User talk:EffK

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I become increasingly aware that the structures of life and of people's or anyone's or any forces' interest seem to be of circular nature, and appear to traverse forwards away from that which the subjects or forces desire to avoid in a resoundingly circular fashion; thus the effort to avoid or evade consequences, attracts those very consequences; thus the seeking for preservation instlis the destruction; thus those who aim for good fall soon into the filth of some entirely un-foreseen wrong. I think this is less personal, but appears to be inexorable when humans combine.

BBC and Hitler's 'inevitability'

At c4 am c 12 August 2006, Niall Ferguson's interview awoke me. He rightly prioritised WWI as the driving force for subsequent world events. The manner in which the German High Command chose Lenin as de-satbilising force for Russia's war effort was indeed worth Ferguson's mention, but he followed this by referring to the inevitability of Hitler's ascent within the Weimar Republic. This seems a dangerous statement. I shall have to watch Ferguson pace the above circularity.

Watching Hitler

AHitler's Wikipedia article begins in 2002 and with less than a 1000 edits reaches 2004, by which time there is reference to the myth of Hitler's legal rise to power.

Hitler's initial election into office and his use of constitutionally enshrined mechanisms to shore up power have led to the myth that his country elected him dictator and that a majority supported his ascent. He was made Chancellor in a legal appointment by President Hindenburg. This was a bit of historical irony, as the mainstream parties had supported Hindenburg as the only viable alternative to Hitler, not realizing that it would be Hindenburg who would bring about the end of the republic.

The reference to Hindenburg is appropriate, but 'woolly'. John Wheeler-Bennett, in his 1936 The Wooden Titan Hindenburg biography leaves no doubt but that the essential von Papen sweetener of January 30 1933, was a restoration of the monarchy under Hitler, thereby returning Hindenburg's acquiescence of 1918 in its dissolution( an American demand) to a 'positive account'. W-B points out that thereafter Hindenburg effectively is retired, and shut off from reality, and that this very withdrawal is the second level sweetener. As London published in 1936 by the ex-Berlin history Proff Arthur Rosenberg, the last four Chancellor's, including Hitler had all been 'presidential Dictatorships'. The President had had to constantly read and sign decrees, brought forth to manage even fiscal matters, though decrees brought under specifically 'emergency' measures, hence dictatorship. Important is a reference somewhere that at major use of decree, an appending habeas corpus type juridical rider was also presented and signed, but at the Reichstag Fire Decree, this was omitted, and Hindenburg did not remember to ask for it, or was senile, or chose not to raise it.

The Reichstag was, during the years from late 1931-to the Enabling Act, solely functioning as a dismissal veto. It's only power or operation was to vote for a dissolution. Post Nuremberg it became known that of vital importance to Hitler prior to his Hindenburg appointment, was his discovery that the general-Chancellor von Schleicher did not himself possess this disssolution power.

Re Vatican Pius XII beatification

I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of this article to SourceWatch. It is much more appropriate for Wikipedia (which, after all, are the only sources cited). I'll leave the text on the page for 12 hours to give you a chance to copy it and then I'll delete it. --Bob Burton 05:41, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

The answer is to say that both WP, and the vatican amount to publishing sources, and hence are relevant to this organ. Civility led me to ask this user to account for his threat, and apparent desire for censorship. As to sources cited, the user should ask for sources, if he disputes the essential facts. I will provide them, but cannot be expected to work under instant reversals and open threatsEffK 06:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)


  • My point is that the article is rather tangential to the primary purpose of SourceWatch. On the main page we outline that the purpose of SW is to "to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda. A primary purpose of SourceWatch is documenting the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy."
  • Because it is off topic, it is very unlikely that other editors will improve on the article over time. For this reason, it would be far better to create a page on that topic over at Wikipedia (or edit one if it already exists). It is far, far more likely that there will be other editors who will take an interest in the topic there than here. If it were to stay here, I very much doubt that it would be improved an expanded;
  • Censorship? No, I'm encouraging you to publish it somewhere more appropriate not preventing you from publishing it altogether. --Bob Burton 06:41, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Exp on Relocation

While noting that you added various citations, I'm still of the view that the article is off-topic for SW and that it is more appropriate for Wikipedia. I note that you are banned there until October this year. Even so, I don't want SW to become the overflow posting place for material that isn't accepted at Wikipedia. Accordingly, I have relocated the Vatican Pius XII beatification article material to the accompanying talk page so that you can copy it and resubmit it to Wikipedia when you ban there expires. --Bob Burton 21:31, 31 May 2007 (EDT)


Article Exclusion

Bob, since you want to be pro-active, I'll come straight back to you and say that presumably you, Sir, will not see objection to another page dedicated to the Pontifical Council For Social Communications, another to the actual papal (JPII) instructions concerning Internet information change/war, another to Cardinal Cassidy, another to A-Bishop Renato Boccardo, and lastly another analysing the changes being constantly made to Wikipedia in line with the Council and papal instructions.

I think that you may be repeating within SW an actual slander, by linking to their publishing characterisation of myself , and thus advise you to remove it forthwith. As the legalities of WP decision can be so analysed, I might start with an article containing the legal intricacies supporting that analysis. Thankyou for the encouragement, and please note that your action is actually contrary to the SW guidelines. As to your immediate earlier deletion of my posts to you, I fail to see how that accords with these last. Have a good day, EffK 03:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT) PS you didn't get the point, Sir, that I have been posted a LIFELONG ban from touching, and thus presumably creating, any 'Catholic' articles. The beatification article is the reason. I would have to say that in your actions, you are assuming a great deal, and taking it upon yourself to unilaterally distort the functions of SW. I wonder if other users are so sure that my experiene and knowledge is not rather more important to SW and its purpose than your censorship of the surrounding facts and links. You were of course wrong not to have contacted me as I was sourceing the article, as you were asked, and that point speaks ill of you. EffK 04:02, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Whilst looking for the final defamation, which was the WP 'Signpost's report of the close of the WP EffK case, I discover that Jimbo must have heeded my advice and removed the defamation, as you can rapidly ascertain that whilst the case is on the table for Febuary 2006, it never closes- see for yourself, and take good note , [[1]]. Yep, the Wikipedia Foundation lawyers realised they were publishing a defamation, and really I should thank you Bob, as you see, the link you have placed includes these words, which are more ineradicable! -"has posted..not supported by sources.. conspiracy theories about the Catholic Church". If I had copied that signpost defamation, or if a court were to demand the uncovering of it, there could be an inference of guilt, I imagine. EffK 06:54, 1 June 2007 (EDT) However I found it- and it is still as defamatory, as I sourced everything, down to the 'submission of the intellect' on the part of faith-led (and instructed) users, sourced those instructions, sourced the individual confession of adherence and of obedience of the particular user so instructed etc etc. Who cares about Source though, even in an organ called Sourcewatch? You get the government you deserve.EffK 07:09, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Multiple Users with Single Accounts (Musas)

As is logical, and as far as I have seen is un-prohibited, such effort appears to exist. I first suspected this when a non anglo-phone Dweec's ( see very advanced english broke down at odd times, as if he had access to an anglophone wife or partner, who occasionally was un-available. However it was study of another Dweec that more persuaded me, This Dweec was consistently diting every 5 minutes for 18 hour days. Not in itself suspicious, but the editor had started up with a real-world persona, and the behaviour conficted with the real career in the real world. I noticed other things, which are best left aside. What I also noticed was that when I foolishly mentioned this behaviour pattern, it was immediately abandoned. Foolish because it was evidentially useful.

Explanation as factor in exclusion

The conclusions that forced my ban in WP, which I may as well mention as Bob has brought it up so publicly, were dual. neither were ever entered into mainspace articles, and both were submitted in good faith under guidelines within that mediawiki organ's bed of governance concerning 'explanation'.

I) that explanation had to entail analysis of real world law, if religious law, and that this Law itself explained the problem with the remaining real-world controversies, as well as the virtual flamewarring. This ends with not only the non-beatification of Pius XII, but the legal logicical opposite- excommunication ( something I know all about as it is applied to myself).

2) that certain confessedly faith-led users can equally be explained as subservient to similar real world Law. This is reducable to the description 'vatican agent', a term that exists in the real world. The Law was sourced, down to the t, but the saying of it was deemed a cause for the explainer's excommunication.

Since this page here is accessed I thought I would help people by cutting the long story short.


As someone who has something to say both about the Sources necessary within virtual organs like Sourcewatch, and who has provided copious amount of real-world source, I could list examples of my effectiveness at adjusting what now amount to real-world encyclopaedic entries. Far from being monocausal I simply have found that it is only in the case of Pius XII that such real/virtual Source is problematic. However since the power behing this individual is so great, it affects numerous real-world subjects and persons, or rather, the problems inherent to Pius XII 'demand' affect upon such, and therein the apparent flamewar is actually what has been elsewhere described as document war , and which I would now categorise as 'Sourcewar'.

Fortunately, by way of explanation I can provide Third-party editing Source relevant to the Sourcewar, editing which cuts directly to the heart of the Pius Sourcewar, here: EffK 06:04, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Just like Sourcewatch, I am interested by propaganda activity, that is i have been forced to become interested by my online experience of Source-war. I now underestand that SW concentrates upon real-world PR and propaganda activities, by linking to them. I see also that within SW opinion and analysis concerning these is encouraged. Therefore I see myself 'encouraged' by Sourcewatch to more fully source the particluar progagandising activities that have come to my notice. And, since these relate to the Internet as a whole, imagine that they will be of particular relavance to this organ.

In this respect, as I have already stated to a User here, there is an actual department, visible in the real world, which carries within it a deeper and less visible department or office. The former is the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and the second is apparently an Internet specific non-publicised real-world office beneath the 'wing' of the Council. It is apparently run by a technical whizz-kid member of the order of Jesuit, who are a military order possessing a military structure, and longstanding papal approval. It therefore is probable that this sub-office is an independant entity, within this independant military order.


  • Keeping the Jubilee of the year 2000 in mind, Bishop Pastore stated clearly, "The media have only two alternatives: they will either help man to grow in the practical understanding of the true and the good, or they will become forces of destruction opposed to the welfare of mankind." [[2]]
  • On 29 November Monsignor Renato Boccardo was elected bishop and nominated Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. Boccardo, 51 years old on 21 December, from Piedmont, replaces another Piedmontese, Pierfranco Pastore, who was 75 years old in April of last year. The new Secretary, a priest for the diocese of Susa since 1977, entered the Vatican diplomatic service in 1982 serving in the Nunciatures of Bolivia, Cameroon and France. In 1988 he became Pontifical Master of Ceremonies and in 1992 office head of the section for youth of the Pontifical Council for the Laity. From February 2001 he was Chief of Protocol with special duties in the Secretariat of State with responsibility for organizing the Pontifical journeys. A responsibility which he retains along with this new job. [[3]] foto
  • Na sua ânsia em mostrar que os ditames da Igreja devem estar subjacentes ao Direito, obviamente não laico, e em atacar acefalamente a democracia, não ratificada pelas «leis divinas», João Paulo II escreve que «It was a legally elected parliament which allowed the election of Hitler in Germany in the 30s. The same Reichstag gave Hitler the power which opened the way for the political invasion of Europe, the creation of concentration camps, the introcution of the so-called 'final solution' to the Jewish question which led to the extermination of millions of sons and daugthers of Israel.».

Sourcewatch censoring

I imagine that the cerberus Bob Burton, who takes it upon himself to unilaterally dominate proceedings here will any minute move to have my identity banned entirely, as his actions would predict such a move. As he is an admin, and can wipe this mediawiki, I can only say that I will be forced to hereafter consider Sourcewatch as a necessary object of my growing attention towards revisionist activity on the Internet, even if I have to do so within Googlelabs. I doubt that Bob Burton has Google controlled, though naturallly I would have to expect that Google themselves may decide that they - like Jimbo wales- believe the Catholic Church to be bigger than them. Just possibly Google do not so consider. EffK 08:54, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and is Bob Burton the User:EfffK:EfffK, the malicious vandal who possessed admin rollback capacity?. All material saved as of now, though admittedly I had to return to WP to secure the transcription of Edgar Ansel Mowrer (deleted by Bob as un-sourced). As is visible from edit billing, whether an article is sourced or unsourced here - it is all the same to Bob. Well done Bob, you walked right into your own inconsistency, deleting as un-sourced and deleting as sourced. Let's make of this affair a reason to publicise what goes down here. Unless addressed, I retire from SW, as it is plainly a corrupted organ (though perhaps I shoudn't as this page is visited 256 times- whatsay I continue? Funny that American subjection to press censorhip, as sourced by me to the deleted article, should be removed by Bob Burton. EffK 09:13, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Dweec activity in SW?

If you want to know what Dweec stands for go to This may be barking up the wrong tree, but only a study will tell

[continue another day, dont wish to impede AI, and anyway expect assassination by other, so all saved]

Hi Effk
  • SW doesn't claim to be perfect but we aim to constantly improve the quality of articles for readers benefit; making a list of other articles that may need work doesn't negate the point of stopping the addition of more off-topic articles;
  • adding a list of reference links to an offtopic article, doesn't mean it is no longer off-topic;
  • even if it did, adding a list of links to Wikipedia links as citations is really not good enough.

So in summary, I'm sorry but SW is not really the alternative location for people to post off-topic material when they have been restricted from doing so over at Wikipedia. --Bob Burton 21:52, 3 June 2007 (EDT)