User talk:Bengalski

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):

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Editing tutorial The meaning of "NPOV"

Picture tutorial How to write a great article Naming conventions Manual of Style

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks

Thanks for the comment!

Anarchism

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)