User talk:Bernie Radecki

Hello, I am a contributing editor who requested mediation from the cabal on the Francis Schuckardt article. I was hoping it would go into mediation before my spring break was over, but mediators appear to be passing over the article and selecting others. I am wondering if you could tell me if there is something innately undesireable about the article or about how I phrased my request for mediation. The party I am having difficulty with is now threatening to have me banned and it is over issues that are in the request for mediation. I appreciate your point of view if you have a chance to reply. Bernie Radecki 21:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bernie: Thanks for bringing this to my attention; oh, I am sorry, it looks like somehow this was missed in the case queue. No, there isn't anything inherently undesirable about your case, it just looks like it's been overlooked. After my impromptu disappearance following my mental health difficulties getting worse it looks like things went a bit on the mad side in my absence; I've only just returned as coordinator, and it looks like there's lots of things that need fixing fairly quickly. I'll prod a few mediators to see if any of them will take up your case; if nobody takes it in a few days I'll handle it myself. Sorry about the delay, we're rather overburdened at the moment. All the best, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been assigned as mediator on the Francis Schuckardt case. Please go to the mediation page to read my comments. I hope we can all resolve this dispute in a civilized manner. Danny Pi 22:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my observation, but you seem passionate about this topic, and that may have caused you some NPoV issues. On the other hand, I'm no wikilawyer, but the use of personal, self-published sites as sources seems allowable but very restricted, and the guideline for biographies says "the writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." Gimmetrow

I was dismayed when I stumbled on this site in February and found it be very one sided. Schuckardt's church broke up my parents marriage after they had been married 34 years. I spent my adolescent years and early 20s in his very repressive church and I was very cruel to others. I do believe I would have stopped editing this article long ago if Athanasius303 would have not have been so adamant in reverting my early attempts at balancing the article. As I have now stated in the evidence page, I do not object to self-published sources. But the "self-published" source was written by Athanasius303 and not Schuckardt. If you had the opportunity to read what Schuckardt writes or to have heard him speak, you would discover who he is. I have quoted him where I am able in the article. I would accept Athanasius303 quoting him. I object to Athanasius writing what Schuckardt beleives as that does not convey Schuckardt's state of mind. Anyway, please feel free to make additions to the Evidence page if you like. Perhaps you could relate your impression of the Athanasius303 and myself in regards to the recent attempt on clarifying the Aryan Nations controversy. Bernie Radecki 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may enter a section. What is the time frame? What I was saying above is that Athanasius' use of a self-published website seems partly suspect. I don't have a problem using a person's website to report what the person himself says or does. Here, the subject is a person with a particular set of religious views/beliefs, and the website relates those. (Unless you are suggesting it doesn't authentically represent Schuckardt?) I would be hesitant to use it as a source about anybody else, or as evidence about some controversial historical event unless extremely carefully worded. The current style of this article doesn't seem particularly "understated" in this regard. Gimmetrow 00:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a week is alotted for entry of evidence, I am not sure. My point is that Schuckardt is much more than his beliefs on the state of the Catholic Church. It might surprise you to hear that I pretty much agree with what Athanasius303 has written on the Catholic Church. But I would not put in an article on Wikipedia on my views of the Catholic Church. Neither Schuckardt or I have been published. That is to say, Schuckardt is a public figure because of how he has set himself up as head of what he considers to be the Catholic Church and the notoriety that follows him. He allows other to address him as "His Holiness" as he is the final arbitrator on Catholic teaching. As those who lived in Schuckardt's church during the 70s and 80s have written here on the talk page, his church had what many consider to be a bizarre and unhealthy slant on Catholicism. Anyhow, what is published on Schuckardt is not his theological beliefs but the way his church functions and the followers behaviour.

Also, I contend that Schuckardt could not articulate his beliefs as Athanasius303 has. The contention is that Schuckardt developed this theory in the late 60s (which he did), but nowhere has it ever been published. My contention is that the reason it was never published is because his fiery rhetoric would allow readers to see his frame of mind. He lashed out with a vengence on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He had the Jews, the Freeemasons, the Illuminatii, the Communists all in league with the bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church. He had us in the end of time with his band being the remnant faithful and his school being the last Catholic school that we know of. This approach appealed to some, but no serious publication wouold publish his beliefs because of the way he wrapped them. (I see Fra. john writes that the reason Schuckardt's beliefs have never been made public until 2006 on Wikipedia is because the Catholic Church has been using its considerable influence to silence him. So in fairness, you could also believe in that point of view.)

Ah, I write too much. I must admit I am a bit stung and humbled that I may be perceived as a mirror image of Athanasius303. Oh, I do not understand what you mean by your last sentance. Bernie Radecki 02:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"understated"? Reserved, not saying too much, not going out on a limb with statements. "As a prime minister, Churchill was not bad." Don't worry too much, passion isn't a bad thing - it drove you to find sources that will ultimately improve this article. Some more pictures would be good too. One disappeared recently, any idea why? Gimmetrow 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand. Regarding the image, Athanasius303 uploaded it but since it did not say who created the image, he was warned by a bot that it would be removed unless credit was given so I guess it was automatically removed. Bernie Radecki 03:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius has some points, but overall I think you are more in the right. Gimmetrow 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Francis Schuckardt/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has now closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. --Tony Sidaway 08:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Radecki, Are you the parent of the Radecki twin brothers, C.M.R.I. priests?

Also, can you please mark Mount St. Michael on Wikimapia, as I can't seem to find it: http://wikimapia.org/#y=47633007&x=-117329865&z=11&l=0&m=a

Regards.

First cousin. I had never used Wikimapia. Pretty neat. I've marked Mt. Saint Michaels. http://wikimapia.org/#y=47731509&x=-117340894&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2 It shows up if you turn on "upcoming names" or something like that. How do you know my cousins? I also have a sister who is an independent Carmelite nun living in Phoenix, Arizona where she teaches in a small, non-approved school. Bernie Radecki 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to meet you. I do not personally know them, but I am aware of their existence, as their writings turn up on NovusOrdoWatch or some other place, etc. Thanks for marking the Mount St. Michael's site.

I live in the East Indies, and there is a young man in Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu, a Sedevacantist (although he attends the S.S.P.X.'s services), who wishes to be a Dominican. Are there any Sedevacantist Dominicans you know of?

You have no contact button or page on your http://www.theroguebishop.com website. If there were, I would prefer communicating with you there.

Regards

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McKenna Bishop Robert Mckenna is a Dominican kind of sede-vacantist. He might know of a seminary. At the other website, I am 'Bernie'. You can just message me there if you like. It is pretty neat corresponding with someone so far away! Bernie Radecki 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]