User talk:Famekeeper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 10:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi, old Spaniard (I understand that quite well, FK, and I bear you no grudge for the things you said (though some of them were directed at me personally and some are dangerous, given that there are actually “totalitarian liberals” around that want to control). Anyway, Sometimes I even enjoyed your “verbosity”, though in a very “I marvel and can’t shut my mouth again” way. Also please take my “longest link” post not too seriously. I just had to post it, it beat all. But nevertheless, here’s my reply (to be read in parallel to your post): I hope you believe me by now that I am no evil conspiracy, certainly not of renegades in ecclesiastical law. Not in the least do I want to “subvert the WP from due recognition of awful mistakes, made even in … good-faith”. Mistakes are mistakes. Error of judgement is error of judgment, but conspiracy is another thing and that I am denying. No, I estimate you as an honest but easily inflammable editor who unfortunately all too often jumps too quickly and then is, to quote from Dilbert, “emotionally bound to his view.” History not just ‘’is’’ – it needs to be reconstructed. Scholarly historiography is not so unlike natural sciences. You oberseve, you set up hypothesis, you try to prove or falsify them. The result in physics is not “reality” but a “theory” resembling it, explaining it. The same with historiography, only that it’s not about repeatable experiments but about sources. The sources are dots on a scrap of paper – the historian has to connect these and often it is not clear which connections are the correct ones. As in our case, I think. I’m sorry that “catholic ever tried to persuade (you) of anything”. Unfortunately many Catholics are just “formal” Catholics or staying in the closet or try to ignore difficult issues, such as this. Well, we cannot control how we meet up, yes it was to stop something, what I consider inappropriate editing, or bring you to reasonable, NPOVish contribution I know that WP is in a tricky position … but the balancing has to go in both ways. I mean the internet is full of conspiracy stories and half-truths and bad history. You can get Edward Gibbon everywhere for free, but you cannot get any modern, more up-to-date work on the topic for free on the internet. If I really used “Ad hominem” then I’m sorry about that. I always tried to imagine good faith. Sometimes I thought otherwise, but then I took a breather and tried to leave that out of editing and comments. For the times I didn’t I do apologize. Never smother, but add balance. Questioning is good, but question everything and “keep the good” (Paul). You don’t understand me yet, maybe I can help? What exactly do you not understand? What our issue is?

I agree with you and Robert that there were serious errors comitted by Kaas, many in the Centre Party, and too a lesser extent even by the two Pii (plural of Pius).
Some of these errors than backfired, e.g. Kaas tried to “save” democracy by forming a coalition with the NS and combating the imminent Papen dictatorship – with the result that Papen fell and Schleicher fell and Hindenburg acquiesced into appointing “that Bohemian private” (and I protest against the President’s insult of all Bohemians, Moravians and Silesians). Hitler tricked him and the March elections dealt the death blow to his policy. Hitler‘s government had the majority and as they did away with the Communists (legal or not) they could do away with the Centre to. From that point onwards it was save what you can. Today we know what happened afterwards, the millions of dead, but a) Kaas and others could not see it then, and b) the question is what they could have done about it. Max Weber, the sociologian, distinsuished between “ethics of conviction” and “ethics of responsibility”. We all would have like to see Kaas, Brüning et al stand up like Wels did and to see Pius XII issue declarations like Gregory VII or Gregory IX. But it’s easy from today’s situation, with a full stomach and a soft bed and computer technology on our hand and really nothing to fear about (assuming now that you are Spanish, I estimate that your life is not in danger anytime in the foreseeable future) to demand that those of the past should have spoken out more vehemently, even if in vain. I don’t want to call on others to risk the lives of themselved and those them in their care.
I agree that maybe there was too much of focus institutional things. However, I also understand that many clerics (Bertram) still had the Kulturkampf in mind, and Bismarck & Co., despite all their faults, were much much much more “civilized” that the Nazis expected to be.
However, if I say I don’t want to call on others, that doesn’t mean that issues, like your canonical law suit, shouldn’t be discussed. But in a straightforward way, and one which does not claim more than it can. Unfortunately, I saw your case far from being “proved”. If you want to I can give you a brief outline of where it fails. Just post “yes” and I will provide.
Even if you suit were substantiated it is another question how important it is to the present. You seem to imply that the Church has to take the actions you demanded in order to gain the right to speak. I, for my part, say that even if what you claimed were true that doesn’t affect her authority (it does affect the standing of the three in question and others). I see today (actually already since thirty years, though I wasn’t born then) policies not so unlike Nazi-policies coming back and almost the lone voice of protest is the Church (and the Italian referendum is just one example). It’s hard to listen to some politicians, especialls here in Germany, denouncing Hitler and at the same advocating plans Mengele would be proud of.
I never had in mind to blacken those whom you quote. However, please understand, that I cannot take Hochhuth seriouly. His play is not history and he is notorious for smearing others, living or dead, and caring to incite too violence. His play unfortunately has changed the perception of Pius XII. No, not he alone. He had his adherents, usually at the left wing of the political spectrum that were only to happy to use him against the Church. (Compare how Communists in Eastern Germany used what they called “Anti-facism” – Fascists were those that disagreed with them, even there were not Nazis (and I’m not going to dip into the Fascism is not Nazism issue), and Anti-fascists were those that agreed and played along, even if they had been Nazis.)
What we disagreed about in the historical field is: who did what, when and with what intention? And how important is what they did (once we have agreement) or: does it merit being included (that mainly was behing our minor squibbles about Kaas and Papen on the train, who talked to whom when)

I think I should stop now, before I don’t know anmore what to write and since others are lining up to use this PC. Goodday Str1977 14:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I never meant to insult or hurt you, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Str1977&diff=20609471&oldid=20541857 Str1977 09:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr Famekeeper, I have seen what Robert has done on the Pius XII page. It is true that I asked him to take a look since my time was limited and couldn't take care of Pius as I did of Kaas. However, I do not agree with all his edits. I ofer you to, when I find the time, do a revision of your edits as I did on Kaas, including your reasonable and sourcable points while depov'ing the language. That probably would also result in a disintegration of the "Germany section" and integration of things into the one biographical chronology.

However, I have also reverted your post-Robert edit. It is infused with an anti-Pacelli POV which is unacceptable. Plus factual inaccuracies, probably stemming from Cornwell. And I repeat: the antisemitic letter angle he provides has been debunked. There is not anti-semitism in Pacelli.

Hope you don't see that as an affront against you. It is not meant as such. I advocate returning to your first edits as a basis of revision. Str1977 16:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

FK, with "call for restricting religious freedom" I mean your call for "control", quite apart from the accusation of us Catholics collectively being called "deeply immoral people". Too many people in the past and unfortunately in the present (e.g. a recent radio talk in Canada) advocate such state control of the church - to which I object in the strongest possible terms.

As for Non abbiate paura - it is Italian for "Don't be afraid" - it was taken from the first speech Pope John Paul II gave just after he was elected in 1978.

Str1977 09:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Mr Famekeeper, sorry I have been out of Wiki for a couple of days, so I can only answer you now. Here it is:

As for Cornwell. He is valid literature, but he is also controversial and his view, where not universally accepted, must be included as a POV. I have seen that Robert, who agrees with Cornwell's POV, agrees with me on that.

"I see what youve done on Kaas , and I see that you accept the increased load the poor uh has to bear . it has taken rather along time to arrive at this point"

That's what happens when tempers float. If you are now content with my edits on your edits than I'm happy too. I found something on the secretary in 1925 thing and I will post it later. Just quickly the working realtionship started in 1920 and lasted until 1929, when Pacelli returned to Rome. The friendship of course continued. As for the details you talk about, I don't think there's need for conflict on this. If my memory serves me right, there was first Hitler's speech, than the parties withdrew for dicussion, then the parliament meeting resumed and Kaas and Wels (and whoever else from the parties) gave their speeches declaring why they would vote the way they would and then the vote.

"I would invite you, say ,to undertake the more rigorous inclusion of Cornwell's stuff."

My offer still stands though at the moment I really don't have the time.

"Whatever about you and me , I fear I still believe in the pacelli ..."

That's fine and dandy. I'd love to convince you but if I can't then I can't. You are not obliged to give up your POV. It just has to be clear that it's not the sole truth.

"Whatever about my judgement of you , my judgement of the sources leads me to inescapable conclusions."

And that's where we differ. I don't see inescapable conclusions.

"Apropos Bruning- yes , it comes from Shirer the treachery etc . I dont think theres much dispute there , but there soon could be with what Cornwell quotes from his memoirs"

I guess you're right, it comes from his memoirs. That's the point. He wrote his memoirs in exile and generally they are considered to be not entirely trustworthy, especially during this period. As for treachery - granted, Brüning considered Kaas' behaviour in 1933 treachery but he did so when he wrote the book, so it comes from hindsight (he was not the only one to think that way, hence Kaas being shunned by his former fellow party members, as I included in the article (next to homesickness)). However during the EAct discussions there is no accusation of treachery on his part and hence it doesn't belong in a rendering of the event.

"If you are in germany maybe the sources you have aren't saying to you the same things as what was published outside"

Believe me, Germany is no secluded, totalitarian country where you can't get books or other information (that was another thing I objected about, when you off-handedly dismissed all of German historiography).

As for "Concordat legality": I can assure you that the concordat is legally binding, given that it has been tried in our highest court in the 50s. And I see no reason to touch upon it. But if you want I can later comment on the legal issues regarding dormancy, parliament etc (though m mo legal scholar)

As for your proposal:

1) I cannot do anything for you in regard to the RfC. I didn't start and I won't stop it. If Robert, who started it is content with your behaviour he will do so himself. And I guess I would acquiesce in this too.

2) I unfortunately cannot accept your proposal. We cannot create one article for your "accusations" and one for my "counter-point" - this would go against all Wiki principles I know: balance, NPOV. Two wrongs (in the sense that they are POV) don't make it right. Accusations should be included in the main article in a depov'ed language and counter-criticism should be next to it. (The same goes for a "Hitler's Pope" page - it covers the book and its accusations pluse a critical treatment of it - to make it NPOV). Apart from the fact that there probably is no fitting name for such a accusation page (Hitler's Pope is about the book, Pope's Hitler is -sorry to say it- nonsense and even "Catholic Holocaust complicity" doesn't actually say what the title suggests - our debate has never been about the Shoa (as I prefer to call it)). And I don't want to have to think of a catchy name for a defense page. Anyway, the main problem is that it'd violate NPOV.

I agree with you that the concordat should be included in Pius XI too (and Dilectissima certainly belong there - but in proper context). After all it was his concordat (like the others), though Pacelli did some negotiating. I though about this for some time. However, let us first settle the dispute on the other pages.

So, I'm afraif I have to say: no.

Str1977 12:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust

Hi, Flamekeeper. Please don't issue notices within the body of the article, use the pertinent tags instead. Thanks. I believe the one you seek is the {{npov}} tag. El_C 12:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy

This article needs source citations. Gazpacho 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish profanity

Great additions on this article, but I believe that some words should be categorized by nation, etc. I had to revert some of your words which would be known as "POV" on Wikipedia (i.e. "...be careful, this will get you in a knife fight" etc., are unencyclopedic terms). Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes my Spanish can be a little flawed, but it is relatively minor. Hell, I make mistakes in English more than I do in Spanish at times. Thanks for the note, I just didn't think that personal stuff should go in the article. D. J. Bracey (talk)

19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I was born in California, so Spanish curse words aren't really that foreign to me. I lost all of my Spanish after living in crappy Mississippi, but I gained it back since I moved to Florida. D. J. Bracey (talk)

19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Other day I figured I'd get a bit less pompous and started interjecting the uh , like you could fill it in as you took it . guess by not rising to that q , you musta been . I'm impressed at the bother you seem to go to here academically on WP . By the way perhaps the world isn't ready for span-profan : like, maybe it isan't PC . Not what the WP's for . Good to have a place to let off steam . Ill trade one for you here tho-not dirty just a description by the local kids of where exactly it was their pueblo :estamos en el ultimo pico del culo del mundo. I'd liek to get to Ca some day just to hear how the span sounds there-is it the same mex singsong . Andaluz claim that cubano is most similar , never using the 'S' sounds and dropping the 'D' like merca'o for mercado -similar to Portuguese . Man DJB, I didn't poke my head back into the Span WP after a visit. It reminded me of the great pyrennean divide. Like they don't speak English and we don't speak Spanish . You're lucky you do , given all . How much crossover is there out on the street in Florida ? Is there understanding ? Course so far there isn't in Iberia the size of the non-local language . Every last anglo heads for Spain sometime , the Florida type dream . These days every last Sp 'd figure Florida ahead of anglodum . Point is , there seems to me to still be an immense division culturally : apart fron Cervantes , pretty much nothing gets through . More from SAmerica than Spain ,Llosa and Isabel Allende and magical realism for a coupla years . Maybe there ain't been anything to capture the imagination . Like , you can in Europe turn on a radio and hear the latest Sp hit groups , but while they have a good energy, driving vocals and all round life - who needs it ? I never went for the Miami sound Machine singer much , but there's been nobody with any sim impact from S Europe . Seems like u need the population to nurture the creativity . Hohay - long this Famekeeper 19:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think they are ready. Let's do it! D. J. Bracey (talk)

19:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I just peeked into the Sp WP- it's years behind . Lucky them ? Famekeeper 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No salgas, por favor. No puedes perder la fe. Ya supe que Jim Wales no hace nada, y el nunca va a ayudar un Wikipedista solo. Ya sé que hago demasiado errores en español, pero quise escribir en este idioma. Te necesitamos aquí, y tenemos que terminar el articulo sobre las groserías en español. Dime si hice demasiado errores aquí, porque yo tengo miedo de escribir en español. En Florida la gente habla español como hablado en Puerto Rico o Cuba...y porque me crecí en California, yo hablo español mexicano. ¿En que parte de España vives? Adios, D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I left Wikipedia myself. D. J. Bracey (talk)

23:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weimar and the Concordat

Famekeeper, if you want me to help, I need to know what specific items you think the articles lack. Please let me know, as you like! Wyss 12:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon.--Agiantman 19:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hola

!Hola tio! Pues me he vuelto de nuevo en WP. Estaban tordiendo mis palabras tanto que teni que revolver . Espero que mi ultimo accion va a dejarmi un poco de espacio libre para seguir en mi proprio trabaho, que es en musicilla digital . Verdad es que no creo que tendre mucho mas para anadir en el articulo nuestro , pero quiso saluarte para que no te sentiras nada malo . Parece que tu tampoco podiste salir de esto campo virtual . Claro que JW no iba a responder en nada mas -el pobrecito tiene bastante rollos sin meterse conmigo. Tu tambien ! Bueno, joven , un saludo _y si no te digo nada de donde estoy es por mi seguridad , que todavia no es nada fijo . A veces quiren pegar al portador del mensaje , y como ya sabes mi mensaje no es muy agradable . Oye not te preoccupes de como sea tu castellano , el mio empezo con nada mas que palabras de Hollywood- Si , non , p[or favor , adios , hombre y cantina . Yo lo apprendi andando con companeros al sur en las callejones . Me costo uno huevo en pagar sus vicios ! Ta luego chaval Famekeeper

Hola, como estas? Estoy tan alegre que regresaste para dejar mi un mesaje, vas a continuir con nosotros? Ojala que sí. Acabo de obtener un nuevo carro, y en eso estoy tan feliz. No sé si estoy tarando ahora, pero no puedo preocupar sobre eso. Ademas, todavía estoy tratando aprender portugues. Como ya dije, no puedes perder la fe. Hay demasiado personas en Wikipedia quien creen que pueden reglar el mundo. Tambien, hay personas quien borran articulos sin los dando una oppurtunidad para expandar. Yo trato a aduñir estrellas y complimientos por la gente aquí... y algunos personas regresan el favor. Entonces, yo creo que hay mas bondad aquí, y por lo tanto, no puedes pensar sobre la maldad en WIkipedia por siempre. Yo creo que tu debes a editar mas. No importa quien va a quejarse. Es mas importante a suplicar informaccíon en ves de satifacer un poquito de personas aquí. Recuerda que soy tu amigo. Cuidado, y Dios te bendiga. D. J. Bracey (talk)

21:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others

I'm not quite sure I understood what you wrote there :) but I went and checked Pope Benedict XVI and linked the new article from there nicely. --Joy [shallot] 22:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No worries

Here's a barnstar to help lift your spirits.

Take care,

D. J. Bracey (talk)

17:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ganesh Baba

By "Ganesh Baba", you mean Neem Karoli Baba? Well, that is interesting. There is a book of stories by him at my library that I have been meaning to read. Do you know anything about his authenticity or lack thereof? Ram Dass says that he performed miracles. --goethean ॐ 19:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Different Babaji

That guy sounds interesting . However no , I refer to swami Ganeshanand or Shri Mahant Ganesh Giriji Maharaj . Sadly all the living connections are gone . The first google ref by a Peter Meyer doesn't seem to accord , psychedelics wise, with what I gathered . He was supposedly an ex scientist -physicist and sure blew chilums non-stop in the usual naga manner but always reprobated psychedelics as symptomatic of the westerners' materiality fixation : like you gotta take a fix, man , to get it ? Maybe he was an ex- business head as Meyer writes . Certainly this is he , and I guess if he attracted many heads , many tales were told . Ram Dass 'd a been delving deep and maybe this guy was just a stage .

Anyway , thought it mighta been up your street . My twopenny worth re India is the story to do with is i Krishnamurti from the turn if the 20 th c . He took back from his California sojourn , someone who related the visit to the famous peasant woman ,who possessed the secret of life without food . This woman had been caught by her mother in law swiping a proverbial sandwich from the fridge , so to speak . The in-law scolded her so heavily that she ran off deep into the forest to weep . At a little brook she called upon the dryad there resident to give her the strength to never again have to eat , so shameful was her position . She received the secret of how thenceforth to exist with ingestion of no more that sunshine, lived to a ripe age and attracted such fame that this Californian seeker after truth now was at her feet . He could not help but ask her, oh you blessed woman, but you who have this wondrous gift , you who could release from suffering and hunger the whole of mankind - why do you not reveal the secret ?

"But what would people Do with themselves if they were so released ?" . Famekeeper

[edit] Miracles

The other miracles I was told about were two .

One was of the especially troublesome naga sadhu hanging out in the early sixties in Benares /Varanasi at the burning ghats . He got a reputation even with the police-who generally steered well clear . He specialised in eating the flesh from the bodies that had not been completely cremated , causing quite a stir . One day an especial delegation of worthies went down to remonstrate with this naga , the chief amongst whom called forth at a careful distance to him the evil disrespect of his ways . The naga just sqwawked with hysterical laughter and , his mouth still containing warm brains , heaved across the rest of the skull at the worthy . As it dropped at his feet , the skull littered out and around loose gemstones to tempt them .

A nicer one was of a major puja held by the tibetans - this one was seen by about a dozen westerners - . All but two or so of the westerners were either held off at a distance , and ended upon rooves, but there were many lines of cross-legged faithful there , marshalled by the monks . As the puja continued monks went down these lines and upon each faithful devotee's forehead placed a sticky seed of sunflower . At the appropriate conclusion of the puja , which was concerning the visualisation of the soul as being like a hoop , such that those who had true belief could so hoop their souls into a ring , in readiness for the great hook of all-being to swing down and lift their soul-hoops off into heaven , well , a cloud of blue butterflies rose en masse , one from each seed there placed .

The persom close to me was a follower of Shiva , as nagas are , but I never approved of that which he learnt from the witch mataji at thse ghats in Benares . It always seemed to me the perfect excuse for materialistic excess . She said - there is evil out there in the universe , so here she said , grabbing it, the sooner I gobble it all up out of the way , the better .

I have never seen before what I have seen here on WP .

[edit] DDE

Sorry, I don't think I understand you. :-) Can you get back to me about what? Evercat 17:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Benedict XVI

The edit has a point insofar as that this isn't directly pertinent to the beatifications done by the present pope. I've left notes in and linked the then-pope instead. --Joy [shallot] 10:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McClenon Files Saved

Editing behaviour of user Robert McClenon I duplicate this unanswered question to McClenon here . I say that I have found this user to be curiously concerned with what would appear to be the diminution of historically sourced questions -ie history . The particular question I ask here below relates to an unacceptable editing tag he placed , and which epitomises all the doubts I have about this user . Here is the edit I question , see below line 77 at 1 and removal of reference to 1937 and 1938 .

McC- I ask you to explain to me why your edit of 00.49 , 19 August upon the Hitler's Pope article is not dishonest ? I see that your description of your edit (rm) is this : removed much biographical material that is copied from Pope Pius XII , very heavy copy editing of very badly edited article . Much more cleanup is needed.

In the most civil terms I can muster , I ask you to explain how this qualification explains your removal of several important and full non -biographical Cornwell references ? I will expect an answer that addresses this actual question , not an answer to other questions , and not your current suggestion that what you removed now be re-inserted . You plainly were not removing "clearly biographical" information that " belonged in the biography " . It is not enough to say that this was a mistake - I can see no mistake , and I can see no justification for calling this surreptitious because mis-labelled removal a mistake .

You have not answered the short question I once previously asked you , which is how you knew to ask me about grave sin etc . The question I ask you here is very much easier - why should I not qualify your removal referred to as dis-honest ?

If you stick to this policy of it being a mistake , then I think you warrant attention solely as an editor who arrived upon the WP simply to create Rfc's , and not with any view to the designed expansion of the WP . In which case the above Rfc against you is thoroughly justified . People who actually work to create fuller understanding by real contributions are, then ,being abused by your presence ...............

I do not know that it is appropriate for me to sign against McC on the Rfc , but that depends upon him here answering this . I do not accept mistake as sufficient . Indeed I have found that this user whilst claiming a sort-of intermediary role, is not prepared to read relevant material . Maybe he doesn't read that which he edits and removes , in which case any means of removing his hand from the WP must be beneficial . I do think he should remain under scrutiny , indeed that this Rfc was placed somewhat at my behest , therefore it is becoming untenable for me not to support that part of it which I do understand . Famekeeper 08:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

McC may believe he has answered my straightforward question about his particular edit enumerated above :he has not . Not only has he not but the answer he tried to give was incorrect and disingenuous , as was the edit in question. I am deeply supicious of this user , who still pretends that he was not responsible for actions which he very plainly carried out . In fact he denies the action . The action resulted in a serious loss .

I ask McC , again, to explain this apparent conflict with his two separate statements .

I further post my initial reaction to the edit in the context in which it was written , and users will judge for themselves . I am still awaiting a less disingenuous response . The response given tries also to dissimulate by referring to questions of POV , which are not raised in this question . I am hardening my own position from that of deep suspicion . I may say that I experienced a disingenuous response immediately on encountering this user , and that my experience of him is that he cloaks the behaviour alluded to in his Rfc under a veil of respectable mediation . I have always believed that McC was a policeman brought in by the WP board , or the church . McClenon is apt to say he has made a mistake, and I find even this claim to be disingenuous -as in the case below . I think his presence is possibly illuminating , in that his actions uncover more rather than less WP abuse and that that abuse is closely associated with McClenon . Anyone with a cursory knowledge of me will know that I was forced to conclude , still am, that the WP was being edited not through POV abuse , but through faith-based editing . I believe that this user joined and re-inforced this, and that this particular edit (on Hitler's Pope is just the last of many examples . I also know that such belief system has every reason to act in this way, sad to say .

I am particularly disturbed by the actions of user McClenon . Having left note upon his editing last that he was removing duplicated biographical material, he actually excised sections relating to 1937 and 1938 which were previously excised from the Pope Pius XII article . These excisions are not therefore in line with his description of removal , and warrant attention as being an exercise of strange faith . This editor was instrumental in trying, through ad hominem, to paint myself into a dunce's corner , however it is clear from this action that user McClenon either does not concentrate on what he removes , or acts with incorrect procedure . I should say that this user should be watched , as if his actions here can be so surreptitious and counter to his avowed listed editing report, what confidence can remain as to the use's worthiness ? Unlike his action against me , I will simply leave this post to alert those of good will . The WP is again under attack as the completeness of Cornwell is being sundered piecemeal . I strongly suggest that this article be reverted to my complete summation of the Vanity Fair abbreviation of Cornwell , and then locked . Famekeeper 10:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Why not insert the material back into the Pope Pius XII biographical article? I was removing what was clearly biographical information that belonged in the biography. I was not comparing the two articles. Unlike Famekeeper, I have been known to make mistakes." Robert McClenon 12:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) "The answer to the question that Famekeeper has posted on my talk page is that if any sourced biographical material has been deleted from the Pope Pius XII article and presents POV as POV, it should be re-inserted. However, some of it was deleted by Wyss and dtdirl after they tried to disentangle POV from NPOV. I will note that most of the deletions from Pope Pius XII were not made by me". Robert McClenon 21:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC) User's should note that desperation forces McC and another to claim that Writer:John Cornwell is simply a POV type on the WP level. This is wrong, Cornwell was allowed into the vatican's archives and after study, realised that his hitherto friendly and faithful attitude was completely out of line with the truth . The attempt is to discredit Cornwell as even a source, blacken his historical work , and thus weaken the danger to the Church . This is a major attack on the principles of the WP , and certainly compromises the usefulness , indeed morality , of the WP . A careful annotation as to the relevant article being the view of this historian has not prevented constant attack upon the substance of the article .

If dishonesty rules, there is no point in trying to edit the WP . Famekeeper 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply from McC . I think he should explain this particular irrefutable example of bad faith . If it is purely stupidity ( he claims that pressure leads him to make mistakes) , perhaps he'd get more sense than bring Rfc's . This was interjected on the Pope BXVI talk page and is pretty strange . Perhaps when the guy finally understands it's their law , not mine, he might get wise . So far , not being prepared to wade through the relevant "tosh" I write , he didnt understand . Apparently there's no question of any trial , so that is not relevant .

I only posted an RfC against Famekeeper after he had repeatedly made the bizarre statement that canon law demand that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII be exhumed so that they could stand trial. He has yet to cite a section that refers to a moral requirement to insult the dead in this fashion. Robert McClenon 05:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC) I did , some months ago , McC is a bit blind .Go to Pius XII talk and see 'Canon law' section , and if you want the full treatment go to BXVI talk where I put the full treatment . It's law stuff, and you need to have spectacles on or something . Famekeeper 16:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with this particular RfC. This seems like a matter for the talk pages of the relevant papal articles. Gamaliel 16:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Apparently User:Gamaliel did not read the RFC before he chose to oppose it. User:Robert McClenon is charged with abus[ing the] RfC process to harass others who do not share his POV. As documented on the RFC, User:Famekeeper was one of the 4 victims of User:Robert McClenon's harrassment. Hopefully, User:Famekeeper will join us in certifying this RFC and record his comments on the main page. --Agiantman 23:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC) On the contrary, Robert was/is the victim of Famekeeper's harrassment. Though their respective POVs shared some common ground, Fk shouted him down with accusations. Str1977 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC) I am still waiting for Robert McClenon to reply to this charge. The statement of Famekeeper is well docmumented, I don't understand why Robert McClenon will not reply. I hope he is not working on a 5th RFC againt a 5th user, it would be consistant with his rolling average if he was. 24.147.97.230 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC) [edit] McClenon /Famekeeper Relevant Example My answer today to patsw on Hitler's Pope discussion is highly relevant to my accusations over-leaf :

Hitler's Pope is a work of biography. What it adds to our knowledge of Pope Pius XII belongs in that biographical article. What's the encyclopedic value of anything else in the book? This article looks merely like a platform for Cornwell's own POV on Pope Pius XII and by extension a platform for Wikipedia's editors' POV on Pope Pius XII -- in short a discussion board and not an encyclopedia. patsw 01:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC) patsw, I don't know how to answer you briefly but I paste this from Robert McClenon as on this page :

I am willing to try to discuss differences of opinion reasonably, without mediation. I will make a few non-negotiable demands that Wikiquette be followed, or I will conclude that we do need mediation or arbitration. First, assume good faith. Do not imply censorship when an NPOV dispute is in progress. Do not accuse anyone of bad faith unless you have irrefutable proof. Second, do not use talk pages as soapboxes. Drop(orig. emhasis) the discussion of canon law, unless it is applicable to a published source. As far as I can tell, the discussion of canon law is really only a discussion of the fact that moral errors were made, and is basically an issue of attributing evil motives rather than error to the dead. Third, cite sources for any claim that is disputed. In particular, please provide a source for the use of the exact phrase "Hitler's Pope" preceding Cornwell. If you do not provide a source for the published use of that exact phrase before Cornwell, then I will have to delete that reference and leave the article only as a discussion of Cornwell's book. I hope that this is satisfactory. Robert McClenon 14:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC I can tell you that I thought it very unsatisfactory indeed . I fear you come in here ,patsw , rather late . I take the quote as disingenuously pernickety self-righteous intentional muddling .

Non-negotiable should not apply to reason ; Recognition of censorship was dependent on irrefutablility within the history ;

Soapboxing , that's a form of ad hominem; Drop- cheek , it was/is applicable to sources , censoring thereof ; Evil motives- is a statement of POV/ and ad hominem ; Source was cited to this interposition, and always ; User's decision to confine article to Cornwell was to ignore sources . Your postion patsw , seems to be coming in along McC lines earlier and here . I myself would indeed put it all under the main Pius XII page , but I have tried and been blocked from doing so by reverts , so , sorry , don't kick at me, anyway . Famekeeper 07:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from [[[1]]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon" Statement of the dispute User:Robert McClenon is a POV warrior/bully who has shown no restraint in his effort to push his POV and harrass anyone who stands in his way. Particularly disturbing is his creation of 4 RfC pages against those who disagree with him within a 30 day period. This despite the fact that he has only been a wiki member since July 2005. Famekeeper has irrefutable proof of McClenon's bad faith and on that basis signs this .

[edit] Description User:Robert McClenon has created RFC's with the intent to intimidate and deny editors the right to work on pages where he pushes his POV, esp. the Ted Kennedy page. On one of his RfC attack pages, he unfairly altered the charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented. On the Ted Kennedy page, he created a biased poll designed to misstate the position of those who didn’t agree with him. He repeatedly insults other editors who do not share his POV as sockpuppets. He repeatedly refers to a “consensus” when none exists. He repeatedly pushes his POV into articles about politicians, their relatives and religious subjects. Although not an admin, he has threatened that new users will be blocked who do not agree with his POV. On one of his RFC pages, he offered to withdraw the RfC if conditions were met. When conditions were met, he refused to comply and created new conditions. There is proof that McClenon is at best foolish , in the middle that he is disingenuous , and at worst that he is outright dishonest. His means are those of a bully .

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links)

Abused RfC process to harass others who do not share his POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell Altered RfC charges after the RfC was certified and after numerous editors had commented

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21432740&oldid=21413915 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21432785&oldid=21432740 Created a biased poll designed to misstate the position of those who didn’t agree with him

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATed_Kennedy&diff=21088169&oldid=21087373 Repeatedly insults other editors who do not share his POV by calling them "sockpuppets"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21333806&oldid=21330325 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman#Anonymous_Editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230 Repeatedly refers to a “consensus” when none exists

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary_Kennedy&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARosemary_Kennedy&diff=21501935&oldid=21494540 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATed_Kennedy&diff=21088169&oldid=21087373 Repeatedly pushes his POV into articles about politicians, their relatives and religious issues

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kennedy&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hitler%27s_Pope&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII Threatened the blocking new users who do not agree with his POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.147.97.230&diff=21439793&oldid=21439660 Offered to withdraw RfC if conditions were met. When conditions were met, refused to comply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21265560&oldid=21265472 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FAgiantman&diff=21333806&oldid=21330325 [edit] Applicable policies {list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Neutral Point of View No Personal Attacks Civility Assume good faith Vandalism [edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman&oldid=21246435 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ted_Kennedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosemary_Kennedy see this Rfc's talk page ,for Famekeeper's reason [edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute 24.147.97.230 --Agiantman 18:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC) ---Ernestocgonzalez 15:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC) --Antibully 00:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Famekeeper 07:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC) --Sleepnomore 21:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC) Robert McClenon has admitted to the following, "It is true that I wrote four user conduct RfCs in 30 days" "I think that I was using the Wikipedia process as it is meant to be used,"I then posted a RfC against Agiantman. In retrospect, I recognize that I made two mistakes." "I certainly think that I was making a reasonable argument about consensus." "As to the claim that I offered to withdraw an RfC if conditions were met, and then did not keep my word, that is not true...I admit to having made a mistake," "I admit to having made mistakes. We all make mistakes under stress. Perhaps my mistakes have been trying too hard to engage in dialogue with problematical editors." "I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor"

Gee.. Four RFCs in 30 days. That's one a week. All this while admitting to making mistakes. As you write an RFC to have me banned, you are working on three others? What is your problem? Do you see yourself as a police officer of this site? I suggest you drop them all immediately. Not only that, in your persecution of agiantman, you suddenly announce that you will take off 36 hours and then take it up again, like a mother telling a child, "wait until your father gets home". To attack another user via RFC, then hold it over his/her head for days...all the while during a period of admitted mistakes? I think your credibility is rock bottom. I don't see how you fit into this community. I suggest that you either drop all these RFCs now or stand ready to fight for your right to be here. You are nothing more than a wreckless bully of others.24.147.97.230 00:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) [edit]

[edit] Personal attacks

Hi Famekeeper, I just saw this edit [2] on Robert's page. Please note that personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, and what you wrote constitutes a fairly serious one. Please try to sort out your dispute by concentrating on content, not on the editor, and by sticking to our editorial policies. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Workship. Fred Bauder 20:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case closed

The arbitration case has been closed. There are no remedies that affect you, but EffK is banned for a year from Wikipedia and from all articles he disrupts; he is also prohibited from editing Catholicism-related articles. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XII

Looking through the talk archives of Pope Pius XII, it looks like you were involved in some past editorial disputes. Keeping in mind that the article has undergone substantial changes since that time, I would like to invite you to read through it and give your opinion on the talk (or, if you prefer, you can email me). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/m/User_talk%7EFamekeeper_b0bf.html"