Talk:Jerome E. Listecki

Condo matter

An anonymous poster entered a number of undocumented insinuations into the article. These undocumented insinuations have been removed, and newspaper references have been added to establish the facts on the condominium matter. Ajschorschiii 03:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Degrees

The USCCB website also lists Bp. Listecki as earning a doctorate in theology--

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-234E.shtml

But the LaCrosse diocesan website contains a CV for Bp. Listecki which does not show a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Gregorian University.

This item needs fact-checking.Ajschorschiii (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bio from the LaCrosse diocesan website states:

"He began his graduate studies in Canon Law and Moral Theology in 1979 at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, Italy earning a licentiate and doctorate degree. In 1976 he earned a civil law degree from DePaul University in Chicago."

--69.210.131.92 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Speculation about Chicago Archdiocese

I have deleted the sentence -- "Some are already speculating that his post as Milwaukee's Archbishop is a stepping stone for him to eventually succeed Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., who turns 73 in 2010 (two years short of the age when bishops must first submit their offer of resignation to the Pope), as Archbishop of Chicago- Listecki's first episcopal post was as an auxiliary bishop there under the Cardinal." -- since this is unsourced speculation, not in keeping with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading statement inserted on condo matter

The following statement inserted into the article by a previous editor is misleading, potentially libelous, and violates:

I'm replacing the WPBiography link removed by another editor in early July, 2011 in violation of talk page guidelines.Ajschorschiii (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Listecki held land on behalf of a criminal who stole money from the church. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/79775107.html "

As the cited JS article stated, Listecki co-owned the property, and did not hold it on behalf of another. Since this condo matter was already covered in the paragraph above with the earlier references on which the JS article was based (In fact, the JS article apparently drew from this very Wikipedia article for sources), the above statement is being deleted.

RESPONSE: What you are saying here is false. The article makes clear that Listecki was the nominal title holder but that the property was partially owned by 3 other people: Bishop Vlazny, and the Compostos. You deletion was not appropriate.

I suggest that the anonymous editors adding these criticism materials log in as users, and set up a Criticism section in the article.Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I wish to maintain anonymity, because I am concerned about retaliatory behavior. Each time I have cited the articles, pointed out your inaccuracies. You falsely accused me of libel, which establishes that you are capable of character assassination. I do not want to be needlessly attacked on the basis of putting truthful information on a Wikipedia page.

I've gone ahead and edited the other criticisms into two factual sentences, listing the specific criticisms and their sources, and placed the references in the reference section, to keep the criticisms within BLP.Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ajschorschiii response: The MJS article [1] does not support the statement that Archbp. Listecki held the condo property on behalf of others. The pertinent passage from the article states otherwise:

Begin quote from article:

[Early in the article]:

"Wolf [Milwaukee Archdiocesan spokesperson] said the condo was originally put in Listecki's name for convenience's sake but was co-owned by Vlazny and the Compostos."

[Later in the article]:

"Listecki then purchased the Williams Bay condo for $61,000 in 1986, paying down about 20% and borrowing the rest from Kenosha Savings and Loan.

In 1993, Listecki refinanced the mortgage and officially brought Composto, his wife and Vlazny in on the deal."

End of quote from article.

Notwithstanding Wolf's statements, Listecki was according to the MJS article the sole legal owner of the property from 1986 until 1993. Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tlsjr's edits and copyright

Tlsjr's edits of 10/4/10 seem to be violating copyright, by lifting entire passages from the Journal Sentinel article cited without quotations. These need to be reverted immediately.Ajschorschiii (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Your concern is not copyright, but rather to prevent the dissemination of information.

I've reverted Tlsjr's edits that included wholesale sections from the JS article, but have also added a sentence referencing the article cited by Tlsjr so the information is available to the reader.Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a Criticism sectionAjschorschiii (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Tlsjr had inserted some text which did not conform with BLP and NPOV into the portion of the article about the real estate sales, exaggerating the statements of the newspaper article. I've adjusted the language to conform more accurately with the newspaper article cited. One real estate transaction, not transactions plural, was delayed being recorded. The newspaper article did not state why the final recording was delayed, or that Listecki was responsible for the delay, although Tlsjr's edits did infer this. To provide context, the fact that Mrs. Composto used part of her gains from the sale of the real estate to pay the Archdiocese of Chicago completely provides balance to the criticism section. Also, the $218,000 net gain from the real estate investments over two decades amounts to about 6% per year, which is not an unethical or illegal investment by any measure.Ajschorschiii (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The article was cited accurately. The article clearly states that the transaction was not recorded out of the archbishops's concern for appearance.

What you attempted to do was put a spin on the facts, such as suggesting that 6% per year was the "net gain." The articles make very clear that these were leveraged transactions, so in order to determine the percentage rate of return, one would have to analyze how many dollars were actually invested, the payments that were made (subtracting, of course, the stolen funds), and do a time valued analysis the amount received at the end less the repayment of the stolen funds, to arrive at a conclusion on rate of return. This is a complicated financial calculation. There is no way that you can do this without incredible details. The important point to make here, directly from the article, is that a lot of money was made. No one is suggesting that the archdiocese received any financial benefit or rate of return from this affair, or that the return received justified the loss and embarrassment to the church.

Tlsjr has added back into the article the incorrect assignment of responsibility to Archbp. Listecki for the delay in recording the sale of the Williams Bay property, which is not supported by the MJS article. The MJS article referred to Listecki's decision not to sell properties immediately, but did not specifically assign responsibility for the delay in recording the Williams Bay sale. To give context, I've added the purchase dates and sale dates of the properties as listed in the article.Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: See entry above. I read your Facebook blog entry: "This blog represents my effort spanning the past 45 years to seek a path to social justice that is based 1) upon clearly-stated moral foundations and 2) upon refutable statements supported by social and physical evidence, and by sound reasoning." Can we hang a lantern on it?

Ajschorschiii response: It is very clear that Wikipedia:Copyrights policy was violated by the direct lifting of passages from the MJS article and insertion into the article on Archbp. Listecki. Also, after the copyrighted passages were removed, I retained the links to MSJ articles, for the very reason to continue the dissemination of information. Readers who look at the history of this article will see that it was Ajschorschiii who added more detail and documentation about the condo matter three years ago in 2007. See my further comment below on the delay in recording the vacant property.Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Added NPOV Dispute tag

I've added a NPOV Dispute tag to the Criticism section since Tlsjr continues to insert a POV statement on the delay in recording of the vacant land attributing the responsibility to Listecki when the MJS article only attributes a delay in the sales of the property to Listecki, not the delay in recording the vacant property. The buyer of a property can just as easily decide not to record a sale, as a seller, but Tlsjr continues to insert responsibility to seller Listecki when the MJS article does not do in the case of the vacant land. Since Tlsjr has inserted this incorrect statement three times, I refuse to get in an edit war with Tlsjr, and have added the NPOV dispute tag.

Tlsjr will not come to the Discussion page to explain his or her edits, and has added repetitive material to the Criticism section so that is approaching the size of the rest of the article. Also, Tlsjr has scrambled the time sequence of the Criticism section, and has not correctly entered a repetitive reference. I've corrected one broken link and a misspelling, but have stopped making corrections.

Shorter summary sentences, with links to source articles, which were in place in the article earlier, are more fitting an encyclopedia reference.Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Response: The archbishop's official spokeswoman says, in the MJS article, that the archbishop did not record the sale for two years because the archbishop was concerned about the appearance. She is directly quoted.

You wish to speculate about other possible reasons why a person might hypothetically not record a real estate transaction. However, the archbishop's spokeswoman has laid this issue to rest, and the entry should reflect the truth, rather than your speculations.

As I read your edits, there is a continuing effort to put an editorial spin on objective facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlsjr (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ajschorschiii response--Here is the entire section of the 12/2009 MJS article from which Tlsjr has apparently drawn the incorrect conclusion that Archbp. Listecki was responsible for the delay in the recording of the sale of the vacant property:

Beginning of quote from MJS article [2]:

"Despite the allegations, Wolf said Listecki did not consider selling off his interest in the condo and Walworth County land.

"In hindsight, they felt that if they had sold the property right away when the charges were filed, people might have come to the wrong conclusion, saying, 'See, there is something wrong here, and they knew it and they're getting rid of it,' " Wolf said. "That was just not the case."

In June 2007 - less than three months after Composto's death - his widow, Vlazny and Listecki sold the Williams Bay condo for $241,000, some $180,000 more than Listecki originally paid for it, according to public records.

Wolf said the condo was originally put in Listecki's name for convenience's sake but was co-owned by Vlazny and the Compostos. The proceeds from the sale were equally divided among the sellers, she said. Composto's widow, who did not return calls, used her share to pay down the restitution due the Chicago Archdiocese.

Bud Bunce, a spokesman for Vlazny, the Portland archbishop, said he didn't even know that the property had been sold. He said he had no comment on what was done with the money.

"That's a private dealing of his own," Bunce said of his boss.

Last year, Listecki sold his interest in the undeveloped land in the Town of Richmond to Composto's wife for $50,000. The deal was initiated and the documents signed two years earlier, but it was not recorded with the county until September 2008.

O'Malley said officials with the Chicago Archdiocese saw no reason to recommend that Listecki sell his interest in the properties co-owned with Composto. The Chicago church official did say that the archdiocese received full restitution.

"This is a classic situation of a trusted individual betraying their position and their trust," O'Malley said. "Working for the church is a close-knit undertaking, and people become friendly, people become friends. That's what this situation was. He betrayed those friendships."

End of quote from article.

It is very clear from above that while the MJS article, via Milwaukee Archdiocese spokesperson Wolf, assigned the delay in the _sale of properties_ to Listecki, that the MJS article does not specifically assign the _delay in recording the sale of the vacant property_ to Listecki, which is, strictly speaking, a separate matter. Because the MJS article is silent on the specific issue of the responsibility for the delay in recording the sale, and because either a purchaser or a seller (or a lender or county recorder) can delay the recording of a sale in a given instance, therefore the passage that Tlsjr keeps adding back into the article-- "and that the sale of the undeveloped land in Richmond, Walworth County, Wisconsin to Composto's wife was not recorded for 2 years, because Listecki said he was concerned about the appearance."-- is an inaccurate passage. Admittedly, this is a fine point. But Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy is based on affirming such fine points.Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Added factual inaccuracy and verify credibility tags: Is this article now an Attack Page?

I've added a factual inaccuracy and a verify credibility tag to the article. Tlsjr has added an item citing a blog, and has not responded to the most recent dialog above, but has moved forward adding more material, including inaccurate formats and retaining misspellings. This article is fast becoming a Wikipedia:Attack_page. I'm hoping third party editors will step into this discussion, since unfortunately I do not have the time to keep up with this page on a daily basis.Ajschorschiii (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In order to keep readability of the article, I've divided the Criticism section into three subsections, grouping SNAP criticisms at the top, Real Estate Transactions next, and finally, Other Criticism. I've added a few "verify credibility" tags in places where statements are under dispute. I haven't had the time to correct the remaining misspellings and to properly footnote the references added by Tlsjr, some of which do not mention Archbp. Listecki, and should be removed.Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading account of Archbp. Listecki's 1/12/10 testimony

Tlsjr introduced the following misleading and inaccurate statement into the article-- "State Senator Glenn Grothman and Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) criticized Archbishop Listecki for testifying in January, 2010 against the extension of the statute of limitations for abuse victims. . . "

Here's the only mention of Mr. Grothman in the cited article [3]--

--Begin quote from article--

"Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed skepticism about the bill but grilled Listecki about the church's handling of past abuse cases and questioned why former Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland appeared with Listecki when Listecki was installed as archbishop last week.

Weakland has admitted in a memoir and court depositions that he shielded abusive priests.

"Isn't (honoring Weakland) really a poke in the eye to all those people who suffered so horribly?" Grothman said.

--End of quote from article--

Grothman didn't criticize Listecki for testifying against the bill, but himself "expressed skepticism" about the bill. Grothman "grilled" Listecki about past abuse cases and questioned Listecki about Weakland.

I am therefore removing the reference to Grothman in the sentence from the article.Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Arranging SNAP criticisms in Chronological order; editorial and factual cleanup

I've begun arranging the SNAP criticisms in chronological order, and am doing an editorial and factual cleanup of this section.Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved a repetitive SNAP criticism entry on the 1/12/10 testimony with a new reference from the Biography section to the Criticism section.Ajschorschiii (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The 1/12/10 testimony account again appears twice as of 1/4/15, once in the Milwaukee Archbishop section, and once at greater length in the Criticism section only a few lines below. I'm therefore again removing the duplicate mention from the Milwaukee Archbishop section. Ajschorschiii (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved the third reference for the 1/12/10 testimony to the Criticism section, and removed the duplicate and incorrect mention of the Milwaukee installation.Ajschorschiii (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request Third Opinion: Reintroduction of errors, repetition, and removal of verify credibility tags by Tlsjr

Tlsjr has reintroduced a factual error into the text, now attributing to Sen. Grothman at least one position not in the public record, has removed a number of verify credibility tags without coming to the Discussion page, and has added repetitive material into the article. See also the discussions above, especially Talk:Jerome_Edward_Listecki#Added_NPOV_Dispute_tag. Since only two editors are involved, I'm therefore referring this matter to Wikipedia:Third_opinion.Ajschorschiii (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, reading through the whole section, per our usual WP:BLP policies most of the condo stuff is speculation and it should just be cut. As far as I can make out his mate was a naughty boy and caught for it, but he was found to have done nothing wrong (i.e. in a court, which is our marker in these matters). So it's not really relevant. Most of the content is based on an article from Journal Sentinel which strikes me as largely specukative. I suggest clarifying that with the specialists at WP:BLP/N, but my gut instinct is to cut the condo section. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the condo section looks pretty dodgy. So is the final paragraph of the preceding section. But the first two paragraphs of that earlier section seem fine to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and ouch, that last sentence is terrible! cutting --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Response: Seriously, guys, these things are relevant. The guy is a public figure. Why are you trying to hide all of this stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlsjr (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

None of the material is actually really relevant to his biography. We do not report allegations, smear or spin. For example, how is the fact he appointed someone who later was convicted of XYZ (or w/e) in any way relevant - are you trying to suggest he was some way involved in that? Better not be ;) We stick to neutral facts, if someone did something bad, sure, we report it, but only when it is true, relevant and accurate (basically; if they were convicted of anything). Vague smears are the topic of tabloids, not a grown up encyclopaedia. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much to the third party editors for their help and advice in clarifying BLP. However, there is still a problem of fact with the first paragraph of the Criticism section--

"State Senator Glenn Grothman and the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) criticized Archbishop Listecki on January 6, 2010, for allowing retired archbishops Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee and Daniel Edward Pilarczyk of Cincinnati to say Mass at St. John's Cathedral in Milwaukee,[15] on January 12, 2010 for allowing Weakland, who had moved around abusive priests, to keep his title as Emeritus Archbishop of Milwaukee and for keeping the name Weakland Center on the pastoral center at St. John's Cathedral,[16] and again on January 12 for testifying on that date before the Wisconsin State Senate against a bill to extend the statute of limitations for report of abuse as supported by John Chisholm, the District Attorney of Milwaukee, which Listecki alleged would single out Catholic institutions and bankrupt the Milwaukee Archdiocese.[17][18]"

Sen. Grothman is not mentioned in ref [15]:

[4]

Grothman's criticism of Listecki is dated 1/12/10, not 1/6/10, on the Weakland Mass celebration point and the Weakland emeritus title in reference [16], which confirms the first two clauses, but not the 1/6/10 date in reference to Grothman of the sentence above:

[5]

But Grothman himself expressed skepticism about the bill in question while "grilling" Listecki as shown in reference [17] below, and did not directly criticize Listecki for opposing the bill. This is the only mention of Grothman in reference [17]--

"Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed skepticism about the bill but grilled Listecki about the church's handling of past abuse cases and questioned why former Archbishop Rembert G. Weakland appeared with Listecki when Listecki was installed as archbishop last week."

[6]

Finally, there is no mention of Grothman in reference [18]--

[7]

Therefore, I propose the following revision of the first paragraph of the Criticism section--

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) criticized Archbishop Listecki on January 6, 2010, for allowing retired archbishops Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee and Daniel Edward Pilarczyk of Cincinnati to say Mass at St. John's Cathedral in Milwaukee.[15] On January 12, 2010 during a hearing of the Wisconsin State Senate on a bill to extend the statute of limitations for reporting abuse as supported by Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm, State Senator Glenn Grothman joined in this criticism, and also questioned Listecki why he allowed Weakland, who had been accused of moving around abusive priests, to keep his title as Emeritus Archbishop of Milwaukee, and for retaining the name Weakland Center on the pastoral center at St. John's Cathedral.[16] Listecki testified against the bill, saying it would single out Catholic institutions and bankrupt the Milwaukee Archdiocese.[17][18]

Please let me know if the above revision is acceptableAjschorschiii (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

THIRD OPINION--I prefer this new version you are proposing. As long as it accurately reflects the sources it is a good summary of the facts and has a more neutral tone that the current text.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, seems fine. Good work Ajschorschiii, --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Of course it does not accurately reflect the sources. Ajschorschiii deleted the sources with reference to Grothman. http://www.wrn.com/2010/01/listecki-pressed-about-weaklands-status/ In fact, he spends most of his time deleting sources.

If you are "Editors," you are censors, not editors. Surely you can see this is the subject's employees, former employees and friends whitling this section down to a joke.

Listecki apparently tells the archdicocese to "clear him of wrongdoing," so now we cannot mention the public articles on the topic. The signficance here is that he is enaging in real estate transactions, with a known cirminal, where the public is misled about who owns the property and the sale of the property does not get recorded to protect his appearance.

We can't dicuss him giving character references to ponzi schemers, just a few weeks ago.

We can't discuss that he put the LaCrosse archdiocese website in the hands of a pedophile.

And on and on.

But it is perfectly okay for you to mention he raised 50 million dollars and that he was "enthroned."

Ultimately, you have to decide whether this page is neutral place to discuss a public figure's life work, or a spot where his resume can be put up. There is a difference. I find your work to be ill considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlsjr (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a neutral place. Which means stuff relevant to his biography and stuff discussed in neutral sources. Allegations are difficult to deal with, but in this case it is more than clear - most of the content is an attempt at "slander by association". If that is what you are here to do it is not appropriate. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I will therefore go ahead, per the discussion above, and make the changes to the first paragraph of the Criticism section as we discussed. For the record, I've carefully cited the reference that Tlsjr just mentioned [8], which I referred to above as reference [16], but it does not contain a statement that Grothman criticized Listecki for the act of testifying on 1/12/10.Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As required by Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, I am declaring that I know Listecki, although I have not spoken with him in a few years. My interest in this page is to keep it within Wiki standards, and I am happy that there are now other editors looking at this page, since I would like to be less active on it. For the record, I have _added_ critical material and references to this page. If I have anything useful to add to this page, I will bring it to the Discussion page, which has been my editing style for years.Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

A COI is really only applicable when you are editing to the detriment of the article, which I do not think you have done in this case. Obviously, it is encouraging to see you disclose a potential COI, but there was no outright need for you to do so :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to having criticism in this BLP. But this is a BLP so it must be reliably sourced and presented in an even handed manner and without undue weight. We are not here to promote or denounce this individual. Rather the article should reflect what has been published in reliable secondary sources and should be written in neutral language with appropriate weight given to each topic. I am not saying this article does or doesn't do that already. I am only stating that these are Wiki principles and policies, and that I support them regardless of any personal inclinations I may or may not have in regard to any person or topic.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: It is not slander by association to discuss these issues.

Listecki engaged in real estate partnership transactions that were questioned with somebody who was convicted of stealing form the church, stolen funds were used to pay the mortgage, and Listecki did delay public recording of documents to protect his appearance. This is way more questionable than say, the Bill Clinton Whitewater affair. Yes, Listecki was not convicted of theft personally, but the fact that he was connected to this set of circumstances is historically fascinating.

The priest Listecki chose to be the archdiocese webmaster was caught trolling both the internet and wisconsin dells for little boys. The reason you do not want this published is you do not want people to see Listecki's poor leadership and judgment.

Listecki did provide character reference to a ponzi schemer who stole millions of dollars, who was formerly a lawyer Listecki hired for the archdiocese. The reason you do not want this published is you do not want donors to know that he hires such people to represent the archdiocese and then attempts to help them when they get in trouble. Another historically fascinating piece of information that should be published.

Finally, I note that the "editor" finally comes out and admits that he is in fact an associate of the subject.

May I suggest you come up with a way of explaining these disturbing news items without complete censorship by an associate of the archbishop? They are historically significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlsjr (talk • contribs) 15:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As a rule of thumnb, when someone starts going on about "censorship" it's usually a last ditch argument. None of your above contentions really work to raise these points as significant parts of his biography, as much as Ajschorschiii may have a desire to portray this person in a good light you appear to have an agenda to pull out all the tabloid speculation. None of the three issues you raise have any particular historical significance in relation to this biography. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Although the following materials are not being included in the Article, since very broad and incorrect accusations are being made on this Discussion page, I'm recording some clarifications for the record.

As discussed and displayed above on this Discussion page, no one has produced a quote from the MJS articles that directly assigns responsibility for the _delay of the recording the transfer of vacant property_ to Listecki, only the delay of the sales. These are two different things.

The properties in question were purchased in the mid-1980s. The theft from the Chicago Archdiocese came to light in the mid-2000s. The real estate transactions preceded the fact that Composto was a "known criminal" by almost 20 years. So this "known criminal" assertion is definitely "guilt by association."

If one checks the articles on the LaCrosse-webmaster-arrested for-child-porn matter, the source assigning responsibility to Listecki for the assignment of the webmaster is stated in the articles as SNAP.

On the note-to-the-judge-to-be-lenient-on-the-accused-ponzi-attorney matter, nothing in the articles assigned the hiring of the accused-ponzi-attorney to Listecki.[9] Also, I never have worked for Listecki.Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a picture of the current Archbishop I want to upload, how do you upload pictures onto Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.216.81 (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

July, 2013 NYT quote

I've cleaned up the July, 2013 NYT quote, which was hanging at the end of the article with two large blue quote marks and the footnote out of place. Since the July 2013 NYT quote appeared three years after Bp. Listecki's 2010 remarks directly above it, I separated the NYT quote into a separate paragraph. Ajschorschiii (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jerome E. Listecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710131956/http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/bishoplistecki/articles/CurriculumVitaeBpListecki11-14-09.pdf to http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/bishoplistecki/articles/CurriculumVitaeBpListecki11-14-09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125002946/http://www.illinoiscma.org/Chicago.html to http://www.illinoiscma.org/Chicago.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224223653/http://www.cathedralsjworkman.org/index.php/Staff/ to http://www.cathedralsjworkman.org/index.php/Staff/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041230205817/http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/12/30/news/01reax.txt to http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/12/30/news/01reax.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807095441/http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/100087839.html to http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/100087839.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)