Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Great Scandal

Gravity of the Subject(s)
To Durova remarks: I was going to  congratulate you upon your rather  sinwiki  but admirable use of " consider the gravity of the subject", and  yr addition prompts me to  now do so.

The gravity extends into WP itself - and is  at present  a camouflaged information war The article  is already out of world sight  -and  the shot fired  virtually that is a  simple fact. I have thanked the  opposition  ( the long standing  Str1977/FK McClenon war ) at times  for, by denials , they stimulate the truth. But it is not yet decided who wins ,they are shooting at the minute (maybe Pjacobi can be left out of this 4 now or forever ). same info war  over-runs  the outside publishing/academic worlds, by  long absence of  people understanding the gravity , & has  brought this current , and appalling , weakness  here in WP cyberspace.

I have seen this in terms of the academia  of widerstand' studies,  where there was always  the slow-burn   paper-published  snails pace  of info war , so I am particularly aware of every nuance  and ,well in WP, it's massage. Just one of my open accusations, just one of the means used.

I anyway encourage your interventions wherever in or out of this still contemporary history, or, equally  encourage you to walk on away to  wherever on WP or  out of it. I have to simply say that what some qualify as FK paranoia comes from this highly developed  near-olfactory sense  stimulated by the widerstand  disputes. I mean the dispute between those who would revise and repaint ( through what should be purely admirable research and analysis ) and those who recognised and understood  from before  the  original thirties conflicts ever started.

There is no need to reply to me personally, in fact I would prefer that you purely address the issues , well, not prefer but advise , due to the gravity of the subject. No- I do not concur with WP presentation of Widerstand- I just don't have the time to train myself in that direction. I have also simply not (been allowed due to Perpetual Edit Waror  PEW ( Ill write that page, who has such  PEW history ? ) time to tain my direction at the protestant Churches in Germany  . In fact,  EffK 09:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FK, on a totally unrelated subject: I'm aware that is rather difficult to change one's typing habits, but your contributions would be much less painfull to read, if you'd stop plenking. --Pjacobi 10:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Durova
The source for the title "The Great Scandal" was not in the article page. That was not the only unsourced claim in the article, and I should not have to read all of the discussion on the AfD page before voting when it was clear to me that the article as it is, is not a basis for cleanup. For instance, I considered trying to edit the discussion of the Russian Orthodox Church and Schism of East and West, but would have had to delete that paragraph and write another one that does not conflate the Schism of East and West with the Russian Revolution. Rather than criticizing other editors for voting to delete the article, why not put the source in the article? Robert McClenon 20:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When you stop bashing me, I might find the time . EffK 11:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)