User talk:Bengalski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hey there, Bengalski. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Three tildes (~~~) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Great, just what we need around this place... more tigerskis. :) Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism

All I can say is thank you :) I don't have enough time to get actively involved much these days, so it's good to see someone getting into it. I don't think it was "ready", but it was the only way to get it ready. It needs to be there, so it can be accepted as the basis for what can be, and we can improve from there. We need to ensure that historical anarchism, movement, uprising, organizing, is the focus of the article, because that is what is useful. One can learn much more about the different ideas by learning of how they developed and what they did. One narrative, with trends and breakthroughs. Anyways, I will look over your changes, but what you mentioned made sense. Again, thanks-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Anarchism

Evidently a friendly suggestion would've been more helpful. My actions are supported by policy (WP:NOT), but there are better ways to do things. Everyone makes mistakes, and the quick deletion was one of them. Given the amount of work/amount of admins, perhaps it isn't surpirsing, though that isn't an excuse. I hope you stick around the 'pedia- get a few thousand edits, and then you can wade through the various pitfalls that admins face. Given the extremely reasonable tone of your comment on my talk page, you'd probably be good at it. Regards, Scïmïłar parley 23:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism Reverts

The reason for some of the reverts recently has been due to a bug in Wikipedia (hopefully resolved now) causing duplication of content and generally messing up the content e.g. see [1] take a look at the contents section and you'll see the duplication complete with one of the edit summaries as a heading stuck somewhere in the middle. Thanks --pgk(talk) 15:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hazy memory

Hi Bengalski and thanks for the comment. I write to ask if I can post that to my talk page-perhaps if I don't hear to the contrary- I could do so? I am in no hurry - I am not trying to repair articles any more , as it is a waste of time . I explain in my last post "Commitment' . I am level mentally , but your level could help others ,which is why I would borrow it . I'm used to being jumped on rules-wise, and have no idea what might occur if I spam you to me... .Mowrer started this , and I have a hazy memory that he pre-figured Rolf Hochhuth as far back as his 33 book (G puts the Clock Back). Bye bye EffK 13:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for the help and offer of help- I has assumed you would not mind so already had moved it once. It will make you a target, though. It is unsure whether I will ever myself be able or allowed to edit more . I am by-your-lady (bloody) cross at the supposed editors' , and Jimbo has a little to answer for. I have in fact said that I see no success possible against concerted clreical revisionism, but I said this before you wrote. I said that if WP asked me to stay( Arbs), then I would in fact agree to go. I suppose the first thing is to get that far, and for such as you to lobby hard for me to stay . If you have studied the 15 Dec Str1977 diffs you will see why I cannot go on as editor . User Durova tends towards the merit of my actions, which is interesting as Jimbo used the same word , saying he saw no merit in my trying to persuade people who did not wish to listen.

What needs to be done ..? Well the troublesome history needs to be properly included on AH, Pius XI, Pius XII, HPope, Great Scandal should be there to encompass whatever escapes, Hitler and the Church should provide links, all should be entered into the Central AH box / pool, NPOV tags need removing , Enabling Act needs linking to all, as does Reichskonkordat, Centre Party, Ludwig Kaas, and all must relate to Abraham Lehrer who spoke of the Archives in Cologne Synagogue, so link needs to emanate from Benedict XVI, as this call was displaced from there . All these articles need to accept the NPOV of sources, and such as editor Jonroma need to be held to the totality of the quid pro quo/ kick back scheme. This itself has to be reported as developed , as sourceable, which it is and was, priotr to the church's useful cut-off point of 9 April. Oh, Timeines in WP need up-grading . in fact the only artcicle I can think of which I have managed to correct to any real extrent is the Weimar germany one. I am deeply dissatisfied by what str1977 did to AH, even apart from his clear hypocrisy. My sectionsing was clearer. The dual references to german businessmen are an example f a massage without apparently seeming to do so. terminology is itself important. I leave messages in these places , and if they are not clear enough , I shal on my next perambulation, make them clearer for you, to the extent of providing you with relevant diffs backwards in time. It has only ever been me and str1977, with support acts when he requires a posse, with robert MCClenon their wikipcop enforcer. isay this openly because my good faith and experience of their bad-faith justifies me in this. You are in the very nice position of not having to have said it , nor in having now to do so. I go to WP court for it, and I welcome the stupid listing there.

(One of my principal complaints is that revisionists have categorised source as inherently POV, and yet countered with no contrary sources).

As you can see, the first thing is to get the revisionists off my back, by chastising hypocritical editing, whitewashing, dissimulation, massage, and the WP scandal itself that is being perptetrated from the 21 Feb JPII order carried out by Renato Boccardo's wikipedeian mob. It is possible that the next step is to therefore open an Arbcom case -if they do not amplify the case per my request- precisely against Str1977 for his denialist bad-faith visible at that last evidence I presented. Failing any of the above I had said I would leave , but I also said that I would take all the material and plaster it into a google bomb such that the actual WP/revisionist scandal becomes more abundantly apparent.

Practically speaking the first job is to rewrite in, say my words, a text as closely mirroring Cornwell's abbreviation as possible , and I could do this and place it upon the discussion, and you could check it closely against the original prior to your pasting it into the article . I did this kind of writing at Edgar Ansel Mowrer, and one can get into the swing of it . Thanks, Bengalski, check the Vanity Fair abbrevo, and if you don't wish to do it, call me again. And expect fireworks, yrs the defendant EffK 12:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Would you look at this

I requested help from anyone concerned with humanities at the h. reference desk, and on the village pump to assist here where the problem is most apparent[[2]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII#Visible_1_1_2006_Impossibility_of_a_Serious_Article and to consider the a.r.t./article resolution template I suggested here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vatican_Bank#WP__Article_resolution_template. The template is not a template in the wiki form but more in the general working sense. Thanks and sorry to have to ask .i am still only an observer, as until this gets sorted anything else is one step forward and pushed two steps back. HNYr EffK 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

To say that the above impossibility proved, well, impossible. I do see that I have managed to influence WP German history, Hitler isn't so darned legal anymore, most places. of course the Government , well, who can source that but Nurtemberg.I left a kind of a note at the bottom there for you. I was a bit hurried at the template on VBank, but basically it comes from practical experience rather than designed policy. Were it not for the impossibilty of upsetting a certain force, maybe on other subjects it could be applied. On the Germany issue, well, I don't know what more to say to you, impossibility seems to cover it still. As you know I am reduced to making notes rather than edits- the anon may have accepted the kick in the mental teeth, but named users can't can they ? I was reading User:Benjamin Gatti and interested to see how the template could refer elsewhere. Bye EffK 20:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government interference or a teaser?

BFD. Can't Wikipedia for 24 hours. Who cares! I'm still getting paid. You sure are making productive use of that petty power aren't you? RJII 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC) -From his talkpage <<<< max rspct leave a message 18:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XII

Here is some background on Pope Pius XII and on EffK. It appears that you have, reasonably, focused on article content rather than on the interaction in the talk pages. I came to the Pope Pius XII article about six months ago in response to a Request for Comments. I was initially inclined to agree with Effk, who was then Famekeeper and disagree with Str1977. I thought that the article was too favorable to Pius XII. By the way, I am Catholic, but I think that Pope Pius XII made moral errors, including (initially) thinking that the Nazi Party could be trusted to honor the Reichskonkordat.

I tried to focus on what changes Famekeeper thought should be made to any of various articles, including Pope Pius XII, Centre Party, and Ludwig Kaas. I was unable to get him to summarize what changes should be made. Also, his lengthy and often incomprehensible posts on talk pages made it extremely difficult to discuss improvements to articles. They amounted to a filibuster, and most of them were completely off-topic.

I would welcome any effort by anyone to work with EffK to present a critical as well as a supportive view of Pius XII. I tried being that editor in July 2005, and soon gave up. My issue with him is not primarily a content dispute. It is a conduct dispute. It is that his conduct is making it difficult to work out real content issues.

I would welcome any effort by anyone else to work on their own or with other less problematical editors to present a critical as well as a supportive view of Pius XII. Robert McClenon 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the comment!

[edit] Anarchism

I agree we need to keep things short. I will work on the criticisms.Harrypotter 18:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Raico

What is your source for labelling Ralph Raico a "right-wing libertarian"? I am removing the term pending a notable source. I think the description of Raico as a "specialist of European classical liberalism and Austrian Economics" is adequate to lead readers to a good description of Raico's beliefs. Raico would likely join with others in declaring that he is neither left-wing nor right-wing, but libertarian, period (which is anti-authoritarian across the board). Dick Clark 15:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to discuss it a little further... I am certainly aware of the "competition" for use of the political moniker "libertarian." As far as I am aware, though, Raico is an anarchist, although anarcho-communists would dispute that. As you likely know, the crucial difference between those folks and anarcho-capitalists is that an-caps believe that property rights are human rights that derive from the human condition naturally, and an-comms believe (as per Marx) that the concept of property is wholly a manifestation of the state. My point is that, insofar as "libertarian" means "anarchist" in the strictest sense of the word, Raico is one. See the following definitions of "anarchism":
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority (from the Free Dictionary)
I would say that Raico arguably fits with definitions 1 and 3. Dick Clark 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pius XII

Dear Bengalski, may I ask you to please "Assume Good Faith" and not issue flat out warnings. I know fully well that this is vandalism but I haven't done it on purpose. Wiki recently made some changes to the editing software - I saw that problem for a while but appearently this time I got caught up with it. Sorry about that. Str1977 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Answred you at Pius XII. Catch u laterEffK 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bengalski, Ann has posted a message to you on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/EffK, to which I replied. Some of my comments I want to post directly to you as well:
I am not asking for and don't expect an apology. I am content if you believe me that I didn't mean to delete the tags.
For those interested let me explain the "glitch" that caused this:
Formerly, when you were looking at a diff between two edits and clicked on "edit this page" the current version was opened for editing. But recently this appearently was changed - now the page that opens is the version in the right column (the after-version of the diff). If you now edit the opened page and save it all the following edits are reverted. That is what happened in my case. Str1977 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. I wish you luck in finding something that everyone can live with and I hope that the difficulty of working with certain others doesn't permanently turn you off from improving the article. Again, thank you for your comments. -- Jonel | Speak 03:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to your Q

I made a post to you late 'yesterday', and left the note above. I deal prcisely with the two , Shirer and Mowrer word for word. i can only assume you did not see that . It was swept away within 9 hours into the last Archive.

The points remain. This idea that there were two quid pro quo's is not mine. I do not think it is supportable.The opposition hate to, but cannot dispute the 'second'. the first is anathema, for judicial canonical reason, if none else. I placed on Hitler at the 15 Dec that which was acepted by the opposition, not that which is the full sourced . The full sourced is as with this post to you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Pius_XII&diff=37293791&oldid=37272595 . Section title 'Falsity...'. The linkage between the pre-Dictator and Dictator is the same linkage. I do not claim that the entire revolved around the Centre or Kaas as tool of Pacelli. There of course were numerous factors. This was a 7 minimum week rolling opportunistic conspiracy of subversion in which Kaas and Pacelli played a particular role. Papen is crucial. See the politics at Hitler's rise to power .There were many others, with different roles. There is a certain revisionism for all of the history, not even peculiar to WP or this editing of it. However the substantiation of the Kaas/Pacelli link is as the Megamemex/Humanitas Timeline does not state. The relationship is as in Gregory Paul clarity and Cornwell.cornwell did not have the papers for the period. Shirer was basing himself within the Nuremberg Tribunal chiefly. He arrived as Foreign correspondent though in Berlin as Mowrer left. These timelines quote the Guenter Lewy Church book for dates, only 99% correct. The chief un-resolved particulars are, the Kaas solo approach made to Papen(and thereby to Hitler) at 6 march 1933, his solo negotiation for a second guarantee, separate from certain lesser guarantees openly negotiated by the leadership of the Centre at table with Hitler and Kaas chairing between c 17-22 March, the solo persuaion for the vote, and the solo vote; and the very odd private solo audience between Kaas and Hitler of 2 April, un-minuted. This was un-heard of at the time. Kaas returned , reportedly , though where exactly? , as in haste from a week in Rome 24( !! )-31 march to meet Hitler. Str1977 attempted to block every single fact I mention, and it took about six months to infiltrate these basic dates. Given the texts as I present their words, all such dates and references to actions or inactions are vital. There is the historical report, but there is no admission nor prosecution, as Str1977 says the Tribunal decided it could not prosecute for lack of formulation of the offence of assisting the Nazis in coming to power. The entire trouble we have now seems to be a factor of this abandonment by the Allies. Please read the relevant Nuremberg setion on my User page , which is why it is there. The vatican involvement went on until the end. Lastly I have to say what I say in everything, as you have to say what you do say. I hope you will understand my necessities as I should those of yourself. Thats all, but I have to see that the one exterior mind is seeing the substantiation. thanks, EffK 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To what do you refer as to full Shirer ? he's 1400 pages long. Are you asking for a fuller pair of quotes? I suggest you refer the quoteds given to me-what is not comperhensible therein.? Do you want some repeat? He makes no repeat of the Centre delivering, related to the Holy see as stated. What more do you want? -I'm in the dark as previous posts are un-recognised by you, having been moved about to archive. Please do not expect me to put up with that messing back there. I am prepared to work with you, but not in those conditions there. It stinks.EffK 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler and the Church

I moved the entire sourceing to Hitler and the Church. Thanks. EffK 13:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I never actually quoted G.Paul anywhere for anything as I did not even use him on the Great Scandal attempt. He was never more than a link. I also never quoted any text of his for discussions.I used him for the expression alone , and recently John Paul II used the word 'scandal' in reference to Nazism. I cannot source the recognition of Hitler's Pope , but recognition it had, presumably because of 50 editions since 1949 of Manhattan's book using the words Nazi Pope.

You can see McClenon leaping to the conclusion that because Str1977 can , it would appear rightly, knock the Paul down, that therefore Mowrer is equally excludable as unverifiable. I have stated the fact that by WP standards Mowrer is Primary source-as he stakes his publishing reputation on his actual witness of a first hand statement. They are very precise and continuous in knocking . I don't come to my wikipedian conclusions lightly, and I still see them operating, for all the veneer. You must not of course say a thing . as you have as yet not had first hand experience. You are only seeing the beginning.

The other points are really a blind to bore you to death. Some historians.. is phony, it's historians maintain. The article Pius XII is an offence against society at present, tantamount to Shoah denial. The words excised from the surviving Roman Jewess,directly accusing P, I appealed to Jimbo about. Look at the offence the presentation causes. You could get bogged down with Pius apologia after the war,-it has been a document war all through and it has truly arrived in the stupidity on this page with quotes and counter quotes, and no historians amongst them. We'll only have the Serbian/Ukrainian Ustashe etc to deflate those lies, which'll be in Court, but's still waiting in USA. The ratline /gold stuff will prick that puff.

The Kaas as tool though is the origin of everything nasty later.

All I an say about the cat is that I have liked cats, but would be hard pressed to like that one. EffK 20:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption by Archiving

I am forced to report to you the recent posts I made. The Ludwig Kaas careful massage exegesis was first wrongfully Archived by McClenon, and then a relevant sourceing from Nuremberg etc was made in 6 minutes. This has to be an Archiving record. I wonder if you think there is some way for this to be recognised for what it plainly is? The Nuremberg is plain as that which str1977, and now Donald Rumsfeld, say about Hitler having come to power legally. Is the WP to be abandoned ?EffK 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hey, bud. I'd appreciate a support vote in my RfA, if you feel so inclined. Thanks! --AaronS 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EffK and Sean Black

For an administrator to remove material such as that which was on EffK's user page is most certainly not vandalism, and should not be described as such. I actually like EffK, despite the appalling attacks he has made on an editor I count among my friends:

  • "brother of the murder",
  • "dangerously immoral"
  • "a lost sheep"
  • "a German history horse",
  • "sinister",
  • "shocking",
  • "you reveal Hitler's thoughts and they are yours",
  • "a deep despair hiding in your Catholic soul",
  • "you will have to be controlled"
  • "on the point of mental sickness"
  • "source of moral pollution"
  • "your morality is highly objectionable"
  • "ignorant"
  • "blaggardly user"
  • "you have been keeping some very iffy company" (to me)

I was in fact the administrator who unprotected his talk page because I felt sorry for him. But I have watched with concern as he has been filling up that page with more and more long posts that are definitely an abuse of Wikipedia server space. He is unable to edit his user page now, because his talk page is the only page that a blocked editor can edit during a block; but the stuff he put on his user page before he was blocked was also clearly in breach of Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:UP and WP:NOT. It is quite likely that his talk page will be protected again, in a blanked version. The same could happen with his user page. User pages are supposed to be relevant to helping the encyclopaedia, and perhaps giving a little information about the editor, to reveal a little to other Wikipedians about what sorto of person he is. They are not supposed to be used as a blog, or as a personal website, funded by Wikipedia. Wikipedia talk pages are meant to be used to collaborate with other editors and to discuss possible improvements to articles. User talk pages are supposed to be used for communicating with other editors, for the purpose of helping to build up the encyclopaedia. Obviously, we don't have to stick to it rigidly. If I've made several hundred edits reverting vandalism, archiving talk pages, correcting formatting, adding content, etc., I don't feel scrupulous about sending a message to another editor about the pancakes I'm having for breakfast. A certain freedom in talk page use helps to keep the community spirit for building up the encyclopaedia.

I don't hold it against EffK that he abuses Wikipedia server space, as I know that he's sincere, and his behaviour is logical enough for someone who sincerely believes that the Vatican is trying to take over Wikipedia and the world, and that Str1977 is a Vatican agent. Nevertheless, it has to be recognized that what he is doing is not what the Wikipedia community wants. Why should Wikipedia pay for the server space for his long posts about the Vatican and about Str1977 and about how Pope Benedict should order Pius XII's body to be dug up so that he can face charges for collaborating with Hitler? The space on user pages and user talk pages is not meant as a free gift or an entitlement; it's meant to help collaboration with other editors for the purpose of building up the encyclopaedia, with a reasonable amount allowed for social messages. EffK had some questions for me recently, and it was so complictated trying even to find them, after he had added a few thousand more words to his page, that I temporarily gave up. In any case, I think it was just his normal requests that I'd check Str1977's archiving (which I find to be beyond reproach except for the occasional error), and that I'd get the case reopened, which I couldn't possibly do.

The Arbitration Committee ruled that EffK was misusing Wikipedia, by treating it as a soapbox, and in fact an ArbCom member removed some of his long posts from one of the ArbCom pages. They also ruled that administrators could ban him from pages if he caused disruption. His page was protected because he continued to misuse it after the ban, and it was only because Str1977 kindly agreed to give him a second chance that I was able to unprotect it. EffK's own messages on it indicated that he was aware that it could be reprotected again soon, and I would say that your reverting of an administrator's action has done more to hasten the day that it will be reprotected for good than than the actions of anyone else, including EffK himself.

AnnH ♫ 14:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


I can't see how the page violates WP:UP, and neither the arbcom nor anyone else until now has moved to delete or blank it. SeanBlack on wiping the page described it in his edit summary as 'useless junk', which is just a personal attack (and talk about kicking a man when he's down and can't defend himself). As I understand it though EffK is banned he still has a right to user and user talk pages, and for these to be treated with the same respect as other users. But I am not an admin and not that well up on policy so perhaps I am wrong - I have asked for a more knowledgeable outside opinions at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts.

A few other points:

  • I am still editing on subjects EffK was involved in and I, if maybe no one else, find his communications on his user page of value. While he has been much criticised for his editing style he has made valid points.
  • I don't believe 'server space' is a significant issue here. Actually is it an issue at all for wikipedia? And in this particular case EffK's page probably takes up less space than most with no graphics on it.
  • This comment - I would say that your reverting of an administrator's action has done more to hasten the day that it will be reprotected for good than than the actions of anyone else, including EffK himself - I don't understand at all. Bengalski 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


As SeanBlack's blanked it again, I've pasted the text on my userpage until this is resolved. Please note I have no pics, boxes etc. on my page so I don't think I can be accused of hogging server space doing this. Now EffK's text is described as a '120k rant' that 'serves no purpose to anyone'. If server space is really such an issue what purpose is served by pics of doggies and apple turnovers on these admins userpages? Or in SeanBlack's case a 2meg image of a pothole?Bengalski 21:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bengalski. Thanks for your message. I withdraw the bit about your revert hastening the day that his talk page will be reprotected for good, and I have crossed it out. I thought originally that it was the talk page which had been blanked, and which you had restored. In that case, it would certainly have hastened the day, as I have been watching that talk page with growing unease. It was a member of the arbitration committee who suggested that the talk page should be protected when EffK continued to use it as a soapbox (and to make personal attacks on Str1977), and it was another administrator who enforced this. Blocked or banned users originally were not able to edit their talk pages. The change was requested by a bureaucrat who wanted them to have some way of communicating with others, as long as they didn't abuse it. For example, they could write why they thought the block was unfair. Maybe they hadn't really violated 3RR, and the blocking admin had miscounted. Maybe they wanted to draw attention to a factual error in an article, and hoped that someone else would fix it. It was not meant to be pages and pages about Vatican conspiracies.
I knew that EffK was abusing the facility to edit his own talk page. I was not surprised when it was protected. Nevertheless, I like him, and I didn't want him to have the frustration of not being able to communicate, so I asked Str1977 – the main target of his abuse – if he would object if I unprotected it. He very kindly agreed to let me, and even welcomed EffK back. But that page just got bigger and bigger and bigger, with lots of stuff about Str1977's "bad-faith" archiving and about Vatican conspiracies. I felt that I had made the wrong decision, and asked him again not to abuse my leniency. Please understand that I would not wish for anything to hurt his dignity. Of all the banned users, he is the one I feel most sympathy for, but nevertheless, I fully support the ban. I don't blame him for his behaviour, because I believe that he's sincere, but that behaviour can't be allowed to continue. I think I explained on another page that I can admire John the Baptist, who called people "ye brood of vipers", but if he were a user here, I would block him for his behaviour.
So, yes, if that had been his talk page, as I originally thought, and if, after the way he went on clogging it up an administrator blanked it (quite properly, since the material there is certainly inappropriate to Wikiepedia) and then you reverted the administrator, accusing him of vandalism, it would certainly have hastened the day when his talk page will be protected for good. I have already warned EffK a few times that his talk page could be reprotected again, and have told him that I really do not want that to happen.
I am also concerned at the ease with which you accuse other editors of vandalism. Your accusation to Sean Black today was not the first instance of it. I recall that a few months ago, when Str1977 made a post, and, owing to a software bug, a POV tag was removed at the same time (nothing worse), you sent a vandalism warning to his talk page, and also accused him of vandalism at one of the Arbitration pages. When I explained about the software bug, instead of apologizing, you magnanimously accepted that he hadn't meant to remove it. I would never have made the accusation in the first place, but if I had, I would certainly have apologized. Similarly, you accused Sean Black of vandalism, instead of simply telling him that you disagreed with him and felt that EffK should be allowed to keep his page the way he wanted it. For an administrator to replace lengthy and inappropriate posts with a simple notice that the user has been banned is certainly not vandalism, and I would ask you to stop using that word so lightly. I would be happy to discuss with EffK what part of his pages he particularly wants to keep, and perhaps even to archive some material for him, but that would be something I would discuss with him and Sean, perhaps. I wouldn't just jump in and accuse an administrator of "vandalism".
I am also concerned that you seem to condemn other people for making much milder remarks about EffK than the ones he has made about Str1977, and others. Personally, I wouldn't have used the expression "useless junk", but I do agree that the material there was not of any use. Let me ask you something: Which do you think is more abusive — "useless junk" or "brother of the murder", "dangerously immoral", "sinister", "shocking", "you will have to be controlled", "on the point of mental sickness", "source of moral pollution", "your morality is highly objectionable", "ignorant", and "blaggardly user"?
With regard to server space, the people who have pictures of doggies etc. are contributing usefully to Wikipedia. Sean Black has done fantastic administrator work. Wikipedia can afford to give a few kilobytes to those who spend hundreds of hours doing chores for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia should be giving lots and lots of server space to people who are here to push an agenda, and who show no interest in serving Wikipedia. The apple turnover was made by me and photographed so that there would be a picture of puff pastry in the puff pastry article. In other words, it was a contribution to Wikipedia. I don't think that a photo takes up a lot of extra space by appearing on more than one page once it has been uploaded. Even if it does, I don't think anyone would object, since I have spent hours rolling back vandalism, blocking vandals, doing copyedits, archiving talk pages, correcting formatting, rather than simply posting long posts about my favourite topic. AnnH ♫ 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If I had been involved in the discussion when EffK was making these personal attacks then I might well have taken him to task for it. But as they always used to tell me as a child, 'two wrongs don't make a right'. EffK's crimes are in the past - he's been banned, after all - and I'm not sure why you are digging them up again here. I don't think there was anything like that in the text that was blanked. Yes I am much more concerned with behaviour taking place in the present. Also, I have to say, when it involves someone who is in a position of power like Sean Black, as opposed to EffK who has been completely disempowered. As I said above, I think what I found particularly distasteful about his comment was he was kicking someone who's down. EffK, rightly or wrongly - as you know, I think there is a lot more truth in what he's argued than he's been given credit for - was outnumbered, outgunned, and by some editors dismissed or disdained. So, yes, maybe I'm more tolerant when people in situations like that strike out in anger than when I see someone in authority being callous and disrespectful.
But anyway this is a bit beside the point. We have a real issue here about what rights a banned editor has to a user page, and I hope some fresh voices come and throw some light on it.Bengalski 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of whether or not a banned user has a right to a user page; it's more a question of what is suitable for a user page for any user. What right does anyone have to put long, off-topic conspiracy stuff on his user page? What kind of impression does it give of Wikipedia? Would Jimbo be happy at the impression people would get of Wikipedia if they saw that page? Admins do remove material that's considered unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. It happens. And in fact you were around at the time that EffK was making many of his attacks on Str1977. I share your dislike for kicking someone who's down, and I recently reverted an editor who sent a message saying "ha ha" to someone who had been blocked. But I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that he has been completely disempowered. He's happily posting away here. And I repeat that Wikipedia is under no obligation to give server space to people for the purpose of making a mini-blog about their theories. In fact, I seem to recall that Jimbo suggested that he find another website to post on. The reason that he has been able to continue posting on Wikipedia after being banned is simply that the target of his attacks and the administrator most involved both felt sorry for him and wanted to spare him extra frustration. If EffK is upset at the removal of that material from his user page, he can say so on his talk page (if his overfilling of is hasn't led to its being re-protected). I have always treated EffK with kindness, as far as I know, and I would be prepared to discuss with him what he wants to have on his page and what he can reasonably be permitted to have. We don't need someone jumping in, reverting, and accusing an administrator of vandalism. AnnH ♫ 00:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion's going round in circles. EffK's user page was basically his statement about his wikipedia editing, his arbcom trial and the circumstances which led to him being banned, which he sees as being wrongful. Server space is a non-issue - I'll happily donate the fraction of a cent it costs to store EffK's userpage. I think this is relevant content for a userpage - as much as what any of us put on our user pages - in fact it probably relates more to his wikipedia editing than most peoples' userpages.
But the point is if he were not banned no one would think of blanking it. He does not make personal attacks on it. As per WP:UP, he has very much used it to let people know about your activities on Wikipedia, and your opinions about Wikipedia. Disagreeing with those opinions, even to the point of thinking they give a bad impression of WP (out of a million articles, WP is judged on EffK's userpage?), is not enough.
The question is quite simple: should his userpage be treated differently, should he have less rights, because he's banned? If he has the same rights, I will revert people who blank or otherwise vandalise his page, and I couldn't care less if they're an admin. If he has lost his rights, this needs to be made clearer - perhaps by the arbcom, and I will respect the rules.
Also please stop threatening his talk page - he is not making personal attacks there, he is using it to communicate with me re. editing on Pius XII. (Where, incidentally, I've now provided very reputable academic sourcing for his main claim that kept being wiped as 'conspiracy theory' by Catholic editors.) I'll happily go and archive it for him.Bengalski 12:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi, Bengalski. You have reverted three times in the last few hours at the Adolf Hitler article. I just want to make sure that you're aware that if you make a fourth revert (or partial revert, incorporating other changes simultaneously), even if it's a different revert (for example, if someone changes the wording in the third paragraph and you change it back), you could be blocked for 24 hours. I very seldom block or report for 3RR violations, but someone else could, so I just thought I'd let you know. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed Musical Linguist just violated the 3RR rule herself, so I left her a message on her talk page about it. Giovanni33 13:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Girolamo degli Illirici

Instead of proposing deletion of the article you created, wouldn't it be better to redirect to the existing page you mention in the edit summary? If you can be mistaken about which name it should file under, others can too. And it is not immediately clear where to go; I tried to find the proper target and redirect it myself, but got no good match. I suspect it may be related to Pontifical Croatian College of St. Jerome, but the information from your blanked article is not found there. Henning Makholm 15:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, the redirect currently in place seems to work fine. Henning Makholm 15:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedian Bengalski

I would like to thank you for coming to help me. Demiurge is a known censor on issues as diverse as

  • American domestic terrorism which he demolished even after it was run by him for his own approval because of the negative implications for Irish-Americans in the 1863 Draft Riots, the 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times Building, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 3 worst incidents of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, all of which were carried out or spearheaded by Irish-Americans.
  • pre-Code Hollywood movies and the R.C. censorship of same for more than 30 years, which he attempted to gut because of the negative publicity for the Catholic church, and was only stopped by another third-party Wikipedian, who caught him at the time.

Demiurge's associates always back him up, but he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct.

He is an automatic censor and it bodes very ill for Wikipedia that he continues to get away with his relentless censorship and mindless reverting of "blocked" (who are not blocked) alleged unproven "sockpuppet vandals".

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com for the extensive proof linking "Brandubh Blathmac" and many other sock-puppets to Rms125a@hotmail.com. If you are at all interested, see the recent post from "BB" at Talk:Celtic F.C. for just an example of the disgusting personal attacks/rampant POV of Rms125a. Camillus (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for having my back.

Please advise all Wikipedians you can about this menace to our free speech.

Brandubh Blathmac 16:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Griffith

Help!! Censor Demiurge is at it again, gutting my work for ludicrous reasons. Please help and bring this matter to the attention of some one in power!! This censor must be stopped.

Just compare his and my versions.

THANKS!!

Brandubh Blathmac 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Just got your comment.

Fair enough, but I think there are more than sufficient citations/sources (newspaper name and date of edition); IMDb, etc.

It's just that this guy won't stop censoring; he is out of control, and the less he is challenged the more censoring and manipulating of data he is going to do!! It's as simple as that. I don't know if he is a paid censor from an outside source, or what.

Thanks anyway for listening. Brandubh Blathmac 18:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rms125a

Re your post - I sent this message to User:Demiurge, regarding reverting Rms125a@hotmail.com/"Brandubh Blathmac"'s edits (particularly A P):

I don't think we should fall into the trap of reverting all his edits - "Catholic" "war-criminals" do indeed exist, even if Rms seems to think the two terms are synonymous.

Rms would indeed gain by taking a leaf from your book - though you argue your case forcibly, you always make the best effort to find sources (unlike "BB" who seems to believe everything he reads in Irish-American propoganda sheets), and you never, ever resort to personal attacks/abuse. Camillus (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XII FAC

I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you are one of the perennial contributors to the article and the talk page, I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norac

Hi,

You might help in eliminating this ugly article

[edit] Reply

Ben, I did not intend to attack you on Splash's talk page and I don't think I have. The slander and bigotry was all EffK's doing and I didn't think that you agreed with it. As I have written over there, I don't see anyone near opening procedures against you. However, I did want to raise your awareness of what EffK, what actually led to his being blocked, and someone less benevolent than me could read your advocacy of EffK as an advocacy of all he said and did. Str1977 (smile back) 08:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)