Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Famekeeper (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 27 July 2005 (→Famekeeper Meddling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, The 💕! I see you've made some edits already to the slavery article. Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Misplaced Pages and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Misplaced Pages and decide to make additional contributions. Some valuable resources to help new Wikipedians include:

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

More on what I said at Misplaced Pages:Help desk - you can sign your name in talk pages and voting by typing three tildes (~~~). Four tildes (~~~~) signs your name and also displays the date which you signed your name. If you have any further questions, please see Misplaced Pages's help pages, add a question or comment to the village pump, or ask me on my User Talk page (click "talk" in my signature). If you're curious about this page, please see Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#User_talk_pages. Thanks for signing up! -- Rick Block (talk) July 7, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, it's nice to see you created a user name. See you around. Howabout1 01:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:195.188.51.4 11:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your helpful information on the ÉFF article that you put at wikipedia:Help Desk. I have tried looking through the edit history but it has been somehow cleared so there is no information on who deleted my page.

RfC

Dear Robert,

Thanks for having a look into the Pius-related articles.

I agree with you on civility and witiquette and am trying to keep my frustration to myself. The dispute between Famekeeper (under this and previous nicks) and myself (mainly, but also fellow historian John Kenney has been involved) is quite manifold:

1) a dispute about historical facts:

He believes in a conspiracy between the Vatican (namely Pius XI and Eugenio Pacelli) and Prelate Kaas of putting Hitler into power in exchange for a concordat. I have challenged this monocausal view and elaborated on the various stages on the Centre Party's policy towards Hitler (I did a big overhaul of the Centre article, as well as Kaas). There is no clear evidence for a Vatican involvement, except for a casual reference in a 1968 book by the journalist Mowrer which speaks of a letter from Pacelli to Kaas. I think that's a very thin basis but eventually, after checking the book, have agreed to include it into the Centre article, though not in the prominent fashion that FK would have it and not in his wording, since he is overinterpreting it (e.g. "making Hitler chancellor" becomes "assist Hitler to power", with the addition "in every way necessary").

2) the question what talk pages are for:

Wiki rules say they are for editing discussions, not for unrelated discussion and certainly not to be used as soapboxes. I agree with that (though I'm no purist on the 'unrelated' bit, but one can go too far). FK however thinks he an use them to spread his message and to appeal to the Vatican. IMHO he should write a letter for that purpose.

3) questions of morality and canonical law

Though this is off-topic to the articles, I have replied to his claims, which in my opinion are no valid. He uses the "canonical law" question to spill the issue over to other pages, e.g. Benedict XVI, Theology of Benedict XVI - this is how I first came across him. If he wants to discuss them - in reasonable limits, not to disturb wiki editing - that's o.k., but IMHO it should be done at one place.

The Hitler's Pope dispute is a bit different. It seems FK has created this page to post his "message" after opposition (not only by me) at Pius XII.

I agree with your assessment of what this article should be about, though I don't agree with Cornwell. But I don't object to an entry about this book, as you described it, rendering Cornwell's line of argument (but clearly marked as his thought, e.g. "Cornwell accuses Pius of anti-semitism in 1917" and not "Pius was an antisemite in 1917" - to name Cornwell's most serious blunder) and then discussion of pros and cons.

Maybe you can contribute to that, since you have read the book.

Thanks for your effort. Str1977 18:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Robert, thanks for all your efforts trying to find a solution and also for your kind posts.

Though we migh disagree about this and that (and about what is another question - maybe not about that much: we agree that there were moral errors, the disagreement is about which ones) I agree that it is possible to respectfully disagree. I have respectfully disagreed with many people (inside and outside of wiki) and I can and will do the same in your case. I (and others) have also tried to do the same with FK but to no avail. It's hard to even argue with someone who claims his POV is no POV and who claims that his (or rather his sources') interpretation of historical events is no interpretation, but history as such. To rephrase it: We have sources about historical events and we can reconstruct these events (to some extent). These events are dots on a white paper and some historians are connecting these dots this way and other that way and still others a third way. And discussion of these different views is valid and needed. FK draws connections between the dots too, but then he claims that the connecting lines he (or the books he cites, but unfortunately he misquotes them quite often) has drawn was there in the sources.

Yes, we agree about "conspiracy theory". Of course, there were real conspiracies, but there is a reason why we generally are skeptical about those theories. And despite FK's reiterated statement that he is not monocausalistic and only leaves other causes to other people, he definitely overstates his case and he does it everywhere (e.g. on The Holocaust - see his change at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19460820&oldid=19423159 and the following revisions).

I haven't been posting much lately since I'm quite busy on other things, but when I find the time I will look (and write) into the Hitler's Pope entry.

"Famekeeper is making the talk pages of articles with which he has an issue unusable by filling them with his soapboxing."

That's exactly my problem with him. Maybe I never would have run into him if he hadn't posted a section called "The Question of the Law" from the Pius XII talk page over to the Benedict XVI page and the Theology of Benedict XVI page and so on. This post was hardly comprehensible even in its original context, let alone on other pages. After I found out about this cross posting I deleted the post where it was off topic to which FK shouted censorship. If you had witnessed our exchanges you would have noticed that they were hardly on the articles themselves, but on the talk pages and on what they are for and on questions acutally not relating the wiki articles (e.g. the canon law issue).

"I think that this will just continue and expand unless he can be dealt with."

I'm afraid so.

"I think that we are in agreement on far more than we are in disagreement with."

Yes, I think so.

"I know that Famekeeper is misquoting me, so I assume that he is misquoting Cornwell."

He is not only misquoting you, he is also misquoting me, Kaas, Pius XI (encyclical Dilectissima Nobis), wikipedian John Kenney. He also misrepresents some of the books he quotes, e.g. Klemperer, Lewy and even Mowrer.

"I told Famekeeper to drop it about his self-excommunication tirade. He says that he is being told to drop all issues."

Yes, I have experienced that too. He is very liberal in dishing out but very sensitive in receiving. I don't think "It is more blessed to give than to receive." was meant that way.

"Could you please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and either sign it or revise it and sign it or indicate what you think needs to be corrected?"

I agree with your summary as it gives the main problems with him and have signed it.

Thank you.

Str1977 09:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

I don't have a problem with you going ahead with your proposed changes. It sounds reasonable to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

User Conduct RfC

Thank you Robert for taking on the task of creating the RfC. I have added my name to the certifying users.

In addition, you earlier removed the wikify tag and then put it back in due to my earlier comment. Reviewing the article now, I think you're right that it has been wikified extensively, so the tag can go. I think the focus now should be on cleaning up. --K. 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. Cleanup definitely: the whole Edwardian "tender age of 5" tone. Wikifying also covers stuff like format of the intro paragraph, and the general length of paragraphs and article (currently longer than generally advised). But as I said in the Discussion, I think it needs a more radical approach. I think it would be better for the editing dynamics to scrap the lot and build it afresh, rigorously sourced: a clean break from the previous subtext that this is a mostly canonical form with a bit of leeway for arguing about wording.

It is, incidentally, quite within guidelines - see here - to rip out factually disputed unsourced material and put it on the Talk page until sources are forthcoming. Tearlach 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Not an admin. But very familiar with pages run by groups, companies or others that are intended to be an endorsement of the organization. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 02:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. --Nicholas 11:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Copy ] onto their page. You might want to put it on their talk page, as they might have a sub-page for barnstars or wish to choose where on their page. Howabout1 16:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chicago

Hi. I know you're kind of new and you're trying to be bold and I commend you for this. However, I wanted to let you know that I moved the WikiProject and Peer Review templates from the Chicago article. These templates are intended to be placed on the discussion page. From Misplaced Pages:Templates, "Templates in the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." I know there was no harm intended, just wanted to let you know why I made the change. Thanks! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer

Robert, thanks for letting me know about the RfM. User:Sherurcij has now withdrawn it and we're going to look for another opinions instead. If you'd like to give your opinion on Talk:Shehzad Tanweer, that would be very helfpul. The issue is whether the intro should include that Tanweer was one of four bombers carrying out a joint mission, and the number who died overall. User:Sherurcij feels this is POV, and that we should refer only to the number of people Tanweer killed directly. He also feels the intro shouldn't include the CCTV image of the bombers because it's POV. I feel the intro should include reference to the number killed overall, and that including the CCTV image is not POV. Here is my version of the intro with one pic or here with two pics (I have no preference between the one- and two-pic version). Here is Sherurcij's version. But if you don't have time, don't worry. Cheers, SlimVirgin 04:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

PR RFC

My reading of the talk page and other material was that Pastor Russell, at the very least, thrives on conflict and attempted to lower the level of discussion and provoke others. Users who see the world in manichean terms often do this because it confirms their world view that everyone who is not with them is a member of the other side.

I hope the PR problem can be worked out, and it affirms my conviction that steps need to be taken to reduce the amount of wikistress put on good contributors. There has always been a co-dependent relationship with POV warriors, I've heard it called "pov-dependency". POV pushers fill out articles and add subjects, but they also demand that they control those subjects. As wikipedia moves out of early adopter and into early majority, the utility of POV warriors will grow less, since coverage will expand with the number of users.

I alos appreciate your efforts to talk to Mr. Cimini - he is another user who needs to understand that the world isn't divided into true believers and the forces of darkness. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Dualism

Within the context of wikipedia I think we need to have a greater explanation of assuming good faith and writign for NPOV, these are not easy concepts to get across, and a great deal of trouble could be avoided if people simply took responsibility of the NPOV of their edits - avoiding what I call "the urge to scribble a mustache" on an article - and that other edtiors may well be writing to document POVs which they don't agree with, or at least are not particular advocates for. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 15:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - but I'm not especially hopeful of anything helping with people who are steeped in a specific worldview. For instance, there are those who sincerely believe their positive view of a topic is neutral, and therefore perceive edits toward neutrality as having a negative bias. Or, as you say, there are those stuck in a Manichean view, who don't seem able to understand that there are editors who might be coming at the topic from an effectively alien POV that doesn't align with either side. In this case, I think both apply. Tearlach 15:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Meddling

Or Meddling with Famekeeper . Your expertise is being abused , I say run for your life from that argument though I'm holding a rag to take the sweat . If you came in cause of what's on this page , you might have been abused . Str1977 is incredible ... like ? Pius XI is off-topic to Hitler's Pope ? ... Look again at the top line of the discussion . The persuasion that led you to remove Pius XI on 00.48 , 23 July 2005 is regretful and wrong and is cruelly POV . And, Look at 4 May 2005 editing for Pius XII to see self evident massage .

Look , I know you've been had , Str1977's user button perhaps fooled you ,meaning my own stupid excess . I'm sorry and I still think he's an agency .But Kenny POV'd Ludwig Kaas on 23 April and was in error to boot with "centre...was dissolved. " . He fell into Hitler's old trap- what looks legal is legal . Otherwise he's a pretty fine fellow. Never forgave me tho ..

I did actually do what u asked on Kaas, but I get a lot of Microsoft pop ups of error and , it got ate . Also it has to be a pure analysis of adjectival massage and I feel that in the dicussions , my actual sourcing can deserve enough respect from you , to be read and show the real POV problem .

I think I don't want to cause you any more trouble , but I think you have to back out of this as fast as you can . I ain't POV , I just explain deeply and boringly . The attack is completely wrong and because it is wrong , ie I ain't using POV , I can't be other than seen to have been baited and provoked by Str1977's remiss behaviour and insults to me , to the history , to the liberal democrats , to Cornwell. He was vicious about Cornwell .

I mean it , such revisionism as appears with "electoral success" on Holocaust is bordering on a prosecutable crime . I mean I could go to a court and make Jimmy Wales hand over his IP address , maybe , and DO him/her/them - it's literally a crime in Germany to deny or pervert the history . Run for your life , editor, from the revisionist(s) who will besmirch all you wish to stand for . I will/do forgive you what is not yet too aggressive, but already reprehensible . Put back Hitler's Pope to rights, and get wise to what's really being done on WP, help me while you still have life to do so , I'll take an un-civility rap , with extenuating circs, but otherwise it's tough and it'll get tougher still . You should change tactics and support me on Pope's Hitler , if you are fair to yourself and others as you claim . Kenny ought to jump ship too . I'm sorry Famekeeper 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)