Str1977, some still oustanding discourse attempt

Despite our differences, I want to wish you all the best.

PS. I have correct a small typo. Don't make me eleven years older than my great-grandmother.

Str1977 11:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str, you know I always enjoyed our discourse and that the agent is no accusation, but a manner of information. You can be perfectly proud of what you do , though it conflicts with certain form here. What got me was the way you appear to agree and then later not, which is just good training. I could fill a short book with your inch by inch , heels dug in, attempts to derail me. Of course your Kaas page is still out of line and a massage . However it may well be better to rather ask you to continue until we get to the real truth, as you know that truth is important. I can suspend saying you are dishonest to yourself, and rather ask you something important-since you are so assiduous, and get the books, and have a Kaas one now :

Did Ludwig Kaas testify at the Trials?

The Yale crowd do not seem to have the entire records of Nuremberg searchable, and at the page-either the same one or next to the one I quoted,- the Judge says he remembers- or the Prosecution, or both, -that they had already Kaas and Papen exchanging angry words, at length. Now it is only fair to Kaas/Papen to see what passed there. Is it by affidavit or did Kaas appear back in Germany after all? Did he appear in a sector of the 4 Power Tribunal inside Italy? Do you see what I'm asking you Str? I'm sorry but I do not agree with you and Rumsfeld that AH was elected legally, and I can only wonder at your technical historiographical claim there(not the reason of course). I also still say that if there is no adherencve to Law, then there is no way forward, and you should , out of duty ask for the canonical resolution. Of course I claim that I didn't personally break the law here on any counts , cept the asking for the law to be recognised/ canonical case . However all the rest was entirely legitimate explanation of motives. I will of course have to watch the famous guys, and, apart from that - post back any verifiability you may need to help you.EffK 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977 Archive removals at Adolf Hitler 08 Febuary 2006

10.34

I see that given my removal from WP, the above user Str1977 is eliminating sourced material relevant to the history of Hitler and the Third Reich whilst he is archiving (unless this link is mistake)- http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_25&diff=prev&oldid=38748704 -. namely section The Nuremberg Trials precedence for this Article. This seems to be done whilst removing editor Jprismon comment , but appears as if the intent is to reduce the sum of human legal knowledge: The Nuremberg trials may be offensive to some, but are a recognised body of evidence at this stage. Please explain what you are doing Str1977....as to the Adolf Hitler article, I see that now the genocide emanates clearly from Hitler, so the apparent attempt to diassociate Hitler from this at the Holocaust article seems even more ridiculous(revisonist). I don't doubt but that the user reads these lines, and given my situation, it is my only means of posting notice here, and I will say to you Str1977, do always read here because whilst you may imagine youreself to be free of my awkward and shattering questions and source, your efforts are entirely visible . It appears from your edits made in this last day that you are again intent on eradicating the sources and subsequent comments which indeed point to the illegality of the regime. I will have to make note of attempts to paint pictures in WP which counter sourced history. Technically you may have been allowed to say that Papen's references to Christianity were off topic, just, though the reference to the RCC/healthy aspects of national Socialism, is as revealing as can be, yet your removal of the Sebastian Haffner post-Stalingrad thesis is purely censorship. But off-topic is no reason to destroy posts entering an Archive. All these sources are relevant to the life of Adolf Hitler and this Papen statement is shattering : re Alois Hudal's book.. and contains also an objective appreciation of the positive social ideas of National Socialism; 'it is all the more notable because a high authority of the Church was then, in 1936, making yet another attempt to create a synthesis between Christian ideas and the healthy doctrines of National Socialism.' As you well know Archives are sacrosanct, as I have also learnt.EffK 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Un-connected : http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=38800309

EffK, so you're still here. And still doing bad faith. You should have investigated about this edit. It was not removal of any information but a mistake in my archiving - I accidently archived material from "Hitler and the Church" to "Adolf Hitler Archive 25" and I didn't realise it before I had saved it. Hence the diff above. Things can be so easy. Str1977 20:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good- I wrote, "but appears as if"... so where is that Papen allusion right now ? As to McC , he raised the issue of getting folks like me banned from their user:discussion pages too, and I have to say that if I am shit down here , I shall have to move to a further tent. I did try and investigate your removal, and could not see where that section had been placed. I would be much happier to be wrong: I shall trawl thru again, and if I see that it was as it appeared, you may have to have an RfC. Why make mistakes at all, and why make them around quite the second most explosive source I placed in Wikipedia?EffK 21:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the stuff I (seemingly) removed from the archive can be found either on Talk:Hitler and the Church or the relevant archive. If you investigate you can always ask me on my talk page (if you can edit it) or via e-mail (you can do that without providing your mail address, since you are afraid to be found). Str1977 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make things even easier for you, compare these diffs/links:

Removing archived text from talk page: [1]
Putting text into the wrong archive: [2]
Removing text from wrong archive: [3]
Putting text into the right archive [4]

Hope that satisfies you.

Note that you are not allowed to use your talk page, which you still can edit, to cause disruption or to turn it into a soap box. Your actions don't go unnoticed, so stop your accusatory tone. Fare thee well, Str1977 21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str:1977 writes here-All the stuff I (seemingly) removed from the archive can be found either on Talk:Hitler and the Church or the relevant archive. "Seemingly" suggests you did not remove, but you did, and has wasted my time in checking. You did not seemingly remove it at all, but factually removed both the Nuremberg trials bit and theSebastian Haffner as well. Moreover I do not think Haffner arrived the other end. Referring to odd behaviour on Wikipedia, such as eliminating relevant facts, or removing material from an Archive to another Archive, is hardly soap boxing or disruptive. Disruptive is the achievement of these actions. Where does it say in the rules that you have a right to decide that archived sourced comment should be removed? To have removed the Haffner from AH is completely wrong, and the rest- I still see it is in great need as there is not one mention of the Reichskonkordat or with whom it was made upon the AH Article. I think the creation of mulitple Archives here has , as ever , been of dubious good intention, and If I were giovanni33, I should also think so. If saying this is soap boxing, well , it is a perversion of rules to dis-allow fair comment.

Please finally justify your removals as technically as you can, and if you are allowed to re-arrange Archives technically, show me the rule, and Ill accept that I am wrong. And please why not answer for your and McC's incredibly un-technical Archiving made in the last while? Yours seemed to be purely aimed at making sourced relevance hard to read and assist the problems .McC's same actions, and by doing so within 6 minutes, as I said must be a record. I ask you both civil questions and you often choose to archive an ongoing awaited answer, so technically I feel that you are way further out of line that me in this cell here. If it is disruption to challenge a technical action, then it is so. If it is not it is not. I repeat that purely aiming to remove me from even this page will not prevent the visibility or the referability of your actions. You, as often, did not state with these moves, what you were at, so really, perhaps technically I am in order, as to my question. The fact that several teenage arbitrators paid apparently zero heed to the mountain of evidence against you, particularly your means of removing the Reichskonkordat , on 15 December, does not change the fact of your having done so. It appears that Jimbo is more interested in , well the majority of users( 5 in all in your group) than in a reckless disregard for falsity, still amazes me. As far as I know I am not able to edit anything anywhere except this page, nor send messages, nor address the Publisher, nor a single thing. Perhaps I will have to be banned as a reader ....perhaps we will all be sent home in disgrace by the Class Action, eh? Now please account for the rule allowing removals of Haffner etc, if it is not vandalism and worthy of an RfC.EffK 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was no reply possible, so there it rests: Papen testimony , reference to Hudal and the synthesis planned even in 1936, and Haffner, all gone . I am in no way surprised at the cavalier editing, but others should be . A true wikipedian would be properly perturbed at the removal of Haffner. User:EffK

There was no reply because I have other things to do than to please you. Also note that I don't have to justify my actions before you. But I will give you a hutch anyway. Compare these:

[5]
[6]

Can you spot any difference between what I removed from the Talk and what I posted into the archive? If not, please be quiet.

BTW, Nuremberg trials is item number 3 in the archive, Haffner is item number 10.

Stop your accusations.

Good day, Str1977 23:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not and never have made accusations . I state fact, and categorise that fact, as in this section title: you did remove relevant material of primary and secondary source from Adolf Hitler discussions. What right you claim to be able to so do, I have asked you already to explain. I do not even refer to the arrival of the material at Hitler and the church, and this is technically not relevant. You removed some very explosive material and multiple other guidance source from Adolf Hitler discussions whilst you were Archiving Hitler discussions. You will be well aware of the comment that Hitler and the Church is an artificial forky page, and should be easier to read at his main page. Therefore the re-location can only be perturbing, as making it harder for following Users to see. I am forever concerned because you only answer that which you wish to answer, and you certainly excise and argue against the very same verifiable sources. Now, for the third time, will you say what technical right you have to move anything from a Hitler discussion, and answer as to you and your supporter's over-rapid and obfuscating archivals, if it please you? You may be within your technical rights, and also, maybe no active wikipedian cares. To me it is fact, no more, and just one more fact that happened. If you are in order to move material from Hitler, then you have nothing to fear( after all you removed the partial quid pro quo and Reichskonkordat and the since deleted Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates, and can thus answer this comparatively minor technical wikipedia point. I protest utterly all your excisions wherever made, as un-balancing wikipedia . Here below you see what I say to your latest careful dealing over Ludwig Kaas. You long ago gave up belief in my good faith, despite my breadth of source and verifiability and because you cannot intellectually defend your actions, you do not answer questions in whatever good faith made. Technically, though,-lets see what you say to technically and Hitler discussions? EffK 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bengalski Attempts to source at Pius XII 09 Feb 2006

Bengalski is trying to thin the soup there with citation, and I could perhaps deliver one ot two. B, the idea that 'some ' suggest the Rkkdt gave respectability , is error. all is correct. And what exactly do you not see as delivered to us by the Shirer centre votes which he received and so clearly linked to the HSee( via RKKdt ? If you need help, this is an open GDFL page and you can lift what you need when you have need to ask. Or we could let it be-as I did the P XI....and ignore the main Shirer statement as that of a crank? by the way the kaas page is still a careful distancing from the NPOV- it perverts the Mowrer,as it was no suggestion but a demand/request froma Pope is a demand for obedience,and the interpretation here is not the clear import of the text,is only unccorrorated for 1932, but is by Shirer for 23 march 1933 et al(Toland, Klemperer, Kershaw? Cornwell) hence inaccurate. As to Kaas-

there is no source re balancing with the Bishops at his election, but there is with HSee
as to feeling betrayed on 5 march- why not say he offered co-operation(solo) on 6 March.
To say Kaas was the main advoate from 15 march is ridiculous, as Hitler is in fact recorded as needing the Centre from a Cabinet Meeting of 6 march(and the Commununists were to be somehow arrested(conspiracy) and Centre needed thenceforward(N Trials) so Hitler ' responded ' is wierd.
Then elision is made between the minor Civil service type guarantees, and the major constitutional g, it is wierd.
As to the Centre supporting the proposal, at the meeting on the morning 23 Kaas made no proposal, only delineated the choice, but he had earlier got across the H guarantee.
As to the sometimes suggested, this is the same nonsense, Shirer states, Toland states, Klemperer states , there was a link between the votes received because of the speech, and the RKKdt.Therefore kaas explaining to Pacelli is a scream .
See my question re Nuremberg above .This about later negotiations is unsourced.
the attempt here is to blame Kaas and quieten the Pacelli connection.

Hi - I'm glad to find you're still here if only in this limited form - though maybe for your own sake you'd be better off forgetting wikipedia and finding a better forum, but who am I to say. Anyway yes I've been doing some reading and thinking about all this and I'll put some more effort into Pius in the next few days. I'll write some more about it tomorrow and would be good to have a discussion here if they'll let us, but I'm not very clear headed right now so ta maña'a tio y, acerca de esa cita de mí, que leas tu Maestro.Bengalski 00:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Equally but Str may claim this above is a personal attack to protect me out of here. If I'm killed again you might post the blog link up on the user:EffK when you findit or are sent it.... Where-I could go onto googles blog , but perhaps it'd attract libels? I still dont think I made any here (pace canon 752) but others would, as they have around me here . As to yrs, V good, I shall in that case write a short piece for inclusion at PXII, the which based on verifiable source, and provide diffs to the verifiable source. We are indeed allowed to work here, but I go nowhere else. Since I was eradicated anyway, it maight prove a bit easier-I verify to you rather than as Jaybo said, to those with no will to accept. probs to you will only be in proportion to whther two of us can really be eradicated over the same edit wars. I think it would look a bit odd. Spanish has the v'andal of Lucia but whos the Maestro-there's so many Ie., its unclear. Thanks, hasta pasa manana, say, no hurries.Si t'entiendo-dices: leas tu el maestro ese , pero digo yo, cualo (maestro)? Mirare todos.EffK 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Str1977 will not answer re:removals from Hitler

EffK,

among all Wikipedians I have to answer least of all to you. You did issue accusations (in fact that is all you've ever done) and you have done so on this page. You accuse me of removing stuff from the archives (funnily, only days after you actually have done this on a large scale and could only be stopped by blocking), when in fact I did not remove stuff from archives. This might not be a personal attack but it is slander, pure and simple. It is bad faith when you could have asked me about this, and it is slander, since you continue to do so after I have clarified this. You will see what this leads to.

Str1977 08:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977:I am not a wikipedian, as you have successfully classified me as a POV pusher, and WP has been remiss enough to back you up. Again, I repeat, as this is relevant to all your irrational behaviour annotated at my other User page-

Did you or did you not remove material from Hitler discussions ? Why do you not answer a direct question? Why do you continue to bluster , as you have for the last year, when you must know that it can only show you in poor light? Please answer the technical question, or do not. I have never doubted your methods, and as the rules allow( when they are upheld- which they are not) that once there is clear demonstration of bad faith, bad faith is recognisable for that clear proof of it. I give on the other user page all the evidence of your bad faith, and ask you here again, for the fourth time, do you have a right to remove those sources from the Adolf Hitler discussions? That you removed material is proven by the diffs I gave. The material was moved, of that there is no doubt. if you have the right, again, then there is no problem, is there? If there is no such right, and you cannot or will not answer but rather deny the action, then there is a problem, for you .EffK 11:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the final time, I did not remove material except for archiving it.
Yes, you are a Wikipedian, at least as long as you post to this page.

Str1977 11:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is contrary to fact.You removed it from Hitler and took it elsewhere(to Hitler and the church. I have thoroughly checked this 4 times, and you removed the material from Hitler discussions and Archives. If it is a mistake, why take so long to admit to it, if it is illegal in WP terms, it is a grave mistake. I am no Wikipedian, if being such is to hold to the manners of intellect I have observed. Even on your talk page you are onliged to sign your posts

Then provide the diffs - until now you have only talked about the "Hitler and the Church" thang. Str1977 11:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You talked about it, actually. I already provided the diff. Please now adhere to good faith and answer the rational question, for once and all-the fifth time I ask. Then justify technically.EffK 11:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola - Desposyino ,

Hola Joven,

     hace horas que no toco la  botella digital d'wiki, y como lo sabes, me probiben entocar.

     Escribo para decirte que nuestra seriedad me ha pujado a hablar con El padrino , y sin sacar exactemente tu identidad le hay explicado que verdad las noticias no sonde historias en los anos treinte y en su epoca, pero que el Tribunal nos obliga todavia, mismo El, en apprender de la experiencia hacia uno fin.

 Vemos tu y yo que estamos solos aqui, y al Padrino hay preguntado por los lados paternal y maternel, que se nos lea  hasta el fondo .Padrino en primero respondia- publicarte...

     Es penible que te lo digo , el Pobre no se ha enterado de su proprio sufienza, y decia para que publicarenos. Le explico que nos hemos pasado = de esa frontera ya, que las maneras de publicar esten en residuo de contestar, y que  la batalla es grave y actual, y en queconsista : subversion anti-cominterno devolviendo hasta ahora.: engano del pueblo humano insuffrible mas.

     El Diplomatico P. le toco por su capacidades mental correctamente abiertas a las de La Abuela, tanto que por su proprio experiencia effectivamente policiale alrededor del Tribunal.: El lucho, vi comapaneros morir, sabe que heridados habian encima de los 60 muertos de zero-n-cillos conocidos.

  Como dicho que iba a hacer, Le llamo por su ayudo diplomatico, en buscar proteccion, no de personal como tu o yo, pero del mensaje, que es lo mismo.

   Le dijo claramente que buscarnos "rey", porque solamente potencias en proporcion con la gravedad de a situacion podren enterar. Buscamos proteccion de alta concepcion moral para guarantizar el mensaje universal que llevamos.

    Lo siento Joven,que no tienes mucha salida de lo que te cuento.  El administracion, en Ingles significas stewardship, sale equal sea la querencia tuyo o mio.  El hecho es la familia, ya contigo pasado en tu proprio conscienzia.

    No hay rechazo, porque no podremos decir que son mentiras los  hechos, porque la familia nuestra tenemos el hecho acontado hasta que si, amarcados.

    Tu eres incapaz de entender lo que aqui aguardo de  La Abuela tuya, para decirlas  que sean mentiras. No hara posibilidad  de ninguno rechazo de escritura de Ella como te fijo en tu conforme. Ella muestras, y no soy yo Ella..

    Veo.

    Nuestra sangre real es inconestable y  como dicen abajo enEl Frente Sur para sacar la reina de la verdad , unicamente podremos tratar con uno que sea rey en efecto . Metal puede ser, o Hinduja, o Gates. No nos cambiara na'a: el hecho es la sangre y devolucion familial de administracion, que es como se dices en castellano. Quieres decir que el administracion del secrteto, quiza que sea secreto antes que aprobarmos suficiente de fuerza, es hereditario y absoluto. Nuestra fe reside en la herencia de administradores que hemos sido , y el pacto que ofrecemos al otro reinado de potencia , buscando su proteccion, tienes que sea recognicion alguna basado en leyes eguales de responsibilidad: anonimidad  de pseudonamia total en nuestra parte. Probaremos quien' somos hasta reales, y como. Tenemos dos cosas: una querencia para mantener la ley humana , y una historia familiale de lo mismo, por uno lado, y herencia al otro lado el inverso total : nos tenemos sangre regicidos de Romanov's.

 No hay eleccion en eso realdad, por nadie que no eliges la iglesia y abandono de los seres vivos bajo nuestro abrazo: nuestra responsibilidad es unicament hacia nuestra corazon, porque en el corazon llevanos eleccion de esta en sociedad ,respirando aprobacion de ser administradores - nada mas. Ni tu joven, ni yo , elegimos nada de fama, salvo saber en nuestra corazon solamente, que somos valables al lo mismo nuestro. Si buscarmos a sobrteparas, tenemos en linea incontesable hacia realdad como si fuera toda la historia nada mas que de la familia evolucionanda, ahora a ti.

Malicious Defamation

Notice to JWales organisation

Jimbo Wales , you should remove the classification of myself as POV pusher immediately, or expect your reckless disregard for the falsity of this statement to rebound against yourself and your project.This is the final attempt to alert you to the wrong made against my presentation of verifiability . Please kindly remove this:

2) EffK is banned for 1 year for ....POV-pushing...... of the encyclopedia.

Passed 8 to 0 at 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Support:

All these Users are in reckless disregard of truth or falsity, along with their Publisher and the members of the Wikipedia Foundation. I demand withdrawal of the defamatory classification immediately as of this timestamp-EffK 11:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Advice to Users blocked due to this

I regret that WP failure to Understand their situation may lead to blocking of inncoent users , and suggest to them that they simply sign in with their own usernames, whereupon by their actions it will be clear that they are un-related to these disputes.

Protection or unprotection of talk page

EffK, it used to be impossible for people to edit any page while blocked. Some people thought that it was a bit hard on users not to be able to communicate at all, so a new feature was brought in last summer (I think), enabling users to edit just their talk page while blocked. However, if people abused this facility, the talk page could be protected, which meant, basically that communication ended.

I don't like kicking someone who's down, and I'm sorry to see your talk page protected, as I think it may be frustrating to you to have all means of communication cut off. It was protected because you kept using it to make accusations against Str1977, and also you were rather filling it up with very lengthy posts.

I'd like to unprotect your page, and give you another chance of communicating. But could I beg you, please, please, drop the accusations against Str1977. And I ask that not for his sake, but for yours. You see, another series of attacks against him will force me to lock your talk page again; it won't do him much harm. And I really, really don't want to have to lock your page. If you have a genuine question about a particular edit, I'm sure that Str1977 will answer it.

You think that Str1977 has been removing things from the Hitler talk page or archives. Now, I personally don't think he has, because my experience with him tells me that he doesn't do such things, though he does occasionally make an edit which results in loss of other posts through a software bug. But, quite frankly, I haven't checked, because I trust him, and because it doesn't really interest me. But I'll give you a piece of advice, if I may: if Str1977 is really doing this, you have to decide if that's important enough for you to give up all chances of editing your talk page again. Because your talk page will be protected again if you launch into accusations. So, choose your issues carefully.

Str1977 has kindly agreed to my unprotection of your user page. I'm going to let you think about it tonight, if you're online, and then unprotect some time tomorrow. Please don't force me to protect it again. Regards, AnnH ^(talk) 00:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unprotecting now. Best wishes. AnnH ^(talk) 18:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str1977, archiving in haste and Wikipedia norms

1) I suppose I should thank you, Ann. As an admin I am quite happy for you to answer as to admin type questions, rather that call censorship. In fact refactoring is allowed, but within defined limit. So anyone could try and weed through my length and decide things unncesssary. However good faith requires that anything to do with explanation even that of motives however they may be driving actions of belief is allowed in main articles and presumably even more so in discussion. Moreover, to remove now from any archives would not appear to me to be an act of good faith.

2) As to Str1977, well, he does a few things which are out of WP-line. This particular case of what they term refactoring, should have left precise note as to that which had been moved to H& Church, naming the sources in brief. Haffner indeed is common enough source at AH-even you would know that with your classification of yourself being my sole reference here.

3a) Haffner(and the others) was on topic so should not have been removed. Indeed as Str1977 said, the stuff reached the other end, but please see that he understands the ettiquette as

3b) to noting his edit actions properly with each diff along with the notes required in the Archives. Perhaps this would obviate a part of the confusions such un-billed actions create.

4) Furthermore, Str1977 would also need to remember that foreign language sources, require not only the original quotes, but the translation thereof. The use of sourceing publications without quoting the relevant portion in English , at Kaas, is not the WP way. Please ask him to indeed justify the verifiability of his editing , per these norms under 4). I am in this regard , surely not someone who can be criminalised. I was and remain the epitome of verifiability in all things, whether explanation of motives or texts.

5) As an admin you, Musical Linguist, will be particularly interested in the two remarkably premature archiving actions, from Str1977 made within 23 minutes of a posted relevant question at Hitler's Pope, and an Archive similarly unusual upon a posted question,

6) and, made by Robert McClenon within 6 minutes- .Diffs are : [7] and [8]. Apart from being entirely against WP norms, the two Users are now beyond being able to claim mistakes in these sort of actions. Perhaps you would kindly investigate and ask for the required explanations of justification ? If you do not wish to involve yourself, I am just presently rather unable to call any other admin to the task. If you wish to ask another admin, that is your prerogative, but as we all know you work sometimes very closely with these two users, and it might benefit all three of you to remain as linked as you already are.

Of course, this involves you more than I am sure you so wished to be, and to that I do not know what to write except that good faith is as good faith does. Thanks. EffK 19:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, EffK.

Regarding my quick archive: If I remember correctly, I thought you were already banned that day (not understanding Wiki proceedings in detail) and since your post didn't seem to me to provide anything substantial I archived it together with other stuff. Had I not thought you banned I wouldn't have archived it.
As for the HatC archives, including Haffner, I ask you again to compare the diffs between what left the talk page and what (eventually) entered the archive, both on HatC and Hitler, using the diffs I have provided above. I can't see that I dropped something.

Str1977 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the second I can anyway say that no, you did not drop anything. I would be grateful if you would answer the questions as actually asked. I am in absolutely no hurry, so don't feel pressured. Thanks for the welcome back- but remember what he said, every hair is counted. This all remains, to me, an expression of good will. EffK 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging.

As for your question, if you mean: "Do you have the right to remove something from a talk page?", I can answer: "With the exception of outright personal attacks I (or anyone else) do not have the right to remove something from talk pages." And I can say, I haven't done this.

If there's another question I missed, please ask again

Str1977 00:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Musical Linguist will clarify these for you, as I asked her to .I fail to understand your repeated claim as to removals. No you did not excise the material from Wikipedia, only from Hitler Archives(to H/Church). The premature Archive was not to do with EffK post, therefore I fail to understand your response in any way. The effect was to remove from where it should have remained, the post of Brainhell [9].

The points I ask of you are firstly the section above [10] re Kaas, I still ask this in good faith.

Then, 2), 3a), 3b), 4) and 5). WP discussions are littered with virtually identical queries from me to you users. It seems to me that re 2), that what I see in the Archives and in the diffs are not what you claim are there. Nothing is removed, but all are moved.

Similar older questions are everywhere made also to the other User Robert McClenon, who joins with you, and who revels in self-avowed joy at (in my reasoned opinion) his distorting WP as per purely propaganda needs and according to his irrational faith led intellect. This User is also not above sullying Wikipedia with really puerile behaviour, seen recently at discussion re Pope Pius XII. This is to carry ad hominem to new heights.

1) and 6): To Musical Linguist the Admin, I would repeat that I bring these facts to your notice in good faith, and in the understanding that you hold a certain, though unspecific, overseeing responsibility. None of these actions are solely novel, but are symptomatic of my history in attempting to inject the reason of Verifiability into Wikipedia. I am not in the process of making an appeal through this querying here. The overwhelming assent of the Arbitrators to uphold the charge has left me with no alternative but to pursue other means to unveil what is only in miniature reflected by this post.EffK 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allright,

Re your question: "Did Kaas testify at Nuremberg?" - To my knowledge he did not testify or was asked to testify. Also, I don't see no reason for him testifying when looking at the three accusations of crimes against peace, against humanity and war crimes.

Re the archive at Hitler's Pope: I archived the discussion that was going nowhere, including the reply of Brainhell that provided nothing substantial and in any case rejected the point of the section (which asked: "Why do we need this article?")
Re my archive blunder: archiving is about moving older stuff to archives to clear the talk page. I regularly do this. If I mistakenly archived something into the archive of another article, I think it is only right and proper to rectify my mistake and move it from the wrong to the right archive. Don't you agree? That is not removing stuff. But maybe I should have made it clearer in the edit summaries.

Re the sourcing of Kaas, I don't think I will give you exact page numbers or even citations for uncontroversial biographical data.

Str1977 11:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kaas , the Tribunal state that Papen and Kaas exchanged angry words. They do not state that this was exterior to the Tribunal, but simply that they did not desire a repetition (in the Tribunal). It will become known, and I simply ask if you are able to elucidate from your ability to source. This question is not procedural so I will hive it off here into its necessary section .WP Norms is not, as far as I am concerned , finished and remains here with its relevant response.

I can only close this detailing of actions by stating my part : it is entirely un-acceptable that Archiving be used to close questions. I protest, and in absence of justification reaching to reason, will simply add the diffs as Evidence , together with previous such, without clarification as to intentions. Effect , however , is evidence and can be stated without personal characterisation.

Ludwig Kaas, continuing

=Kaas' Article

Kaas is very controversial, as verified and all details are important. The necessity to provide verifiability relates to the remaining appearance of his and related Articles which diminuish this controversy. His article required this last statement from me :Hitler it is everywhere suggested came to power legally, thus it becomes necessary to source the Nuremberg tribunal Indictment as to the history. hopefully this will immediately inform the editing of this and related articles in the particular. This was archived without response within 6 minutes. In itself therefore it is a serious edit which remains controversial behaviour(of McClenon's).

As you see there are remaining issues. I would in fact draw your attention, Str, to the fact that the baron [[Kurt von Schroeder] secret meeting of 4 January 1933 was considered by the Tribunal as being the 'start' of the conspiracy to obtain Totalitarian* power. Therefore all that happened following that meeting is evidence towards adjudication. I am not prepared to dismiss this, nor because of it, to accepet the legality claimed throughout by yourself. I would at the least require you to present counter-vailing source demonstrating the contrary, ie legality. The conspiracy to wage war against humanity was the entire conspiracy, and simply because the tribunal admitted to haste and delimitation of enquiry into "other" "sinister" "social forces" , is not sufficient to prevent remark or seek presentation of their remark as to these forces, when the Chief Counsel of the USA was careful not only to make such remark but also say that we can only guess as to their complexion. In fact the guessing is now sourceable, and is what I did. K v Klemperer's statement highlights the Shirer and Toalnd, confirms the lambert(Saar book), relates to Manhattan and Cornwell, and is un-mistakeable in Mowrer and Bruning.

Papen as source is highly relevant, in terms of confirmation that at least the empowered faction within the Vatican (what I call the German putsch there) was by no means awakened to its error even by 1936, rather the reverse. Given the report of the death of Pius XI, unmistakably suggesting his murder by the putschists, and linked to the mysterious lost Encyclical, the subject is by no means yet clarified within any Article.

I request that source shows exactly Kaas strengthening mediation with the Bishops through his election to the Chair. I have to repeat that the Kaas Article remains however it is in WP acceptible to call it- POV. It will remain so until the issues , delineated at 13:43, 23 January 2006 [11]. I should say that the consequent Archival of this relevant POV notice, effected by McClenon on 3 Febuary, was the same apparent obfuscation everywhere used by POV editing. The questions remain, and good faith requires you as the editor therein, Str, to attend to that good faith. The appropriate action would be to replace the POV -massage- points to talk, there , and to deal with the issues in Verifiability. These are by no means minor biographical details and the necessity for NPOV has not changed, except to be even further qualified by the Tribunal's references.EffK 12:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSDAP, in Wikipedia

"A further decree enabled for preventative detention of all the Communist deputies, amongst many thousands of others." I'd like to know what Decree this refers to....This, for its use of English, is an atrociously written article, and for its subtle obfuscation is dangerous and amongst the POV is the usual line taken re the quid pro quo- "In regard to the Roman Catholic Church, he proposed the Reichskonkordat between Germany and the Holy See, that was signed in July."