],[]/[][],[],[] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism [][] []. I was suggested by Jimbo to leave, I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved  and I came back because three users  , one  Str1977 started  posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared   accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability [].

All these users should be admonished.

This [] [], thorniest historical issue is defended here by  actual 'denialism [][],[], [] ,[] , of source [][],[] something [][] reflected in greater cyberspace []. I openly claimed  recently  there is not one political error I have made so far[]. I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an  apology from McClenon and  congratulated Str1977 on  final good sense in accepting my  NPOV [],[]. Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Affirmation to Encyclopedist(un-related)
I mean't to come back to say that I admire your affirming spirit. I hadn't properly read your page that time .I wanted to do so now while I still could. I read your conclusion re Wikpedia as a source, and the copyright gear. So many interesting questions, but one that always returns to me now is whether the world would have been a better place if knowledge and understanding hadn't been subject to such a long period of lock-down under copyright. Its a hard one, re music say, but re politics, well, seems like it's like some government  50 year rule. You guys in the US have new laws of disclosure ,but really I feel like were pretty locked down. To you DJ I say keep your strength.EffK 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey Famekeeper! How are you. I am sorry that everyone seems to perscute you, recuerda, por siempre hay pendejos! But don't worry; you'll be fine. Thanks for your messages, I erased the first one without looking who it came from...I hope you didn't think I did that out of malice or anything.  Please edit to my talk page. My guideline pages are only for people to know what to do on my talk page...thanks anyway though.  I hope you feel better, and everyone on Wikipedia isn't cold hearted.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  15:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hay !
Si hay ! hay de todos! Habramos todos lo que faltamos ! Hay que tener Fé ! Sampson nearfield ribbons me limpian lo que hay de tonteria,.... siguete el tema acaso, a mi me daria uno suspiro de sanitad salir  Saco fichas  del purissimo calidad, fichas que andan solas, de palabrotas na'a. The main thing is that you stay  one D'J. Vale,EffK 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Gracias, a veces tengo que decir la verdad y meterme en lio con otros escritores en Wikipedia. (Particularmente, hay un hombre quien dice que necisito calmarme a pesar de la confrontaccion y estupidez de tontos aqui, y a pesar del facto que ellos me dan lata). Pues, a veces creo que yo tengo que calmarme, TALVEZ! Ademas, cualquier escritor aqui merece y debe tener el respeto que admins. reciben. Tengo que decirlo que no soy un hombre enojado o un "hothead."  Quiero ayudar aqui, y a veces yo estoy tan cansado de comprometer lo que creo es correcto, quiero explollar con colera...y decir lo que nescito (lo que esta en mi corazon). Ya sé que yo no puedo enfadarme de cualquier por cada vez...por lo tanto, no lo hago.  Yo creo que usted quiere ayudar la enciclopedia, a pesar de las quejas que otros personas.  Haga lo que cree es mejor!  No escuche a mierda!  Usted tiene el poder...y gracias por los elogios.  Me siento tan vindicado!  Quiero ser uno, como dice. Adios, sea mi amigo por siempre por favor!  Yo creo que voy a ir a España en una ocasion (pero no pronto). Quiza puedo encontrarlo alli, amigo.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  22:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Un-related,Vandalism
Writing Hitler is God on the Adolf Hitler article is blatant vandalism. Please do not do it again. -- Francs2000 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah apologies for that - I think there might be a bug in the system because you added your edit at the same time as another user vandalised the page. I think it would be wise to re-insert your changes rather than trying to revert again. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Adios
Que pena, hasta luego, amigo!  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  02:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Watts' My reply to your post, EffK (Creastionism)
'''*** Regarding your recent post to my page (please notice that my most recent entry before that was in early November -a long time ago), I would like to point out that I am retired (from Wikipedia). Also, I would like to introduce you to my friend, Robert J. More, ThirstForJustice@yahoo.com -- http://geocities.com/ThirstForJustice --who seems to also think like you do with regards to big government corruption. PS: I would have emailed you, but you did not specify an email address in Wikipedia.--GordonWatts 10:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC) ***'''


 * EffK :Thanks GW. It must not be sufficiently apparent that I am a pure secularist- I looked at the link, and see that that your friend is very religiously orientated. This orientation could benefit from the relevant canon law that I trawled -meaning I would suggest he takes the relevant religious action forward. If this friend is a christian, he can ask that a proper ecclesiastical court now regularise the situation. I refer him to the discussions at papal pages and those related to the historical persons traceable through my contributions. He has enough evidence.


 * In green and indented, I reply to your answer: "Thanks GW." You're welcome. "It must not be sufficiently apparent that I am a pure secularist-" Correct. However, I did not analyze your page at length either -being retired and all. I intend to email Robert a copy of your feedback here.


 * I am not a believer myself, nor have any association however slight, with christianity, so your friend's religious fears are not priority to me. He however will surely understand the canonical directions. It is apparent that he should follow them, as it is apparent that only on the canonical level does any of the history have any contemporary outcome. The history is done and dusted, and my only concern was that it be properly reported. The ecclesiastical out-come is exact, and it is purely the same, liable to merely an ecclesiastical report. The affair is done and dusted (canonically, it was done at the commission of the offence), and all that remains is for these to be ecclesiastically reported. There are consequent losses of privileges.


 * "I am not a believer myself..." Well, it should be obvious to most that if even we humans can't create life (example: Dinosaur) -even by "cheating" (i.e., using DNA, technology, etc., as in Jurassic Park), then it certainly could not have "created" (e.g., evolved) itself -all by itself. "...nor have any association however slight, with christianity..." Extrapolating: If there is a creator, then such would be able to repair what was created, and also, one might suspect a good boss to test out the product He/She/They created; If any "true" God exists, then a "test-drive" of the human body would be a "perfect" life, and the "best fit mathematical curve" for such --the most likely candidate, that is, would be the historical Jesus: He showed us the human DNA is (theoretically) possible to be used to live a perfect or more-or-less sinless life. This is important because we should have a motivation to know if our human bodies are either defective or A-OK vehicles as we "drive down" the "road of life." Capish?


 * EffK :I fear the big-government corruption you speak of is shrouded by the christianly references of your friend, but I can hardly advise him on how to separate his subjects, except by example. EffK 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I hope I was as helpful. Here are the links historically associated with myself:


 * http://GordonWatts.com
 * http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210
 * http://GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313 (site may be experiencing trouble?)
 * http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html


 * Of special relevance to religion:
 * http://GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313 (This site appears to be temporarily down for unknown reasons at this time.)
 * http://hometown.aol.com/Gww1210/myhomepage/Passion.html
 * --GordonWatts 05:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * EffK. Well, I see lots of good dietary advice and good intention. I am not good at this creation thinking . I
 * "lots of good dietary advice and good intention" -Thank you for the praise.
 * compartmentalise all of that right out of sight, and am in no hurry to knock down the walls, if it is the other side of some compartment. I have no problem with running with Darwinism wheere I am. I guess I go as far as hearing that zaps of
 * Yeah, but what if there is a Creator? That does not preclude microevolution -only macroevolution.
 * abstract current hit the primeval soup here. I only bleat openly here about two the things above, the history, and the denial of it. Sure, I saw a logic in the magisterium of romans 3,8 and Ill repeat my translation -If our enemies attack us for using Nazis to beat Commies, they'd be right to if we did. That is the long tall and short of it. All that remains is that I am genuinely surprised to find that non-secularists still exist. Now I see they're fighting desperately in document wars and denial. I presume though that is the last of a finished age. I didn't come here to speculate about the future, bet I'd be stamped on for doing so. I really really don't have any leaning towards Xtianity or anything else. I am virtually non-existent
 * "Xtianity" -Ah, an abbreviation for "Christianity." I'm sure you only mean to save space, not as a derogatory-type word. Kind of like "Xmas." Neat.
 * Its quite a normal abbreviation, some places.
 * in such terms . If I have to choose, I'd stick with Confucius . Jesus's parables are plainly in code, and I certainly put no
 * In code? I think not. He translates and interprets the parables, if I'm not mistaken.
 * OK, I can think of one in code, numbering fishes into the hundred
 * trust in anybody who ever followed him. Those who here claim to do so, are about as far from meek and cheek-turning as you
 * As far as trusting them, you base that assertion on the premise that his parables are in code, a faulty basis, so your conclusion to not trust them on that basis is wrong; Now, as far as hypocrites go, yes, many who claim to be Christian are not, but their dishonesty does not discredit the true Christians.
 * No, I base it on their actions in here, which are just denialism in an on-line version of 'document war' . I assent that Jesus appears to be total sympathy, but I am stuck in an argument against camouflaged revisionist clerical denialism. I'm not here to discuss Jesus- the part of the magisterium that is over-thrown is Paul's Romans: that is,3,8.
 * can get. I alert your friend to christian legal logic for the logic of it. Either it is worthy of belief, or is not worthy of belief-to those who believe it matters. To me it is just a litany of events driven by interests, sadly the supposed meek cheek-turning interest severely affected a billion miseries (like say before every resulting death, there were a thousand moments of misery). Its simple, GW- I call it un-acceptable truth. This church cannot accept its own truths. I would further say that I do see normal un-acceptable "germanity" issues. The capitalist part is clear. As a whole obviously St John is right, but only if you equate  the Beast 666 with  radio-activity . We're hooked , but we do know this. We perhaps don't know what can be done with Wikipedia, though my experience is simple to comprehend. Naturally, any User with any sense will run from this experience I relate. A few (one? two?) seem brave but most seem queerly complacent, which I think is all protective front. You
 * "Naturally, any User with any sense will run from this experience I relate." Yes. You see me not posting much here in Wikipedia any more, right?
 * I refer to mentally running from the particular historical scandal, and the fact that my posting appears to have been designed as an attack on the vatican, when the attack is purely the concommittant of the scandal. I mean that people don't want to get involved in any such attack. People cannot accept that our whole modern history stems from un-just and forbidden invlovement. Forbidden by romans, unjust because it contumately backed 'an uncompromisingly strong man'(Pius XI describing Hitler April 10 1933
 * I am running from this Tower of Babel of confusion. Well meaning many are, and Jimbo Wales means well, but without proper oversight or accountability, it is all vanity. So, when you say "Naturally, any User with any sense will run from this experience I relate," I assume you mean running from Wikipedia, right?
 * and your pal, since you are seemingly inside this christian thingy, well I can't understand more than the whoever is there . I know bullets were the truth in sorting out the errors committed- they are easily dug up in any field in Europe . If this serves some good, you are welcome to break up the text instead of repeat it-happens all the time. When I make allusions to physical suffering, I consider it, physical suffering alone, to be enought o warrant enquiry and clarity of history. I don't
 * "to be enought o warrant enquiry" --Oh, you means: "Enough to warrant inquiry." I was able to understand what you mean, so you don't have to worry about your minor typos. I make typos, like all of us (except, I allege, Jesus, whom I claim was perfect, lol).
 * need religious enquiry. That proves itself to have been a contributor to the suffering, a sine qua non in the case of
 * You're saying that religion is "sine qua non" or a necessary element to suffering, just as a cake might be to American weddings or a gun to American cop equipment? I disagree. "True" religion is this: " Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27, HOLY BIBLE, King James Version) In the public domain, no copyright restrictions.
 * Nope, I mean Sine qua non for the 'success' of Hitler. It influenced the German catholics to accept Hitlerism, and it appears to have influenced the rigged 23 march 1933 vote at Enabling Act . I'm not focusing upon orphans and on that I think there can be civilised care without the clerical dissertations etc. But obviously I can respect that line. I can respect the whole canon, and  perversely - I am defending it through-out.
 * Hitler, and as far as I can see, a lesson to us to thoroughly distance ourselves from such terribly blinkered wishful thinking. I cannot advise a christian as to whether the repairing of the mgaisterium in this last will or will not help xtianity, or whether it will or will not confirm secularist sense. If I were a xtian, I'd definitely be worried as it is as dangerous to leave it alone, as to confront it. It is historically deserved, though, and it won't go away whether I am silenced here or not.
 * But, what if there is a God, and would it not then be even more of a bad gamble to bet against God's existence by refusing to give Him credit? See e.g., Pascal's_Wager or or, , and, for an opposing argument:  -- also: "Pascal's Wager can be presented in many different forms, usually something like this: 'If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything.' Alternatively: 'It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way'."  --GordonWatts 06:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's old grandma stuff.It is harmful, if truths are denied , as in my user-experience. I refer you to 15 December evidence re the Reichskonkordat kick-back scheme ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005]. My religiosity or the lack of it isn't at all interesting. The subject here is the manner in which faith-led editing in WP is ruinous to the project. My history demonstrates this: it is impossible for me to source , because xtian editors cannot accept the history. They prefer to deny. I believe there is active concert and I see instructions given on TV and on-line, made on 21 Febuary 2004. It is logical. The problem is that just as iin 1932/33, the Church is trying to direct politics. This is a disastrous 'wishful thinking'. The wish is to stem secularist materialism etc.

Bengalski and Combatting Catholic revisionism
EffK, here is the comment I posted on the discussion page of your trial. If there's anything else I can do to help just let me know.Bengalski 11:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't be making any comment without first reading through the extended history of this dispute, but one thing strikes me so strongly I felt it needed a comment.

EffK is accused of "engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox."

There may in fact not be any agents of the vatican here, but looking at a page like that on Pius XII you'd be forgiven for doubting. There is a very strong positive bias on that, and other, pages dedicated to Catholic leaders. If EffK has a POV he is pushing in the other direction, it is more than outweighed.

Just to look at the Pius XII article, which has been one of the scenes of the dispute: in general the 'controversy' over his stance towards the Nazis is indeed acknowledged throughout the article, but there is far more virtual ink spilled to deny it than report it, and the language is one-sided. Eg.:

- the first paragraph kicks off ascribing laudable motives to Pacelli as 'working to promote peace'

- there are various references to Pacelli condemning the Nazis, whilst pro-Nazi comments EffK cites (such as the one he provided from a book by Mowrer, or any of those in John Cornwell's book) are out. Similarly we have Goebbels diary entries attacking the church, and a completely unsourced Hitler quote, but not eg. Ciano praising him as a man the fascists could work with.

- these alleged comments from Pacelli are virtually unsourced. There is no source for the 'private letter' mentioned. Another is from an unconfirmable private conversation mentioned in a 'Catholic League' publication - which doesn't strike me as necessarily too reliable.

- the language is hardly neutral: a critic 'falsely portrayed' him; 'there is no doubt' that jews were 'bravely' saved, while there is no mention of those he is accused of giving up to the Nazis; we're told more than once how the pope has been 'widely praised'

- John Cornwell, the best known critic of Pacelli, gets half a para - immediately followed by 2 1/2 paras of the response from pro-Pacelli historians and the Vatican's own enquiry

- there are references to ODESSA at the bottom of the page, which suggests to me that at some point someone may have included information on the accusations of Pacelli's involvement in sheltering Nazis after the war - but if so these points have also been removed from the page itself. There is a mention of the ODESSA issue, but without any acknowledgement that Pacelli is claimed to have been involved himself, and the case is dismissed as the "almost 'mythic' ratlines".

I don't think there's a Vatican organised conspiracy at work in Wikipedia, but I do think we have a number of conscientious catholic supporters at work on this and other pages who are slanting the entries to favour the church. I think it is important that EffK's case be viewed in this context. It seems that EffK set out to try and redress this balance, and I don't think there's any wrong in that. Without having read through all the discussions I don't know if he's always gone about it the right way, but I can see he was acting from good motivations and from the heart, and it isn't easy fighting that kind of uphill battle. I think the bias being perpetrated by his opponents is a far more serious problem than any alleged misconduct on EffK's part.Bengalski 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Un-related-Click and read User:Zordrac/Poetlister - it may at least make you feel better
Sorry for your problems. Have a look at my sub page, and you might identify with it a bit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks. Eventualism could perhaps be expanded to include yet another category........ EffK 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade:Why no email address?
Email me. Sam Spade 01:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Tom Harrison re:Pius XII
Hi; Thanks, I read User:Bengalski's comment on the talk page. It seems to be broadly in line with the kind of thing that belongs in the article, if a citation can be found. I'm not entirely clear on what you are proposing to add to or take from the article as it now stands. If you want to add a paragraph that's relevant and suitably cited, that should be possible. If you want to rewrite the whole page following the format you have up at Talk:Vatican Bank, I have to tell you that I don't think that would be supported by consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Durova:The Great Scandal
I've proposed a rename and a radical rewrite on the talk page. Am contacting all parties in your arbitration dispute and waiting for other responses to your RfC before proceeding. Details on article talk. Best wishes, Durova 03:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu: The Lost Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates and the Nazis
Hi, the AfD for this article was open for nine days. This is much longer than standard, normally AfDs are closed after five days. We don't keep them open indefinitely until they attract a given number of votes. However, I'll post the content of the deleted page below, for you to use as you wish. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Babajobu 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Reported as bankrupt in December 1932, the NSDAP or Nazi Party was in fettle financial health by the middle of January because the Rhenish-Westphalian industrial magnates assumed responsibility for the debts. These financial and industrial leaders had put the Nazi party back into the political arena after a large tumble in the pro-Nazi vote in November 1932. In return, they had gotten promises to be paid back as, if and when Hitler came to power. It is reported that "without the formidable assistance of the industrialists the Nazi party would have foundered on the rocks of bankruptcy (Op Cit The Nemesis of Power by John Wheeler-Bennett, Macmillan 1953).

The magnates petitioned President Hindenburg after the November elections seeking the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor. Amongst the 38 signers of the petition were Hjalmar Schacht, Thyssen, Krupp, Siemens AG, Bosch and the heads of Hamburg-Amerika and the North German-Lloyd Shipping Lines. Hitler was assiduous in fulfilling his promises after achieving the chancellorship by eliminating the Communists, abolishing the trade unions, forcing no nationalization of industry and beginning rearmament on a huge scale.

Representing the industrial and financial force supporting Hitler, Hjalmar Schacht was accused at the Nuremburg trials but cleared of the charges (conspiracy to wage an aggressive war, war crimes and crimes against humanity) but sentenced in the de-nazification proceedings (Also see the Krupp Trial).


 * Hi, the talk page is actually still there. I didn't delete it. I would suggest expanding the article, addressing the concerns expressed, adding new citations and then recreating the article. Alternatively, you can ask that the deletion be reviewed at Deletion review. I don't think you should feel that Wikipedia is conspiring to censor you. Someone put an article up for AfD, and because no one argued that it should be retained, I removed it. Wikipedia itself didn't do anything, and all actions can be reviewed. Regards. Babajobu 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Right and thanks for the explanation, Babajou, and were it not for the outstanding issues, that you suggest would be cinch or practicable.

However, I don't see that I am suggesting/accusing the Wikipedia of anything except its success and influence in educational terms.I tell you what I told Jimbo : I am trying to help the Wikipedia. I tell the church,rightly by their tenets, that I am trying to help the church. Please do not make even tentative judgement without the full facts when it concerns my good faith.

I consider it extremely serious that Robert McClenon there was able with one other vote to excise the sourced facts from this organ. I ask you to indeed make comment of this howewer it can be made by you. It never occurred to me to vote, as I say it would have been pushy, when there was one supporting vote only. The attack on me has prevented my normal growth as a user here- I have been locked into circular repetitive denialism with no chance to study wikipedia itself. It never occurred to me that two votes were enough to delete. It seems extraordinary. But I repeat that your suggestion of what I think is wide of the mark and by making it you force me to respond in full, as it is serious.

I know there is censorship here active precisely where I have been for the last year. I present diffs of this and categorise it exactly for what is has been so I have to ask you to not characterise a complex issue with the effective simplism. I received similar comment the other day from another wikipedian, and to suggest it is to in practice add to the demolition of all my evidence, and of myself as a good faith user. Do you see that it is not in effect neutral for such suggestion to be made?

It is perfectly obvious that you were doing a clean-up or something. It is equally obvious that Robert Mclenon was effectively censoring. No attempt to discuss with me, the known editor, was made -simply a claim against provided source as to the POV of the entire. The POV, if there, which I cannot recognise in any particular, could have been discussed as to change to more NPOV. However against source, and knowing of my continuity as editor at providing source at all times, unto the borders of possibility, represents his complete assumption of bad faith on my part, an illegitimate wikipedia stance. However it is thoroughly in keeping from a user whose contribution to my openly consensual attempts, is generally one of baiting. McClenon seeks from the start to build a case to silence me. I actually have for a very long time openly asked that he be adjudicated himself at Arbcom. Fortunately by presenting evidence against me there, he now enters himself to such scrutiny. He plainly circumambulates the revisionist denialism here where I have been and, whilst painting himself purely technically as a reasonable self-appointed admin type, such that the casual onlooker would see only that, his principle aim is to badger me into exasperated contraventions. I have suffered so much from this bad faith that I have asked openly several places that Robert Mccelnon be sent to Arbcom. Naturally he sent me, as he after 4 days began studying those rules and editing procedures. Within 3 weeks he had brought three RfC's, such that his own RfC is still up as a bully. I presented evidence slowly as I gave him the chance to repair himself, then signed a few hours late. However it is still up, and he is, further than all this I state, also a cabal member by his associated actions.

This cabal acts as if it is under plain instructions from the pontifical council for social communications, as the only thread running thru disparate associated users sharing the one objective is their profession of roman catholicism. As the political history I present is touched greatly by that church, the motives for wikipedia control are simply in proportion to the importance of wikipedia itself. I presume, Babajou, that you are not involved with any of this, but can only judge that which I see done. If I cannot explain myself to you in good faith, then I have to take account of that.I am attempting to do so but I realise that this is not the sort of editorial interaction expected by you, nor by Jimbo, but I also communicated directly to him the TV report of the same council's spring 2005 conference organised by renato Boccardo, and the report was quite clear in everything except the actual name of the Wikipedia. It is concluded that the internet is a faith battle-ground, whether you are worldly or other-worldy, and I don't have to persuade you, as the TV report was throughout europe and west asia, the council exists, the papal doctrine was laid out on 21 febuary, and all open. The only place this action can operate anonymously is here, and it would be disingenuous or naive of wikipedia to assume that it does not given the facts I tell you and others. Lets say some people are being naive, you perhaps. Remain so, please, in all good faith.

But quite obviously the page 'hitler's pope' googled and quite plainly my interventions googled concerning Ludwig Kaas and Pius XII and quite plainly the troops have been sent in for damage control. I perhaps will not send you looking any particular place at actions turning on the change in the papacy but the conclusions of the online jesuit army are clear: as Str1977 openly now admits he is here to control my extremism. This is rightly questioned by Lacatosias, it is noticed by Bengalski, and has been apparent from always in this organ. But, at the point at which the verifiability is overturned, the heavy comment is necssitated. It has been consistently traduced and I have had to push inch by inch to acceptance of barest facts as to dates. The point at Hitler on 15 December where an editor could openly remove sourced history despite his own acceptance of it, as a POV of mine, I stopped wasteful further attempt to edit. I am blocked solely by bad faith editing, hypocritical or dishonest or whatever, all of that because it is a flouting despite consciousness of the WP tenets and of the source. Now, what do you call such flouting, if not attempt to censor and massage and control wikipedia? I tell you what I told Jimbo : I am trying to help the Wikipedia. I tell the church,rightly by their tenets, that I am trying to help the church. Please do not make judgement without the full facts when it concerns my good faith, nor post your conclusions so simply based upon my user page. Please re-qualify your simplistic statement, made in howsoever good faith, as it is a direct criticism and calls me in effect to be in either complete error, or bad faith. Both are in effect a personal attack, but thanks for caring one way or another.Oh and would you either replace it or put it up for review on my behalf? EffK 19:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it 's gone and now Str1977 removes associated comment from another Article and I write a necessary commentary since this editor has rather come out.

EffK questions the Cabal because of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Source Dismissal
I bring this from it's relevant position at The Great Scandal .Firstly I answer Robert McClenon above disallowing Avro Manhattan. I have read McClenon's link into "acceptable source", and I would say that Avro has a clear agenda, based on a close personal proximity to the vatican, through primary source of vatican contacts and informants. That he had a clear agenda, but that that can be easily dealt with in Wikipedia rules of presentation. He is therefore a highly includable secondary source for political history relevant to Germany and this particular subject, and is potentially himself a primary source for the similar preceding political events in Italy. That, he is far from being excludable despite his agenda. I have confirmed his thesis from more than one primary as opposed to secondary source, and multiple further secondary main historical texts and tertiary sources such as Cornwell and Kershaw et al. I consider therefore that the grounds for objection and omission of Manhattan are a spurious attempt to render the Wikipedia useless. I am amused by the voluble recent admission or claim that McClenon has a girlfiend, and that she happens to be able to soon contribute that really Germany took a wrong turn with Kant, especially as I class Kant himself as my principle philosophical base for reason and honesty in Wikipedia. That is a cheerful co-incidence, remarkable even.

Hitler and the church
I am content and accede to Str1977 agreement that the subject could be dealt with at Hitler and the church meaning the relevant european church of Christianity, whatever denomination. Sadly I have first hand knowledge of this editor's attempt to silence and nullify all source, whatever class, concerning this purely catholic side of the history, and this is why this particular article is rendered such a strange waif as it is here. Such a move would be rendered meaningless by this editors policy. I have not changed my mind about either this or the other editor, Robert McClenon, both of whom set out un-ashamedly to whitewash the events, and render Wikipedia useless. It is most irregular to have to openly say such a thing, howsoever true. I make no personal attack, as they try to do this extremly assiduously indeed. As with this statement, which crowns mearly a year of such non-stop intervention by the principle disputant against source howsoever presented in Wikipedia. This accordes with this his recent statement: "I am very sorry to inform you, Lacatosias, that the internet is unfortunately a medium were extermist activism can achieve very much. It will necessarily infect things like the WP if there aren't those around who are actively guarding a certain standard, at best those with knowledge and qualifications in the respective fields. This is what I am doing in this case. Effk is promoting a extreme theory, no doubt sincerely, but it is still extreme. The sources do not supprt the contentious points he makes (and they have nothing to say on what information should be included in what article and about linguistic problems). He's certainly not fighting the good fight, though I don't question his honest belief."  and made circa (archiving complexities)- by User:Str1977|Str1977 10:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC). I put this is here because it confirms for all to see a position held against the historicam matter epitomised in my userdom. It explains the reason for this Artcicle's creation, and it explains the reason for its woeful state, and for the general debaement of the Wikipedia.

Consideration and questions upon user:Str1977's Extremist statement of 19 January 2005
Given this clear statement coming after, as I say, a non-stop involvement by this particular editor in my good faith here, I feel I know have the right to finally ask this user whether in fact he is a lay member of his church only. I asked him very early if he was paid to do what he does, and he answered in the negative. I ask him- Are you a lay member of your faith or do you hold any formal position to the church you so ably represent throughout Wikipedia ?

To you Str 1977, I will say again that I can trace myself back to Corecticus, and that therefore I own to a deep root myself, one which shared your faith through the millenia. I therefore claim equal right to question the relationship of the laws of this faith to its representative's actions under question here. I say that a canonical resolution of the Magisterium being sundered by the question here is now due to the faithful, as much as to the whole world. That I myself say this within the piety which as a non church member I can only see revealed in that self-same Divine magisterium and canon law.

Are you not a lay member of your church ?

I was curious about you and McClenon only because you both jumped on me hard, and have continued to do so at every possible step I have taken, against the rules of Wikipedia Verifiability, and that this risk you have both repeatedly taken, can only bespeak a determinining reason. that which I quote of you hereabove confirms exactly your determination. I do not need to resent its variance with the truth, as I do this bit by bit at the wikipedia-execution you have both planned for me at Arbcom. Myself, I saw your str19977's, english rather variable between high quality and rather median quality. i therefore asked if you had a helping hand such as a partner/wife who wrote corrected text for you. It was a question purely based on that variance. McClenon only thought this question was directed at him-he was so eager to butt in between us. I have had little interest in who McCleonon may be, and simply see him as your alloted internet -enforcer type. i am of course entirely of the opinion, from my experience, that this is what he is. Your whatever, and obviously a habitue of other online organs/ whatever, and brought in here specifically, by virtue of his exact and verifiable appearance in Wikipedia, to provide your stated aim with such supporting adminuistrative capacity as the stated objective requires.

I am quite clear in my mind, and it only rests for such human beings as inhabit the highest echelon of Wikipedia themselves to consider it, that your aim was always as you state, and for this reason I characterised you as I did, as a vatican agent within Wikipedia. Plainly I have to question my sanity, and I have so done, and I find that this is a sane conclusion and one confirmed by my own primary source to various emanations from the vatican outside Wikipedia. I sourced this as you both well know, unto the necessary wikipedia good faith. The question that will be rather interesting, is how this will develope to its logical end. Not mine as a user, as really the argument is over, and the point is made, but, the end which presents itself to the church you represent. Since the reality and the truth of the past is so recognisable, it will not die with me. I confess to thinking that such vast church denialism of such a vastly un-magisterial past presented me with the thought that operatives who could as I see conjure this denialism, could go as far as wishing my elimination. That is why I am rather sensitive as to my self.

You Str1977, on the other hand will suffer no such fear from those whom you actively protect, therefore you could safely reveal yourself as the historian (ie that means published or paid) you claim to be in wikipedia. Whovever gives you your professional status certainly does not demand all of your time, and your historical work would appear to be now chiefly upon the Wikipedia. This is commendable, as is your english when you are not in a great rush, but then so is mine spelling wise. Well you do english very well, and natural germanism only appears in the rushed posts, and that could simply show you to be just innocently most assiduous. I do not buy it, as you have proved to me so much bad faith, culminating in your totally unsupportable hypocrisy of 15 December,2005, and subject of Wikipedia trial now, that I know you are not a straight historian. You may be a lay christian historian, if there is really such a thing. Or you may have been asked to enter the Wikipedia at the entrance of Pope Benedict XVI, which is where your edits enter Wikipedia. Of course I have to assume that you are the online or Wikipedia fruit of the Pope John Paul II 21 Febuary 2005 Letter of Injunction or whatever it is called, but which is eminanetly Googleable. Just as the subsequent meeting of the Pontifical Council For Social Communications is Googleable for several days later in time.

I could ask you- have you ever had direct contact with anyone associated with that body? Do you consciously follow the 21 Febuary Pope John Paul II letter? Did you in fact enter this Wikipedia with instructions to target me specifically by name? If not me ,were you or were you not given instructions to focus upon precisely that which I quoted you as now saying above in Wikipedia? If not, were or were you not aware of my Wikipedia introduction or the introduction of the primary 1932 confirmatory source I presented here in Wikipedia before your arrival? Were you or were you not aware at your entry to Wikipedia that a team of Wikipedia assistants would enter from differing corners of the Globe for your use?Why have you all proved so unable to conclusively squash the Scandal within Wikipedia given that is has been your intention ? If it was not your original Wikipedia intention, when did you formulate your stated policy I quoted? I have every Wkipedia right to ask you to explain yourself, just as you yourself have every wikipedia right not to answer. However you yourself are constained by yourself alone, as I have no right to force any kind of reply. If I don't accept the reply as sufficient I reserve the right to either say so, or indeed send it anywhere I consider relevant. I warn you that I have asked an Arbitrator to see that your statement above quoted, be included as Wikipedia EffK Evidence by substitution. It is relevant to the charge that I falsely accuse you of being a Vatican Agent in Wikipedia. In fact, only hope for more clarity to emerge in answer than emerged before this quoted statement. EffK 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Musical Linguist: Best wishes/Save Us, Keep Us and Make Us Light to Shine Upon Us
Dear EffK,

I think you will be leaving Wikipedia soon. I hesitate to post a message to you since you deleted my last one, and since you subsequently jumped to conclusions that I was inserting evidence while pretending not to, when in fact, I was simply restoring posts that had got eaten up by a software bug. So I am well aware that you do not count me among your friends.

I want to tell you, nevertheless, that although I disagree with all your theories, I have no doubt at all that you hold them sincerely. Though you have questioned my good faith, I do not question yours. I do think, however, that what you were doing on Wikipedia was highly disruptive, and I fully agree with the ArbCom decision, as I know that you had absolutely no intention of stopping.

You can, however, as Jimbo said, leave Wikipedia with your head held high and your dignity intact. Nobody here knows who you really are; nor do we wish to find out. You may not – in fact you probably won't – believe this, but I wish you well.

Sincerely, AnnH (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Young Lady, Thankyou. Have enough votes now poured in to swing me at the Digital Gallows ? Have condemned Users now been blocked from their own Userpages? From discussions? Obviously it is hardly worth-while going to discussions such as Ludwig Kaas and the Centre Party or Hitler or anywhere, when there is no one of good faith strong enough to repair the POV of your good clever friend. Jimbo himself said it-there is no merit in talking to people about that which they do not wish to listen. That is actually a Wikipedia loss of principle. However irked I have been by your manners of classing me as a POV pusher, which is quickly done in three, with rv, with no more than five letters, I can yet hardly be un-civil and demand of you that which you have been un-willing to give. I'll rather quote the adage that good is a good does, young lady. I therefore entirely look forward to your sincerity stamping, until I may request it otherwise, upon attempts to trace my identity. In that, I am justified in saying that you have been keeping some very iffy company. In fact all around, were it not for your un-historically informed accusation as to my theory and your very curious association with blaggardly Users, I could more easily welcome your sincerity.In fact dear lady, even here with your sincerity you alloww yourself to say something which is wrong. This is naughty: I did stop, and your friends hounded me back by sharing and passing the above totally ad hominem -gresch, a word I here now invent for precisely this. I suggest in equal good faith to your own, that you would do well to concern yourself, due to your goodness and no more, with the logic of my post to talk at the Supreme Court of the United States of America,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&diff=36747580&oldid=36659221[]and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&diff=36752592&oldid=36750079 ,[]. I fear greatly for your law as it has been greatly compromised. That is why the repair has to be made- in order to uphold it the better. I also believe you would do very well to lodge the entirety of your capable heart into the issue of duality entering into the ministration of life, which you know to affect you and to affect me equally as specified at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cormac_Cardinal_Murphy-O%27Connor,[]. I emeind uyou that I am not only historically right, but that I am morally right by your own Law. You should be sorry if I am to be  decapitated, as you will never be sure to see any historically sound morality here again. Since you still very sincerely still insist on something being my theory I sincerely suggest you read what is a shorter and hopefully last post made to Jimbo at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=37015483,[]. No sincerity unfortunatelly can remove from the Shirer quotes, all the justification that I anyway, personally and mentally require for my action in Wikipedia. Morally I have dealt with. I know that these days it is considered bad taste to calin any such values, and that my appearance here has been in the most grossly offensive because awkwardly hypocritical character, and I try one last appeal to you as an honest person to face up tot the catastrophic continuation of hypocrisy epitomised at the 15 december at Adolf Hitler the Wikipedia Article. As to traceable I was under the impression that I was traceable, that a favour could be called in by a militant but I understand that a proper Court Order would have to be made. If I were to be, I should look into my heart and I would know, as I have every time I have pressed the save page button, that what I do is morally necessitated and right, and returns me to the bosom of the righteous and warm of heart. As you well know I have been throughout quite purely vexed by contradictions of Law, and I quote one about Opinion to Jimbo now. I did already with a pure heart, I believe, quote Law at you, and it is here and plain for you to see, such Law being close to your precious own heart. I wish you equally well in the repair of that great heart that you so long to feel. May it recover most speedily in order to assist all of any heart and faith ,whose lives have so directly been affected by this its opportunistic transgression. I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law, but be done for the sake of moral law. I repeat to you, Young Lady, That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition , and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination. That is your heart of Jesus, and is the heart of all faiths, and as it says, all reason. You will all miss me greatly for I am a great, far sighted, defender of man. One of them. God help us all :Lord, Save Us, Keep Us and Make Us Light to Shine Upon Us. EffK 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, EffK. I can assure you that nobody intends to try to trace your identity. Since that is the case, I don't believe that there is any need for me to stamp on attempts to do so, but if it helps you in any way, I promise you that if there are any attempts, I will discourage them. Certainly, there will be no such attempts from me. I am aware of the "FK" research that brought you back to Wikipedia in November, but that was not an attempt to find out who you are. (And Str1977 has never made any secret of his own country of residence and his language background.) So you have nothing to worry about from anyone on Wikipedia. And, I believe I am not the only one to wish you well. Thank you for your good wishes. Goodbye, and may all go well with you. AnnH (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated Hola
¿Cómo te va? Quiero decirte que ahora enseño el español en la Universidad de Florida del Sur - muchos personas me dicen que hablo como un hablante nativo. Realmente, hablo tantas veces mejor que puedo escribir. Ojalá que estés bien. ¡No te metas en mas lío! Estoy muy feliz que no saliste. (Todavía tengo que mejorar mi escritura y gramática, dime si hice un error o no, por favor.)

Para el proxímo semestre en la Universidad, voy a aprender el francés. Espero que valga la pena (a veces yo lo dudo). Quiero decir que el francés es bonito, pero no es muy útil. Hasta luego, ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  19:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bengalski: Another great scandal
It does look like they're getting you banned - a great wiki scandal in my opinion. I've made a start trying to do some work on the Pius XII page - let's see how quickly it gets reverted. I'm sorry it's taken me so long after saying I would help. One thing - I've put in a reference to the Mowrer quote you've mentioned - do you have a page number I can cite?Bengalski 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi EffK. These are the quotes from Shirer you directed me to before (the ones that were swiftly archived by Str1977): # Shirer:"Hitler... added- with an eye to the votes of the Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See". [23 March 1933]


 * 1) Shirer:"Monsignor Kaas, the party leader, had demanded a written promise from Hitler that he would repect the President's power of Veto. But though promised before the voting, it was never given. Nevertheless the Centre leader rose to announce that his party would vote for the bill."
 * I'm trying to understand this, but it's not easy for me as I don't have direct access to any of the books in qustion. The first quote seems to allude to the quid pro quo around the enabling act, but the truth is it's hard to understand exactly without more context. If you could quote some more of teh passage around it that might help me.


 * BTW obviously you're right that this is a much bigger issue than just one paragraph in the Pius XII page, but we have to start somewhere. I think one paragraph on this in that page may be about right, but then readers should be referred to a much more detailed discussion on te Reichskonkordat and/or Enabling Act pages. The problem is EffK, much as I do want to help with this, I am not a scholar of this period, and I am handicapped by having almost no access to the texts. So you will have to have some patience with me, and I don't know how much I will be able to achieve. But believe me when I say I am 100% on your side on this.Bengalski 13:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 claims POV pushing, EffK answer re Bigotry
EffK, you are free to edit your user page (this one here) but you are not allowed to delete stuff from archives or from other user pages. Str1977 12:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

EffK, I want to be honest so I say: No, unless you mend your ways I don't want you (and your POV pushing) to remain. However, that doesn't mean that you can take back your words. No one can. If you want to say you're sorry for the troubles you caused or if you want to recant your statements you are free to do so, but you are not allowed to delete stuff from talk pages (except immediate personal attacks) let alone from archives. The history of archives should have one entry and nothing else. Thanks for your consideration, Str1977 12:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Bigotry, History and The Future Someone, quite pleasantly, asks or suggests that EffK is a bigot, so I am going to try and answer this. Firstly, of course any notice or interaction here comes to be pleasant. I am, somewhere minor inside me, gratified to be told that source I bring to explain, is original. Since I don't park it on any articles, I don't feel it's a problem. In fact I only use source to back my editing, however I discuss and source for discussion.I use off-topic source & reason to explain topics, and hope that that explanation will justify my reasoning as to words and description in Articles.

Bigotry
I won't define bigotry but rather define where I am through this user-ship. As editor, I am and have been throughout prevented from straightening a piece of German or European History. This is really a 7 week period from 30 Jan 1933-23 March 1933.I am unsure of what percentage of this obstruction resulte from people now representing historical interest, what stems from bad information, what stems form any national conciousness, or from faith, or from present politics ,or stupidity.To understand this period I personally have accessed a bunch of paper source, going back to 1933 itself, but using paper(books)from 1934 and 1936. I have sourced books from 1941 and 1943, from then the 1950's and 1960's up until 1992. All these books are reputable, nay, themselves lay foundations for succeeding books. From the war, these books base themselves on such documents and affidavits as devolved to us from the War Trials. The writers do not source long documents specifying exactitude but rather paint pictures around the weeks under question. Complex depiction of social, political and even personal forces are made. When the person is very important, their statements of view become history. I make reference to personal historical ststements as they are required. Historians do so. The War Trials particularly depend upon statements which themselves are sourced back into the beginnings of the political force of Nazism in the 1920's. These last statements are hair-raising. You have to allow our Jewish brethen to remind us of quite how so consistently hair-raising, as the awful-ness of their character we all really would sooner forget. The whole history is deeply shocking, that we know, but quite how so is our ignorance,is equally shocking.

So, sources speak of this 7 weeks which end in the seizure of complete power by Hitler. Generally ,it is not understood that Hitler's seizure started so early in Germany. The year 1938 is better remembered for the last attempt to forestall his power, because for outsiders the force of Hitler is equated to his War. We do not understand, and we survived anyway, so it is simply a question now of remembering or not. Often it is said that we should remember, so as to not commit ourselves to similar paths ourselves- whoever we be. Yet- we do not understand. No one understands absolutely, as the seizure of power was so rapid and complete and Hitler fed off a series of factors and chance which are numerous and varied. Hitler went specifically along a path that would give him power in such a manner as to persuade people's hearts. The measure of his achievement is that still we imagine him to have risen by the legal will of the German people. However he and his Lieutenants were committing a conspiracy, for which they were hanged.

The sources depict this process of seizure as being within this 7 weeks. Hitler over-turned all that had gone before by way of constitutional and it appears from the histories un-constitutional developement, and we do not understand how he did this.

We all know that Hitler himself was in control of a catastrophic War policy, how he died etc. But this was 12 years later. At the start it is fuzzy in our minds, where it all came from. The results of Hitler were so great that there remains interest in every part of his history. Now, bigotry results from a partial view of history. In the end only understanding of the whole can remove the assumptions upon which bigotry rests. The varied contributory factors, influences and events by themselves require particular focus as they each arise. I have enumerated from source the interests which at the beginning of the seven weeks, and at the end of the seven weeks, seemed to have adjoined in interest with Hitler and his Party, of which he had become chief. The interests is to say forces social, industrial and political, and even religious. This last has been of particular focus to me, largely because the last retains an apparent desire to deny its interest, and unlike other interests, which were sent for Trial both sides of the Atlantic (Pacific apart) has not until recently been the subject of much notice. It may appear bigoted to so have focused, but our lack of understanding of the relationship between this force out-side of Germany with those other forces has only now become more general knowledge. I have not focused on forces within Germany, such as its entirely State within a State army, which was outside of Hitlerism, the Protestant collaboration, the German aristocracy, the landed classes, the Judiciary, the Unions, the small men with money etc.

Publication is, however, given in our day to uncovering all kinds of truths, such as corporate involvement of still-existing lesser forces like IBM. This last should alert us to another little understood part of the seven week history, to forces so far out-side of Germany that they were American or multi-national. To concentrate on this section of history would not be bigotry, either, any more than a focus on say the agricultural realities in Germany at this time. A focus on Communism or upon anti-semitism, indeed any focus, could appear odd.

It is my source that the whole temptation of some deep dark germanity of 'volkism' built up as a mental spring from at least before the out-break of the French Revolution, and that the disaster of the First World War precipitated this which, lying in the gentle heart of philosophically advanced people, descended into a disastrous politics. Argument begins precisely at the close of that War, both without, and within Germany. The very essence of Germany itself was fractured, yet again, as a territory and as a people of that language.

Dispute was made out-side Germany, and dispute and dissatisfaction raged within. Considerable blame rests with the French politicians and through them their people for mis-understanding the results of their interventions, made under force of arms, within Germany and in territories controlled by them. France never recovered its mind from its vast decimation of population in the First War, and was even more, if it is possible to be so, shameful in its self serving appeasement stupidity than the British.

British Imperialist thinking gave insufficient attention to these last forces, and had entered, at the Versailles Treaty close of the War, into it's own mental disputes. The British failed miserably to help the developing situation and slipped further and further towards political stupidity and blindness of their own.

The political hard-left everywhere failed in its own fashion, except that its over-all master, the Russian dictator Stalin, actively chose from the 1936 Spanish war, to profit from a new World War, which he did at the cost of 40 million Russians.

America was essentially, as always, un-interested and only the forces of American Capitalism play any part. This part is considerable, but is not much considered in polite Western society. It relates through to Germany in curious manner and is clearly sourceable from 1933 and before, and stands accused of largely contributing to a German economic bubble in the 1920's, at which end large capital was as irresponsibly withdrawn, as it had earlier been injected. American dead in the new War were relatively minor and tolerable to the capitalist structure, just as they had been with the previous war.

Bigotry call may arise because I do not limit myself as may be fashionable, to the latest 'historiography'. More so it comes because I give sourced report and qualification to another contributory force, the Catholic Church. This force complicates all the other factors as it naturally enters the German body politic. With a third of Germans Catholic, the force is parallel to the 'evangelical' force, and both affect politics. The evangelical protestantism incorporated itself into the Third reich with gust, but the latter force however is remarked rather more than the Capitalist forces or others,even from 1934 by my source, and by the Trials, and then by every historian since who pays attention to the Trials. Almost by it's nature, this force is hazy and social and seemingly by its nature a-political. In briefest it is summarised as having had a noble and durable political Party, which at the last, in a space of about 2 years, had the rug pulled from under this from the top, by its own top, in Rome.

In dealing with this last force, I have encounterd such constant obstruction here, that I have been stimulated to my focus, and to a complete sourced variance with that which even now appears here online. My user-name appears, due to my lack of an office of doppelgangers, to be monocausally focused at this forces summit. Incidental and extra to an analysis of the force through sourced history, I am taken towards a necessary explanation of where we are.Of, why this part of the history is contentious, or more, forbidden and secret. The explantion for this has necessitated source from within the Church itself, which quite quickly explains itself by its own numbered behavioural norms. These are all translated into English, though the previous edition is only available in French (and Latin). They are also clear in both their purpose and their language, and relate to all human activity, including politics and where it stands in relation to it. I was constrained to do this by the nature of contradiction between this force, and Hitler. The historians supply us openly with motive, and discussion here on talk pages,is only required for understanding the nature of the force and its intervention, and the results which it caused to others and to itself.

Historical results were dire all round, and for several forces remain so. I believe the Capitalist forces will come to further deeper account, but only when the world requires sufficient stick to beat it down for ecological necessity. I mean that human consciousness will be still affectible and may need this as extra proof towards solution of ecological un-accountability.

It appears to me that any questions remaining for the Church relate to us too,in so far as the future world will likely need to borrow back from this force, that human truth which it precisely failed to uphold. The Church has profited by the force it brought to these seven weeks, and humanity will indeed take back that which the Church sought to preserve for it. These accounts will equally bear on future human relationships, as we arrive at the holistic politics of our ecological future.

As humans we have not profited as a whole from even the lessons of our mistakes, and it was to be hoped that Wikipedia would help, though I am presently sceptical, as these lesson contain un-acceptible truths. I have to report that instruction made on 21 febuary 2005, orders that purely spiritual reflection should be presented to the intellect, even the intellect on Wikipedia. The church force has organised a path for us which is contrary to our intellect and our history, but otherwise welcoming and beautiful reassurance.

User:EffK
I was told by Jimbo in early sepember 2005 to walk away from WP whilst I could with my head held high. i considered that a contradiction, but indeed did do , only returning after A User drew me back with un-acceptable attempts at tracing of my identity he labelled FK research. Jimbo said there was no merit in trying to persuade people who did not wish to hear. Jimbo did not answer my question as which rules in WP, majority of source or majority of users.

A cursory glance through my usernames, or just this present one will show my trajectory, which is ugly and shocking, but somebody had to do it, and it wasn't you , was it , Mr Jones ?. (from the song?)

Silencing of EffK
At Arbcom the suggestions are being made to silence me by disallowing me from editing any article or discussion which touches on the Church or presumably the history articles that show relations between the Church and peoples. This would extend into my analysis of AIDS issues and teaching and influence therein. It would relate to President Bush's assumption of Church policy. Hence any silencing of me may cost actual human lives, silencing such as this policy's effects in Uganda, as reported by the BBC. At a stroke the Wikipedia will be denied the benefits of such reports, whether to do with Sex Abuse, financial settlements of that, report I made of Jewish request for opening of the Vatican records made directly to the pontiff in Cologne in 2005, and many more issues.

I note that the Arbcom trial does not go so far,yet, as suggesting a ban of me entirely, but just from such subjects. This must be because someone has noticed that, in fact, I have sourced all editing, and thus it would be contrary to Wikipedia practice to do that. In so far as there is at least one project I analyse in Wkipedia that needs to be done, the report of how German philosophy evolved and laid fertile ground for Hitler, I think I could keep off Church articles for rather more than the year ban proposed.(And will the ban be from touching all Church denominations, all religions or simply one, leaving me to help edtors who note existing imbalance as regards evangelical church involvement with pre-war European politics?) The Wikipedia quality will suffer, as any cursory glance at Weimar and Nazi elevation to power will show complete absence of breadth before I entered. In the case of papal involvement in Germany at the end of Weimar, I do not think a ban of little me will effect the silencing of the Jewish calls, nor the rolling on of written history exterior to this organ,evidenced by the plethora of books concerning this subject. Presumably the Wikipedia would be banning these writers, were they to repeat their findings here.

In good faith I have reported the Church's infiltration policy in Wikipedia to the owner of it, Jimbo Wales, who came back with a very diplomatic reply. In all- the Wikipedia is on a cleft stick here: if it bans me ,including and despite my sources, it could appear foolish and biased for the Church; and if it does not, it will likely cause trouble with the church as an immense congregation. I told Jimbo that there had had to be a catch in the otherwise successful encyclopedic attempt, and I note that he has appointed somehow or other, delegated decision making in arbitration.

I shall obviously have to source now the Church Law which justifies my assertion, claimed wrongly to be a personal attack, that a user/users are acting as vatican agents. So that the Wikipedia will firmly understand the legal position requiring their behaviour, and that it is law that threatens its transgressors with much much more than any Wikipedia law of excommunication.

Pontifical Council For Social Communication Spring 2005 Media Conference
Note:The relevant body asserting the 21 order is the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, scretary the new Bishop 'best and brightest renato Boccardo, an Italian who is deputy to archbishop John Foley. Boccardo used to organise papal travel and was involved in Toronto's World Youth Day. Another 'organiser' of the Conference which followed the papal order of 21 Febuary before the 24 Febuary Conference was Gunther Lawrence, and this below directly leads to the ICJHC Commission's study of the wartime Vatican: In April 1999.......reminder of the Holocaust in ..... the Vatican: The menorah...... was placed in... Rome The .....idea ... came from Gunther Lawrence....Interreligious Information Center of New York City.... by........Cardinal... Cassidy, president of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. The Cassidy originated ICJHC Commission's resulting 2001 questions relate solely to wartime,and are troubling. The Commission has been in 'failure' since the preliminary 2001 report.

The 24-27 Febuary 2005 Conference Euronews report clearly specified the new-wave Catholic injunctions to confront and work the The Internet. The conference brought high-tech multi-faith B2B Execs to Rome, some on contract. I am sure Mr Lawrence is proud, and I and Euronews noted the success.

catholicism and Indefinitive Submission of the Intellect
Code of Canon Law, Canon 752 – While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. Fair Use/Educational/Public from http://www.memorare.com/liturgy/atf.html

Wikipedia Trials
Finally the long struggle against historical denialism I have on Wikipedia has brought forth a charge against me warranting and resulting in an actual trial. This is entirely karmic given that it is I alone who bring to notice that legality exists today for a different Trial or Judicial finding after-the-fact. I refer to the parallel and hghly defined legal reality applicable to all the Roman Catholic Church, which is Canon Law. Canon law appears to descend by divine revelation and the Holy Bible as constituted by very distant historical synods. This revelation of Law is claimed as the Divine Magisterium, the upholding and truth of which is the central pillar of all Christendom. I believe that there is a very large over-lap or sharing of the derivative canonical laws between the various sects or parts of Christianity.

I understand from Canon Law that a Roman Catholic is a Roman Catholic by faith and by acceptance of the canons of Roman Catholicism and that therefrom derives his/her position within the body of the church, usually described without capitalisation when this refers to the actual living human constituents of a living body of faith. The Church as institution( is capitalised)and upholds this faith, through the divine magisterium and its detailed and seriously legal sounding exegesis in Canon Law, written and ,even up-dated ,by the Church.

The trial to which I referred was the canon law post facto recognition of automatic excommunication for four named catholics, all dead, though all in need of regularisation in canonical legality. The doing so is pre-figured within this law, to the extent of demand within the Law that it be done for the good of the church. The four people are Achille Ratti,Eugenio Pacelli, Franz von Papen and Ludwig Kaas. Sadly these four persons contumately or knowingly of the Law, chose to transgress from the law in such serious manner that they have caused a scandal of historic proportion. The Canon requires that these persons' breaking of the magisterium, even beyond their death require recognition in judgement, for the defence of the church from scandal.

The canon Law claims that these persons incurred automatic excommunication at the moment of their transgression of the magisterium, and in fact any judgement purely is to provide public Church recognition of this canonical situation. Detailed canonical instructions exist to provide the church with sufficient defence from the contumate attack made by these persons upon the magisterial faith and which are required even seventy years after the offences.

The offences are themselves purely canonical and magisterial, so the regularisation too, is purely canonical. The offences exist solely within the parallel international widely instituted law of the church. In international law, the offences do not exist, and the one person amongst them tried as a war criminal was not brought to prosecution on the offence .However the offence was stated and considered and abandoned within 'International Allied Military Law', nascent at the time, which is 1946, at the Nuremburg Trials .The offence that was declared to not be an offence was the assisting of Hitler in his rise to absolute Dictator. The person was not declared innocent but the reverse, however the offence was itself categorised as non-existant.

The four persons conspired together over a period of months from about May 1932 to 23 March 1933.The latter date effected the offence, which was the actual empowering of Adolf Hitler by the Enabling Act. With the help of another Wikipedian ,the contumacy or knowledge of the Law while nevertheless breaking the Law, is entirely clear for Ludwig Kaas, a Monsignor or prelate of the Church. This contumacy appears in his parliamentary record of 23 March in the German Republic.

The following two persons were the highest and the second rank in the Church. The highest would have had to possess the knowledge of the Law he ,personally and canonically embodied, and his contumacy exists from April 10 1933 by public affirmation of canonically proscribed offences. Such offences were very widely reported to this highest rank by numerous low ranking Church representatives in canonical ministry. The offence equally concerns the empowerment of Hitler. The most serious charge is confirmed by the words of a deceased witness as recorded by second hand witness from May 1932, and published to the world in 1968. The papal statement of April 10 itself confirms the desire to effect canonical illegality that is earlier expressed. The desire is historically well known and derives from diplomatic and political temptation: this highest figure desired the installation of a political murderer or tyrant to help in the protection of the Church as an institution from another potential political murderer. Church history clearly defines the former as offensive from prior to the May 1932 allegation of witness as much as the latter.

The fourth person, Eugenio Pacelli,with his second rank in the Church and his proximity to the installation of the murderous Hitler effected by the two other persons, Papen and Kaas, could be isolated as encompassing a colder contumate transgression of the magisterium. This person defined the Church policy for his leader and co-ordinated its implementation downwards to the other two persons. In terms of modern crime against humanity, rank and orders are not considerd legitimising factor. This person himself in his youth had worked to define the Law by his own intellectual design and equally was completely aware of the approved murderer's methods of operation. His contumacy is as utter as his design and impementation of approval for the chosen of the tyrants.

The murder was politico-religious in both perpetrators, and the murder committed was defined mostly by the character of the victims belief. In the former approved murderer there was a central racial element transcending belief, which whilst not absent from the latter, was not its central characteristic. Both murderers, Hitler , and Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili (Joseph Stalin) are considered by their numbers of victims to be in the first rank of human mass murder. It is notable that the former approved murderer refused any possibility of redemption in this world to those he classed by racial means, whereas the latter more generally defined his victims as transgressors for whom in-human work could hold worldly redemption. Some few returned to tell the tale. In the case of the approved tryrant only rare escape or armed liberation released the victims from death.

The Church which contributed to the success of great murder by its approval and empowerment acted through the person of Ludwig Kaas in a Parliament, the Reichstag of the German Empire called Republic. Recognition of the act of Ludwig Kaas in this democratic parliament as contumate breaking of the magisterium, is not canonically dependent upon non-canonical political evaluation, justification or judgement. The breaking of the magisterium is expressed by this person on the very day that he chose to empower that which he knew to be canonically and magisterially criminal. The action of Ludwig Kaas is even if judgementally un-relateable to the remaining character, von Papen, relateable through the clear definition of Canon Law to the two other high personages. In Canon Law the prelate acted under the overall canonical responsibility administering him as pure agent for the will of the magisterium as pontificated by both persons. His position in political life was canonically defined and accepted as such by all three.

The fourth person, von Papen, at his trial, effectively said that he was obeying orders from the highest person. He countered the prosecutions charge that the Concord he effected between the Church and the approved tyrant was a maneuver designed to deceive, by purely passing such charge to the top, which by then was the previous second rank. Neither then nor now does the Institution which is so embodied accept any exterior temporal sovereignty but that of its Magisterium. Von Papen's contumacy is the least, whereas his political equivalent is the greatest, arising from his crucial manipulation of temporal forces, particularly through arranging banking for the approved tyrant.

The justifications for the contumacy of the highest persons reside,despite the War Trials mentions, in a necessity for the defence of the Institution of the Church (a prime canonical requirement). The publicised charges, made ever since, reside in accusation that the Institution of the Church was placed above the protection of the church as a human group: necessity to preserve the teachings of the faith in the Magisterium took precedence over the human danger from approval towards a murderer. One part of the Magisterium was contumately up-ended to further a lesser canonical requirement.

In Wikipedia the charge against me is that as member of it as a body or community, I describe the historical temporal reflections of the abstract magisterial transgression. By this, the Wikipedia as a body is relying on its own new type of manageing canonicals or Laws. These are extensive but purely relate to that which is known temporally, and that which is apparent opinion. This is the magisterium of the Wikipedia, thus the characterisation that I own to the latter is the most serious charge possible. The charge is supported by note of my supposed opinion concerning a cross-over of the actual canonical Law into the intellectual magisterium of the Wikipedia: I charged that members of Wikipedia who are members of the Church or church are foremost the members of the latter. I did so in recognition of the primacy for even Wikipedia members of the church Magisterium and Canon Law.

I answer this charge firstly by referring the body of the Wikipedia to the specific definition and requirement upon the body of its members by the church. This as clearly now, as in 1932-3, legally requires its body to that same defence of the Church as Institution. The very reasons publicised clearly only since the War Trials, by being so published, contradict the first part of the Wikipedia charge.

Wikipedia canonicals estimate secondly the assumption and practice of good faith amongst its body. In so far as I have to answer for transgressing this, I counter that this very Wikipedia canonical requires me to take as good faith the claims of adherence to the body of the church made to me by those who so do. Wikipedia may be unaware of the Church's Canon Law, but such a member of the church is not free and centrally must accept that all Law, even in Wikipedia, is supersceded by the Church's Canon Law. In good faith it is accepted by such members, in good faith it was claimed to me and in good faith do I accept the statements of adherence made to me.

A third Wikipedia canonical requires Civility from me. In so far as I have interacted with the body of the church through a representative upon Wikipedia, my notice of the subject's defence of the Church, if that is what it has appeared to me to be, is done through repeated positive congratulation to this subject of the church. My own temporal nature does not reside in any canonical foundations but those that have been normally filtered through classicism and christendom to what are termed Western. The only body to which I have ever tried to accord any type of canonical allegiance is the Wikipedia itself.

The other major canonical-type foundation of Wikipedia is verifiability of information prior to its inclusion, and I seem to have run into most dispute in this canon, which can be qualified by detrimental qualifications made by editors about certain sources. At the very start of my contributions to Wikipedia I warned that the gravity of the witness to this scandalous history would ,if disparaged, need thorough quotation in thereby fair-use of copyrights. A consostent attempt to rubbish the nature of the sources and of the proofs has indeed forced me to so use quotations at a rather greater length than editors who are re-writing already composed ex-Brittanica articles.

In this forthcoming Wikipedia Trial I am threatened with censure and particularly a form of partial or complete excommunication from its body or community. Remarkably this is the exact penalty foreseen under Canonical Law as penalty against the four persons whose trangressions I noted in Wikipedia. Alternatively I can only foresee a difficult situation where the Wikipedia chosen appointed might represent that indeed the notces I have made are justified under Wikipedia canonicals. To do so would inevitably place the Wikipedia in some opposition to continued prevarication in the Church which is still delaying the required censure and Canonical regularisation of its members so noted.|Of course, due to the novelty of attributing Canon Law to past events, the actual subject I speak of here, is considered against another Wikipedia canon, which prohibits original research. However, what is not aceptible is that upon so influential an organ as Wikipedia, that information can rest in contradiction with itself, as it currently does. Qualification as to history on one article can completely negate information on another, and someone who attempts to redress such error when it touches upon a body so central to people's beliefs as the Church, ends in my case with many accusations of, particularly. obsessional behaviour. Unfortunately we all have differeing levels of understanding and knowledge, and I know that none who are set up to judge me , would be likely to spot the contradictions still present as I write.

Consequent on a dismissal of the charge made against me, of presenting a theory as opposed to facts and source, subsequent attention would have to be paid in the so far small Institution of the Wikipedia as to how its membership position their allegiance to the two sets of canonicals so far mentioned. The Wikipedia may have to confront several more such contradictions with other out-side Institutions of humanity, some of whom go further than excommunication by way of censure. In so far as Wikipedia builds a body of adherents to its canonicals, it builds itself laws and that which is notable in Wikipedia is noticed now by probably all organised bodies or Institutions of humanity, whether these are cellular reflection of central Law, as in some human agglomerative bodies, or pyramidal as in the case of the Church.

I believe the only solution for the Wikipedia is to elevate rational Kantian Truth beyond that which is considered a neutral good faith civil point of view. That, Wikipedia has to place itself legally into the same construction of law that humanity is in the process of designing, and certainly not in contradiction with rationality. However one further canon of Wikipedia concerns the proscription of Legal threats. This is a canon of Wikipedia that I am guilty of breaking, even if in good faith. I did this by remarking that such and such an opinion would be classed as proscribed in certain western countries, and by here repeating the canonical threat against actual persons, even dead ones,that they are are, by Canon Law, to be declared post factoas having made themselves guilty at the offence. This I have always referred to in Wikipedia under the title The Question of the Law.

Outcome for Wikipedia and for User EffK
I am categorially now adjudged

1) EffK is banned from all articles relating to the Catholic Church. This restriction shall be interpreted broadly

2) EffK is banned for 1 year for personal attacks, POV-pushing, and general disruption of the encyclopedia

3) Should EffK cause disruption on any article (including its talk page), he may, at the decision of any administrator, be banned from editing that article (and, if applicable, its talk page) for a period of no more than three months. Bans are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK#Bans. and

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view, but articles are in inapprpriate place to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

2) Neutral Point of View is one of the pillar principles of Wikipedia. This means that points of view (POVs) should be presented as points of view. The fact that a particular point of view has been stated by a reputable scholarly source does not justify presenting it as fact or NPOV.

3) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes disruptive.

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

5) Wikipedia editors, as a part of Wikipedia:Civility, are expected to assume good faith - simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

6) Article talk pages are intended for discussion that is relevant to the proposed content of articles. They should not be used as soapboxes for arguments that are irrelevant to or tangential to article content.

As the banned User I can only whistle on the way to the digital gallows this song from my nemesis (which I am not supposed to do but which is relevant to the/my hanging):


 * Wikipedia attracts some very unpleasant people. Some of them think that they are Christians, and some of them hate Christians. Tomorrow (by United States time) I will listen to a priest tell me how to be a better Christian, and will then join with other Christians in the Body of Christ. from Robert McClenon 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Endnotes

I relation to my banning I may as well insert here that which I contributed to end Wikipedia error, and which has stood largely untouched during at least 1500 intervening edits of that Article:


 * After the Reichstag was set on fire (for which the communists were blamed), the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 February) suspended basic rights including habeas corpus and in the resulting legal confusion the entire KPD and some quarter of the SPD were un-constitutionally arrested, put to flight or murdered under this general cover.


 * Despite evident questions concerning the perpetration of the Reichstag Fire, and resulting calls for cancellation of the Elections, Adolf Hitler successfully utilised the full novel force of State broad-casting and aviation in a massive modern campaign General Election campaign. This period is characterised by stongest anti-Jewish and anti-Communist propaganda . On 6 March 1933, after elections marred by paramilitary violence the Communists lost 4 per cent, and Social Democrats 2 per cent, thus their Deputy numbers little changed. The Nazis received an increase to 43.9% of the vote. This brought the coalition between them and the DNVP into a slim but absolute majority.


 * Hitler's parliamentary majority basis that existed was however to be much exacerbated through the un-constitutional preventative-detention of the Communist deputies, carried over from before the Elections. The manner in which Hitler excluded them and their mandates from parliament revolves on an Interior Minister settlement with the Reichstag Elders. This amounted to a change of Procedure categorising them as voluntarily absent and achieved thereby the necessary long-term Hitler aim of legal appearance for NSDAP policy of subverting democracy from within.


 * At an impressive constitutional opening ceremony of the Reichstag, held in the replacement parliament building on 21 March, both Hindenburg and the world press were impressed by Hitler's apparent acceptance of constitutional government.


 * The government in the newly elected [[Reichstag (institution) brought to its table the resurrected early Weimar Enabling Act which was to give Hitler's Cabinet sweeping legislative powers. The bill required a two-thirds majority in order to pass and the Nazis still needed support from other parties. Efforts towards this drastic 4-year abandonment of democracy had been continuous off and on for some period, perhaps since the the Centre Chairman Kaas had independently and alone contacted now Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papenon 6 March.


 * The Centre Party was split on this issue, but had negotiated with Hitler supporting the parliamentary bill in return for his government giving sundry guarantees.These concerned catholic Trade Unions of civil servants belonging to the Centre Party along with educational freedom and autonomy of the Catholic Church. However beyond these guarantees, developed in Committee from 20 March, was a decisive Hitler promise to Kaas of further written general constitutional guarantee. On this basis the Centre Party agreed on the morning of 23 March to assent to the Enabling Act.

I say that the figure of Ludwig Kaas sits above what I can only describe as the one apparently indisputably real "dimensional fissure" of recent verifiable history. This fissure leads through to an underworld of conspiracy theory the which I at any rate cannot judge, and hardly can find the time to read. It has never been my intention to reveal that which appears to lie within that dimension- you can all see it being reported as you wish elsewhere in books and articles. I however with these words on Hitler, have tried to add words on Kaas and upon the history between the two men, but the dimensional fissure beneath, which I have not joined in contemplating, makes of the history a minefield. The above accusations of the Wikipedia court findings against me all relate to my experience in trying to enter that which is verifiable, or un-verifiable, source concerning this man Kaas. The impossibility of doing so-which is still the case, made of me that which is termed obsessive. When you see a lie against rationality- sourced and all, you can either look away, or challenge it.

The judgement against me completely refrains from any analysis of evidence given to it by me, and thus utterly ignores my having throughout asked for regulatory help to present that source and restrain the bad faith, because un-verified, challenge to it. My in, blog terms, tastelessness in attempting persuasion at length is adjudged obsessional, yet the fruits of this appear and are accepted nearly word for word in the principle articles of the principle evil in tweentieth century History. Where they were not accepted, as at Ludwig Kaas now, they are misrepresented and emasculated to become less dangerous. I am in the odd position of being in my plethora of source, entirely historically mainstream, yet now being myself utterly un-acceptable as a contributor. My edits stand as proven, yet I am a POV (liar). I am, in effect, being thrown out for being correct.

I have to challenge the actual error of the Court's judgement that 2) EffK is banned for 1 year for POV-pushing as this is to ridicule not me but the mainstream sourced history. It is so technically wrong as to make of this court, an ass, far  more ridiculous than my verbose self. It is unnecessary to itemise the Judges, as the Publisher of this finding, makes of me a defamation in reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the published statement. It is only going to be my course of action to appeal this sentence and judged statement, if I consider that it be beneficial to society to do so. I certainly have lost all faith in this Publisher and in his principles or morality in relation to all society, and will not contemplate here any internal appeal. I rather demand a retraction from the publisher of his defamation of me by default.

I fear that the open source nature of this organ, purporting as it does to build up a beneficial reflection of facts and truths, since it is, as I know, so easily subverted by a common purpose between disparate editors, borders on being actually harmful to society at large. I am considering whether an appeal will become my duty-not in Wikipedia, but by possibly adjoining my experience to the class currently bringing legal action against the organ. I am acutely aware of the apparent attack upon the supposedly libertarian benefits of Wikipedia that that suit represents, but since my experience is that Wikipedia is dangerously corrupted by common purpose I may be constrained to join this suit for the greater good. I do not believe that the verifiable facts that I have partly entered here, would have been enterable without my very persistent intention to correct. The continuing attempt to force views over sources here, in relation to the regime of Hitler, informs this belief. I do not need to argue with these appointed judges why, as I have clearly based myself on not one or two but on all the mainstream historical sources. I do not know whether these judges will ever need to be themselves arraigned, but that their Publisher has shown a reckless disregard of the mainstream or of its truth or falsity in this caharge against me, is of little doubt. I wrote to him throughout and he throughout shewed a reckless disregard of falsity bordering on contempt. As far as I can see this is contrary to all that his libertarian concept instituted by way of reasonable regulation. My attempts over a year to obtain fair treatment by an arbitration of particular revisionist denialism, were ignored.

My conclusion is that if Wikipedia can be subverted away from verifiable source, as in my constant appeal, then society is better informed by even clearly partisan historical websites. The supposedly truthful good faith and verifiability here, is in my experience a danger to society, persuading of the un-wary that that good faith and verifiability rules. The repetition throughout parallel website organs in fact makes of Wikipedia a central means of propaganda. The charge that I myself used it for making propaganda I have elsewhere covered, under rules allowing for the explanation of motives within and caused by beliefs. In the field of the rise of Hitler I have had to explain more than the Judges here have evidently wished to understand. I believe their wish to be a judgement upon them, just as the recklessness of the Publisher, is more a judgement upon him than myself. I came here to overturn clear revisionist wrong. I have in part done so, and I have isolated the origins of that wrong, some smaller part of which were known to me earlier. The Publisher essentially has avoided until now any part or responsibility, despite being told categorically that that classing of the verifiable, the mainstream, as my personal POV, was to wilfully injure not me, but the history of humanity itself. If I join in the Class action, I shall raise it from what appears, and I have very little knowledge of it, to be a series of personal or particular issues, towards a central issue of reckless disregard for the truth of history simply epitomised by this judgement, of my good faith and verifiablity, as propaganda. The Publisher never answered my reasonable question as to whether a majority of users somewhere on Wikipedia could over-ride a majority of sources( ie mainstream by published proof). It was and remains remiss and now it is too late.EffK 12:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

JohnLeemk: Arbitration case closed,Musical Linguist
The case against you has been closed. You are hereby banned from Wikipedia for one year. When you return, you are banned from editing Catholicism articles, as well as any other articles you may disrupt. This will be enforced by block. Johnleemk | Talk 09:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you(or anyone )say whether this Catholicism catch-all includes Adolf Hitler?EffK 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, EffK. I sent you a message last night, further up on this page, just to assure you that nobody is going to try to trace your identity. To answer your question, I have read the Arbitration Committee's decision, and my understanding is that you are banned from Wikipedia for a year. When that year has expired, you are free to come back and edit articles that are not related to the Catholic Church. As far as I know, that would leave you free to edit Adolf Hitler, etc. However, if an administrator considers that you are disrupting any article (or its talk page), you can be banned from that article for up to three months. So, you could come back and edit Adolf Hitler, but if you cause disruption, you'll be banned from there as well. At least, that's my understanding. Hope that helps. Good luck. AnnH (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sweet. Same thing'll happen: You maybe, but they definitely, will miss me terribly. My expression of thought will be missed-not my facts which are so verifiably un-acceptable - but my expression will be missed. Of course, in a pool of such fish. But don't worry it is suggested yet again that I open the blog, and I might allow you to post because you are rather gentle . You are caught and I know why, and I'm sorry I tortured you with the sex scandal(and still could but won't ). I have been reading Giovanni- I may broaden my education following the CDF around here . Str1977 cleverly did not ever answer as he is forbidden to lie. Indeed you all are, which is fascinating in itself. McClenon the CDF cop I see is hard at it out there preying on new fish to fry. As to you, here, I know you are under obligations, and I know that my little point abbout the catholicism of Hitler couldn't be left there to dangle. No one is able to answer or give a delineation around catholicism and where it ends or begins. I have caused no disruption to any article, except that minor compositional loss of order which has come from being hounded at the time.

To Sam

 * Sam, thanks, equally. Any email will have to be put here or await the blog. Damn- I had hoped to get my life back, not run the counter-ops. Perhaps I could let it all drop.....a few days. And why should I do this Jimbo the favour anyway? EffK 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)