Jump to content

User talk:EffK/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Who is Klaus Scholder?

At last I've had a chance to do some more serious reading on this. I now know that EffK's 'strong' quid pro quo - relating the concordat to the enabling act, not just the self-dissolution of the Centre party - is supportd by at least some heavyweight historians. The source given by both Cornwell and our friend Gregory (no more animals please) is the late Professor Klaus Scholder of Tubingen University, in his 'The Churches and the Third Reich', vol 1, who basically devotes a whole chapter to arguing this. From what I can see, he seems to be recognised even by his critics (and I note he was a protestant) as an important authority on this area.
Scholder himself points to earlier historical work on this: "the argument for a connection between the Reich concordat and the EA was stated and substantiated in detail for the first time by Karl Dietrich Bracher" but unfortunately I can't read Bracher as he has not been translated from German. (For those who can teh reference is 'Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung und Reichskonkordat.' in F. Gese and F.A.von de Heydte (eds.) 'Der Konkordatsprozess', Munich nd 1957-59 pp. 947-1021).
If people want I can go through Scholder's arguments and primary sources in detail. One of the main ones is Bruning's memoirs, where he says clearly that Hitler raised the concordat in the EA negotiations. Papen also is quoted as saying that the concordat was discussed as early as 30th January. There are plenty more. Scholder concludes: "those who dispute a link between acceptance of the enabling act and the conclusion of the Reich concordat definitely seem unconvincing." (p248)
People here have argued that no serious historian would argue the 'strong QPQ', only conspiracy nuts. I think Scholder rates as a serious source for the strong QPQ claim in anyone's book. Argue against the QPQ claim by all means, and cite contrary interpretations, but it is time to stop dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory'.Bengalski 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Bengalski, when doing your reading please be careful whether someone argues a connection between Concordat and EA in Kaas' mind (though we cannot know for certain I think that thought at least passed his mind once or twice) or whether the Holy See/Pacelli is involved. EffK made it easy for him (and hard for us) as he simply declared Kaas to be Pacelli's tool (but he anyway thought Catholics to be Romote-controlled robots), but that is not how we should work. Thanks for your effort. Str1977 (smile back) 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid Scholder is with EffK on this - he is clear that both Pacelli and P11 were involved, with Kaas the 'key go-between' in the negotiations (in the English translation anyway). Also his sources say much more than that it just passed through Kaas' mind - they are saying this was specifically part of the bargaining. But I suggest you read the Scholder (I think you said you didn't know it, but from what I found it is fairly easy to get hold of in academic libraries) and we can discuss the details after if you like.Bengalski 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII"]

I place this at the top here so no one , looking in, should remain in any doubbt as to the fact this is, in Wikipedia, an unresolved situation. discussion at bottom, if any one has the moral guts to enter.

This page should be left free from protection or constraint

This page should be free from protection, and if it is blocked [[1]] ,your reading of it and my Wikipedia edits and diffs will explain the reason it is become fossilised. If it is blocked/protected again, you may only hope to discuss my absence further with User:Bengalski. At my Arbcom page it is suggested by a new party who appears to have no knowledge of my being hounded, as blockable. Should this final blocking of communications between myself and users be achieved then I shall have to say to you to search for EffK or one other of these previous usernames as a blog, through Blogsearch or similar. Once a blog is up in the next month I will become useful again, meanwhile still able to respond, I await at foot of this page for the technical answer to the direct simple question re Hitler discussion removal in Wikipedia. If the answer is never given and this my last page is protected, then someone later use the evidence and reason below as will be appropriate to help wikipedia.it will be quite clear from the date that the inability of the user to answer the question has proved to be the reason, and any success in doing so will be further sign that Wikipedia is not working on Verifiability or its own policies.

These Usernames are now all banned and the most apposite comment that could be made, but which I will not source, is this:

`All righty, now that we've kicked that nuisance out, let's open a ladies' clothes shop!'

  • FK to my friends =
When he insisted that he was a native speaker, and presumably writer, I thought that he might instead have some sort of disability. Then someone else said that he seemed paranoid. Clinical paranoia is a form of schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is a thought disorder which manifests itself in difficulty in using language. He really did seem to have a delusion that the Catholic Church was trying to take over Wikipedia, as well as to rewrite history. He always said that he wrote as he thought. If his thoughts were disordered, his language would be disordered. Maybe he seemed crazy because he was crazy. Robert McClenon 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC) who ends the(his/my)case thus:
Wikipedia attracts some very unpleasant people. Some of them think that they are Christians, and some of them hate Christians. Tomorrow (by United States time) I will listen to a priest tell me how to be a better Christian, and will then join with other Christians in the Body of Christ. from Robert McClenon 01:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Ballad of a Thin Man?jfg284 14:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Exoneration, and Source, the lack thereof

Note: As can be seen from my last posts, I remain as challenger demanding exonerating counter-spource, as the which does not exist. Only the state of Wikipedia Articles including and related to Adolf Hitler as of yesterday , can be witness to the acceptance, by my Wikipedia peers, of the NPOV truth I presented.EffK 11:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Troll article says :Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll. Sounds to me as though they feed themselves, by this qualification. Obfuscation- there it is, pristine WP.EffK 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Things that interest

The present wikipedia climate of fear apart(and try searching my old PEW if you want), the two major things that interest me remain firstly how Hitler took power, and secondly , how the German General Staff drove the Hitler phenomenon. The first is largely dealt with, but this second remains . I concern myself with these subjects because they are both generally -and certainly in Wikipedia- subject to ignorance and to politically correct and other revisionism. I intend to concentrate hereon upon the latter. Both subjects unfortunately have bearing upon our present world and the uses of great power. The involvement of faith in the former, where clear blockage was and is artificially mounted, has deterred me from the due concentration for clearer representation of the latter realities.

Supreme Court of the United States of America and the Church of Rome

Probably my last Act before being banned from Wikipedia was towards the relevance of the recent Nominee and his faith. Those of good heart can avail of the entire with the trouble of using the history button there which may still reveal:[[2]] . I am of good heart whatever my Wikipedia Judges can say, and I will bear my Judgement with the pride or shame it deserves. The proclamation the same day by the new pontiff that the church will not stand upon the sidelines of history, of course justifies the entire very lengthy commentary I the user/s have wilfully placed in Wikipedia. The history of revisionism in Wikipedia during my time will be erased from its clear Evidential listing, more revisionist attempts will be made following my ban, and the erasure of truth from Wikipedia that is already openly planned, will be equally as visible to the extent here of Wikipedia's durability, and possibly forever, outside of it. Fool, in other words, will be made of us all. I hold my head, as Wikipedia criminal, up as high as the Judges can demand for its decapitation, in the knowlede that I am of good heart historically, legally, morally and personally. I claim that no single exonerating Source can or has or will be provided to exonerate the charges of history my Userdom existed to make. I have been, of course a, as it is said, royal pain in the Arse. Such royal right I have also claimed by blood, the which I may one day choose to reveal. It is a very long descendance to this, but in purely ancestral terms, I am within my own fellowship of good heart. The permanent ban from catholic hagiographical Articles shall perhaps cow all others of good heart, the which is to be now Wikipedia's contumate responsibility, as the organ has been abundantly warned by my good heart. The reality of the History that I have as of today succeeded in NPOV'ing in Wikipedia, leaves me with all the justification I could wish .The demands of all good heart are that continuing Document War challenge be presented to the completely contumate papacy. EffK 11:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Condemned to repeat History: the Nominee

Large section irrelevant to building a Wikipedia article removed per WP:NOT a soapbox. -- Jonel | Speak 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK Jonel but here is the essence: will you allow the essence of the relevant question to the future? I would suggest that no intervention here on Wikipedia can arrest or deflect from the future. Do as you judge.

From end of large "irrelevant" classed WP:NOT

  • I would as necessary discuss the concept of Liberty in so far as this Court is concerned. I find it preceded by the logic of the Law above and the resulting question: How can the Nominee uphold the Law of the USA from ridicule, as he is charged to do ,if he cannot uphold from ridicule,the Law of his Faith?

Someone please tell me if Law, even as represented by this Court and no other, can submit itself to Contempt or ridicule? The wikipedia has some trouble with the nature of legality in regards to its history, which over-laps with the factor of the recent nomination to this Court.I happily return simply to conserve the un-deleted preceding post from the history. I made the long post aware of the dangers of in wikipedia raising current and past issues which are painful, even at the possibility of being personally condemned for doing so. I consider the attempt to explain the past ramifications of the underlying shift in balance with this the recent nomination, to be within Jimbo Wales explanation guidelines. Therefore I request that the material explanations deleted, be studied as such- consequent and surrounding explanation. GoodbyeEffK 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Being user:Corecticus - The Mowrer Accusation Against The Holy Roman Catholic Church

In 1968 Edgar Ansel Mowrer wrote , copyrighted and published Triumph and Turmoil-A Personal History of our Time SBN 04 920026 .The London Publishers , George Allen & Unwin Ltd foresaw reproduction without permission for the purposes of study , research ,criticism or review . Mowrer was the correspondent in Berlin from 1923-1933 for The Chicago Daily News and was authorised to employ two assistants, the second of whom was Otto Brok ,a " doctor of political sciences and a respected member of the (Catholic ) Centre Party. Mowrer mentions Brok a number of times in relation to the Centre Party , metaphysical discussion of German philosophers and news sources but the central purpose of including Brok would appear to be for this his link into the Catholic (centre) party .

......"Following the May 1932 elections Brok one morning rushed into the office in tears and shouting "It is all over , it is all over ". On Mowrer's asking for the cause of this distress ,Brok is reported as saying
"Last night at a meeting of the Centre Party, which I attended, our Party leader , Monsignor Kaas , read a letter from the Secretary of State at Rome , Cardinal Pacelli, whom you knew in Munich as nuncio."
"The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor . The Zentrums [Centre Party] leaders agreed ," he sobbed
"Yes , go on" I said.
"But, Edgar , that means HItler in power! Hitler wants a new war and he will get it." Once more he broke into tears.
"Otto, may I report the cardinal's message and the Party's decision to cooperate with the Nazis?"
" 'Nein. It was a secret meeting . But you will see."

Mowrer's text having referred to this previously as a betrayal of the Catholics, continues from this Brok testimony :

And see we did . From that day the Centre regularly supported Hitler . In November , the Party urged Hindenburg to take Hitler as chancellor . Even when in Febuary , 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him to the Constitution , they voted an Enabling act doing away with personal freedom , democracy and law in Germany . This they called clarifying the situation . ....."

Theology of Jesus Christ

I bring here ,where it is appropriate, the answer to the following little question of User Robert McClenon's but it arose from this context od McC's-

You state that the Church, or some of its clerics, supported the dissolution of democracy in favor of autocratic Hitlerism, knowing the risk of anti-Semitic murder, in order to check the spread of atheistic Communism. That would be a moral error, because it would be a violation of the principle of double action. I agree. You have made a valid case for moral error, if you can establish that those were the motives.

and then this-

I agree with Famekeeper that the arguments for moral complicity by Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII should be presented as points of view held by some scholars. I disagree with any claim that there has been proof of moral complicity.

The political motives are established by the sources to which I throughout referred and can repeat unto nausea, however ,this question again....

Can you show me a canon that states that errors in dealing with double action (a difficult concept) are grave sins, warranting excommunication? Can you show me how you would address my reasonable doubts that the errors required excommunication.

Well, we get to double action at the bottom , beforehand, here are the canons ruling ecclesiatics (and I posted the same in french for the era in question, as these are the following upgrade)

  • Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.
  • §3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.
  • Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.
  • §2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

Motivation is supplied by this contemporary political report , made by German Foreign Secretary Franz von Papen of the honour given by Pope Pius XII to Hermann Goering at which these were the pontiff's words of contumate welcome for Adolf Hitler, 10 April 1933 -

His Holiness welcomed Hitler's representative , Franz von Papen , " most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that that the German government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms."

resolution of the historic moral scandal is herewith-

  • Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

In relation to prosecution in the offence of 1933 it should be relevant that there was a consummation of the offence , the full use of reason , sufficient moral liberty , and a knowledge of the law and of the penalty of the law ( Contumacy ). Contumacy is provided by this translation of the words of Ludwig Kaas, under orders from his Church -

After this, Dr. Kaas pointed out the precarious situation of the fraction in the current moment. It was important on one hand to preserve our soul and on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences ..for party.

IE- it was because of our soul(his as leader of that Party) important to reject [giving the dictatorship to Hitler].

Wikipedia Removal of Controversial Uganda Study

This article should be an encyclopaedic report on what BXVI's theology actually is. The citation by any of us of any outside studies, events, etc. to support or refute his theology represents inherent impartiality. Let us report what the theology is, pure and simple, and let the readers decide for themselves. Reports and studies, whether flawed or not, reference to shore up theology, can be better placed on an article about contraception/abstinence, etc. Wikipedia is abused when treated as a political vehicle. If BXVI can be quoted, directly, as saying that the Uganda study supports Church teaching on contraception/chastity, let us cite that - as a quote, not ipse dixit. ( User:Str1977 ? )

I place two posts I made to Str1977 and the Useer:RobertMcClenon 16 Nov 2005

16 Nov 2005-can FK/Str agree to follow on ?

[To Str1977 talk page ] I come here hoping to congratulate you Str , for it seems from that which you remove or reposition that you may agree with me in the gist of things at Rkkdt , Weimar Republic and Centre party and resultingly Pius XI & Xii ? Confusion which has reigned for the year has grieved us greatly , and I am so happy if this now spells acceptance of the contentious issues. A couple need clearing up - the exact dates of the working Committee and the correct title it gave itself then, the number of days it sat , whether 16, 17 to 21 or 22 March , as co-chaired by AH and LudK ..... and /or the situation as to the Committee's existence after Kaas returns to meet the Fuhrer , arriving Berlin 31 March . Whether its the same committee, or as you have for many months insisted, that the latter only dates between 31 Mar and up to Kaas 's departrure for Munich By 8 April 1933 .

The other sole point of confusion we should torture our fingers with , is as to the sourcing thus far absent within Books I have sourced, standard round-ups of the post Nuremburg documents and publications, upon which such as Shirer and Toland based themselves. I think you know I write of the WP stated change in the Reichstag procedure , whatever that is , what stated it, how decreed, and showing its pre-Enabling Act contradiction of Article 2 of the Constitution or certainly as represented in WP , a contradiction with Article 2 of the Enabling Act itself. What day this change was brought about? Who empowered it since the Fire Decree of 28 March does not appear to include such vital Deputy arresting proviso in the Fire Decree's pro-rogation of civil liberties? These are quite clearly expressed and do not include such arresting power of Deputies, and there is an unclear WP aside concerning exactly that to which I point, undated or specified and simply saying other and procedural change .

You appear as of now to accept as sourced and NPOV , not as a conspiracy theory of mine alone , that the subject under scrutiny , Hitler's ascent to power, can have the information noticed by the Mowrer /Manhattan/Primary Source/ contemporary writers and then later Cornwell/Kershaw, as to various levels of possible/probable/proven Vatican leverage and interests in the out-come in Spring 1933.

I would await any useful proving source that you might locate as to disproving information, and back full inclusion everywhere relevant in WP . Equally I would expect you to hold to your present , seeming, ability to balance the present NPOV of sources without their future exclusion other than by actual sourced disproof ( by whosoever can) . I will skip past problems in doing so and just congratulate you , in allowing that which your edits seem to do as of now. This is a victory for sense and the WP, if we can at last agree or see each other as NPOV . I will have to continue to pressure your reducing edits , as I see that every worth-while reference should allow readers to gain a full picture. I believe of course that all reference to Priests suffering precisely for their goodness must be recorded in respect , but equally that episcopal information be presented as sourceable (one of my recent disabled external links did this) and the information does exist for us to do so . This , the change in the episcopate , underEugenio Pacelli foreign policy, has to be faced up to , even if it refers also to internal and vatican historical qualifications. I am shocked at Franz Von Papen's Nuremburg testimony that still in 1936 a high authority of the Roman Catholic Church promoted still sought symbiosis with National Socialism and I cannot ignore that which that trial received as information and provides us as source . I am sure therefore that we will need to revisit our struggle , but hope that you will by now not characterise the subject by my personal lack of patience, annoyance at interminable repetition and distrust of your reluctance hitherto . I say again , I do not come from Wrire:John Cornwell to Hitler's Pope but from Edgar Ansel Mowrer quoting the lost Otto Brok , Centre Party member in Berlin at May 1932. Of course if the present candidate for deletion were to succeed , then there will be a gaping requirement fot the full story to erupt wherever it possibly relates, which as you know in legal manner ,means everywhere it is relevant including the Papacy . Links to a NPOV full article only needs The Great Scandal Renamed , and it could go as Nazi Accession Questionor Hitler's rise to power .

In simplest I state that there are remaining questions , and nither WP nor any editor nor yourself answer it for my satisfaction . One is the second above : Procedure for Dormancy . Another is when did the church policy re Hitler begin , and the last is when did it end . von Papen suggests 1936 , but WP has yet to know . Please rv the Ludwig Kaas page to mine 30 August 2005 , or I will bring it up to date , OK Ciau. EffK 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(Robert McClenon talk page ) I hate to have to come and include you in extra work but I inform you that it appears from Str 1977 editing today that he has come to see as NPOV the information so long at contention , and the manner and balance of the presentation . He does not remove the gist of my assertive edits from either Reichskonkordat or Centre Party Germany and it seems that a mixture of , howling ban , then , politeness , then ,determined demand for proof of my error coupled with his reading some of my external attempts at linkage , may have brought this political insanity to a conclusion . However to both of you I realise that my assertions are painful , and I do not plan on desisting from the digging for episcopal source , to solve another problem (when did the church/Pacelli policy end -if it did . I ask Str to help with several remaining German questions , but am hopeful that at last I may not be cast as the paranoid, schizophrenic ,slipshod filibustering ,illiterate conspiracy theorist you yourself characterised me . Any chance of an apology ? Any chance of you changing your characterisations and adhering to good faith in my editing, Monsieur ? I'd be most happy if it were the case . Of course , I may be wrong and it is just that Str lost his spectacles today .... but I ask you to read the editing he made and upon which I base this present position . EffK 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, Of course, I stand by the edits I made to the articles in question and I am glad that you are content with them. I am not in the least opposed to a NPOV understanding, if it is possible. I recognize the negotiations as the world recognizes them - it is you who claim something extra and this without enough foundation in real sources. As for your errors, you know that I have pointed them out to you as they occur. Either you choose to forget about that or you still don't understand what your error was. I presume (in good faith) that the latter option applies. This is where the real problem lies. Where did I attack you personally or use the "ad hominem" argument (Do you understand what this argument is?) Using hate-mongers like Avro Manhattan or Jack Chick or editorials from atheistic sites is not "present scholarship". I am prepared to contine the understanding, but don't (again) jump to conclusion about an all-out agreement and don't trumpet around such conclusions. Str1977 12:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Response by EffK to 17 Nov 2005 continuing denialism

I am sorry to have to differ. You have left in my edits of events which you previously many times removed in all articles removed , ever since you say, April . It is simply not the case that you were prepared to accept the scholarship of Lewy, Toland, Shirer, Klemperer and Wheeler Bennett . You completely dispute without counter proof that of ,apparently , Kershaw and Cornwell .Mowrer you limited as anecdotal , though he acts as effectively the world's first contemporary witness with Wheeler-Bennett , who resided also in Germany . It is disingenuous to present all these as hate filled. I do not defend the Chick connection, and from the little I see of Manhattan , do not see that his analyses of the vatican are per se POV or hate filled. He refers to powers and currents and has enough to write without the need to express (im-)moral opinion . I have been ,I repeat , very considerably hindered through hundreds of your edits which are quite contrary to these last few you made in the recent 72 hours . I consider this a capitulation to history , not to me , and am saddened given your mental contradiction now, to see that you are far from feeling there is an NPOV in what you chose to accept in them . It is curious how this developes just at the moment that MCClenon decides to call for a trial . I won't mind censure for my characterisation of you as a faith based denialist , as this recent turn-around is preceded by endless prevarication and attempted denial . It is not for you or me to dismiss sources - and I dneounce your doing that . If I analyse the entire Str1977 user history , it is because clearly you find unacceptable all that written history presents simply in order to protect the institution of the Roman Catholic Church from their own intrigue (and the modern german 'centre' . You do not provide any sources which contradict the Klemperer conclusion [[3]]. I wish you would , and that I could share the effective delusions you retain . EG your "But in this case, there was no papal subversion of democracy. Maybe a Kaasian, but not a papal. . You retract anything you let slip , and it is preposterous in this one statement to write this and then to have so strongly and un-sourcedly denienvesti=gation that hsitory has made , as well of course as the Nuremburg Trial . To assert that the information I presented , of Papen , is dismissable , and that the Trials characterised the Reichskonkordat deals as a maneuver intended to deceive , is denialism of high order, intellectually placing you towards the David Irving's , and removing you from the illustrious company of the Oxford University Press' Klemperer . All attempts to wriggle are forms of ad hominem , being as they are directed at me personally . I personally have to be the definitive source upon your actual Wikipedia history , but I report or source hitherto the actual world history . I am prepared to source your denials , contradictions , climb-downs and mis-placement of that whuich you earlier accepted, if you prefer

As to how Wikipedia itself absorbs such editing against the historical grain , well ,I know that I see your political editing as actually creating artificial distortion . I accept that there should be a trial of ME as proponent of the history , the attack being as Robert McClenon specifies"-

This editor has been engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. Link to EffK RfA [[4]] .

All I can add to the actual RfA is that that far from being a frivolous call , my request that User:Str1977 , yourself , be banned from Wikipedia , was entirely serious , and warranted for the reasons I propound . I advertised my request to you , and apart from natural indignation at you , I should be noted as not having had the purely technical Wikpedia linkage skills to call for your effective censure earlier . ( If I had not been monocausally concerned to limit the damage exemplified by McClenon's charge , I might have had some time to learn - your denialism has thus far also robbed the WP of bulk content on other subjects ) . I shall respond through use of your own edits if you persist in your denialism of your very own editing , and as necesary to resist the foolish RfA charge ? Again , I advise you to prevent futher damage by actual with-drawal of you assertions , and your sponsors',User:Robert McClenon. And demand a medical (schizophrenic paranoia) moral(slanderer) and wikipedia (ad hominem bad faith)apology from you both . Personally , I don't care , what you do , as long as your denialism is extinguished . EffK 15:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Musical Linguist Reply [ relating to Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal )

EffK, I am in the middle of an important assignment, but since you are still demanding further explanations, I'm taking a moment to reply. I hope to reply more fully on Thursday, but I will post my reply at Talk:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal rather than here, as the discussion should be open to anyone who edits that page.

You miss the point when you say that I have had time for other edits. I did not claim that I'd have no time for Wikipedia; I said that my time would be limited this week. When I'm busy, I have time to wash the dishes, but not time to repaper the living room wall. How long do you think it took me to write this? How long do you think it would take to write a detailed explanation of every change I made at Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal? I'm at the computer while I'm writing essays, so I keep my browser open, and refresh my watchlist from time to time. You've obviously been tracking my contributions. The number I've made recently is misleading. Now that I'm an admin, I have a rollback button. So reverting vandalism now takes a fraction of the time that it used to take [5]. Most of my other recent contributions are thank you messages to the people who so kindly supported my RfA. In some (though not all) cases, the messages were quick, as I re-used the wording in many cases, so just had to copy and paste. It is a matter of regret to me that so far I have only found time to thank about forty of them, and I hope those who are ignored until Thursday will forgive the delay.

If I had insulted Str1977's grandfather, as you did[6], I would consider that making an apology was far more urgent than getting an explanation from another editor about a particular edit. (Judging from the good will that Str1977 has always shown, I am positive that he would accept an apology, too.) Well, I'm not going to start tracking your contributions, but since several pages that you edit are on my watchlist, I think it's safe to say that you have made many contributions to Wikipedia since making that particular insult, and have not yet apologized. That's far more important than any explanation I might have about my edits, so I don't see how you can complain about the number of contributions I've made before providing an explanation. My explanation would be time-consuming; your apology would take less than two minutes. I hope that by the time I return fully to Wikipedia next week, you will have made it.

I am at a loss to understand your hostility towards the Catholic Church. If you have been hurt in some way by the Church, I am very sorry. I do not deny that members of the Catholic Church have sometimes behaved in the most disgraceful way; the knowledge humiliates and hurts me. I have nothing but compassion and admiration for such people as Colm O'Gorman, who try to ensure that no one else will ever have to endure the horrors they endured. If they have become incapable of judging with complete fairness, I do not blame them for it.

I assure you that I did not "follow" you to The Great Scandal. It had been on my watchlist for some time, and I saw Robert's edit, and commented on it. I did not comment on any of your posts, and I did not reach it by tracking your contributions. However, I find your accusation particularly strange given that you managed to find my RfA and vote to oppose it, even though to the best of my knowledge you had no history of voting in RfAs, so would have been unlikely to have Requests for Adminship on your watchlist. Is it possible that you found it by tracking Str1977's contributions, and that you "followed" him there?

I do hope that you are not going to subject me to the kind of harassment and stalking that Str1977 has had to endure. Believe me, I'm not worth it. I know very little about Hitler, and only have his article on my watchlist because it's a frequently-vandalized page. I do not think that I frequently contribute to any page in which you have a special interest, with the exception of Pope Benedict XVI, which I think you have not been near recently.

Once again, I'm sorry if the Catholic Church has caused any pain to you personally. Be assured that I bear no grudge against you for your "oppose" vote. And please respect my wish to finish an assignment, even if I still find time to contribute to some pages that take less time than my interaction with you. Blessings. AnnH (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something. I suggested that it was unreasonable to comment on the number of edits I had made since your request for an explanation when you had not yet apologized to Str1977, but had still had time to make several edits. I did not set any conditions. I will return to Talk:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal when I have finished two assignments, probably on Thursday or Friday. But I hope you don't expect that when I return, I'm going to say that all the changes I made should be undone. AnnH (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As of now no clarification from this User, who would be my administrator and become my censor from, say, Adolf Hitler page. Curious on the surface, but remember how Hitler came to power, and you will all understand the relevance.

The Great Scandal and JMabel

I have tried to account for all possible concerns on that article and request you to see my 2 notes to you on talk . I will remember your user name as I have first hand issues with bias on wikipedia, one you appear not to have mentioned , but one I should invite to your concerns. I refer to a thorough-going bias apparent exemplified now at Pope Pius XI in a section I flagged as imbalanced. I hope you will be able to accord me some degree of good faith in that all the wiki history pages I have touched show signs of my correction. Yet I am much attacked for so un-biasing the WP, and isolated by concerted and actually bad faith attack . I do hope you will feel strength to concern yourself in this primarily european though world shattering hstory . Thankyou . EffK 16:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have not attacked anyone. If there is something I said that you take as a personal attack, please point it out.
On the other hand, I have not hesitated to point out that I have found The Great Scandal ill-written to the point of incoherence. If you largely wrote it then, yes, I guess I am criticizing what you wrote. As I remarked on the talk page there, I find many things in the article incoherent to the point that I can't even make an educated guess as to what they intend to mean. That is a problem: this is certainly not a topic that should be beyond my ken. I also have identified a lot in the article that I found uncited and/or POV (or, in one case, cited to a source with no credibility).
I've been doing my best to contribute constructively to fixing the article and will continue to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EffK/Archive_1&oldid=68329259"