Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Great Scandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)