User talk:Cberlet/Archive 2004-12 2005-05

=Archive of User talk:Cberlet=

Photograph
Hi Chip, do you happen to know who took the photograph of you and Dennis King that is on the Chip Berlet page? I am trying to find out who the copyright holder is and whether Wikipedia has permission to use it. Any information you have would be helpful. Many thanks, Slim 22:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

It was taken by a member of the LaRouche group outside the courthouse in Alexandria, VA the day LaRouche was led off to jail. I presume the photographer was working for their newspaper, or another of their publications, since it has appeared in LaRouche publications from time to time. I am sure they would be delighted to give permission.

--Cberlet 04:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John Train Salon
If you think an article should be deleted you have the option of nominating it for deletion at Votes for deletionAndyL 03:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your photo
Chip, I'd like to use the photograph of you at http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg for the Chip Berlet page. Do you know who owns the copyright and how I can get permission? Slim 00:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, PRA owns the copyright to the photo, and you have permission to use it on Wikipedia as long as you preserve the copyright notice and say used by permission. I can't wait to see it appear in a LaRouche publication. Sigh... --Cberlet 03:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip. I'll check that it's okay to do that. There's sometimes a problem with Wikipedia and copyrights, because everything is supposed to be open-source. But if you'd rather I didn't use the photograph, I won't, so do say if you're prefer not.

In the meantime, I've started to rewrite your page. At the moment, it's on a subpage that I've created at User:SlimVirgin/CBdraft, and there's a Talk page for it at User talk:SlimVirgin/CBdraft, where you're free to make comments, or else you can e-mail me if you have any information you feel should be included, bearing in mind that everything in Wikipedia must have been published somewhere already. It's probably best if you don't edit it yourself, so that no one can accuse you of interfering. Once I've finished the draft, I'll try to get a few other editors to read it, and if they think it's okay, we'll put it on the page instead of the current one. Then if the LaRouche editors try to attack it, we may have to look into asking for page protection. Slim 04:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I will see if we can get the original photographer to grant us a release.--Cberlet 04:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, I've labeled it "fair use," which means there's a copyright on it, but Wikipedia has decided it's fair use under United States law. I'm sure that'll be okay, so long as you've no objections. Slim 05:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Cberlet 13:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Chip Berlet" article
The article on you has been re-edited in an attempt to make it conform with last year's Arbitration Committee ruling concerning the insertion of LaRouche related material in non-LaRouche related wikipedia articles. LaRouche supporters have been that if they continue to insert LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles their violations of the ArbComm ruling will be brought to the ArbComm's attention. AndyL 04:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ISBN numbers
Hi Chip, I get the numbers from Amazon. For Dennis King, for example, I went here, clicked on "hardcover,"; when I got that page, I scrawled down to "product details" and got the year of publication of the first edition. Then I hit the back button to take me back to the first page, scrawled down again to "product details," and this gave me the paperback details, in this case third edition, June 1999, ISBN: 0028628217 (which is not the same ISBN number as the hardcover). When you cut and paste ISBN numbers from Amazon into Wikipedia, you have to delete the colon, then it comes up as ISBN 0028628217. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin 18:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!--Cberlet 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wrong title & redirect & delete?
You did everything perfectly up to putting the delete tag on it--common/likely misspellings (or alternate spellings) are left (or even created) as redirects to help people using the "Go" or "Search" button find the article at the correct location. It also helps prevent people from creating a duplicate article at the misspelling/alternate spelling. For example, note the redirs to Miskito (actually, it should probably have more), or to Mahatma Gandhi. The relevant guideline is here. Niteowlneils 03:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alternative news
Maybe alternative news syndicate - like news syndicate (presently just a redlink on news agency, but oh well) and I don't think it would be necessary to disambiguate U.S. because... where else were there any covered by such a name? Great good stuff, regardless! Samaritan 15:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stygean stables
CB - If they were Augean stables we might be able to muck them out by re-directing a river. Unfortunately, you are correct, they are Stygian indeed. The "Political Views" article is a mess and SV apparently has a plan to fix it, so I will step aside from that article while that plan is pursued. I enjoy editing articles, however just talking about editing articles is tedious. Sometimes having too many editors on an article can prevent forward motion. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New articles
Chip, did you intend to create new LaRouche articles (e.g. Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/The Brainwashing Incident? These are in the main Wikipedia namespace i.e. in the encyclopedia. If you want to write a draft, it should be preceded by Talk: Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/followed by the name of the draft; or preceded by your user name User:CBerlet/followed by the name. Best, SlimVirgin 04:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Sorry. I misunderstood how the system works. I have noted them for speedy deletion.--Cberlet 04:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No worries. :-) SlimVirgin 04:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and racism
Oops, sorry; I usually get this right when I try to add attributions in the comments, but I f**ked up. Again, my apologies. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

User accounts
Chip, for your information, I have left the following note on Herschelkrustofsky's and Weed Harper's talk pages:


 * "A request was made recently to the developers regarding the relationship, if any, between the user accounts User:Herschelkrustofsky, User:Weed Harper and User:C Colden. The reply from the developers is: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person. C Colden is either the same person or working in coordination with them, but is not *firmly* established to be the same person." Assuming this is correct, it would be appreciated if you would choose either the Herschelkrustofsky or Weed Harper account to edit the LaRouche pages. There is no policy against using multiple accounts, but they shouldn't be used to create the impression of more support for a position than really exists, or to get round 3RR violations. Alternatively, if you feel the technical information is misleading, any light you can shed on the relationship between the accounts would be helpful."

I've been told that the correct thing to do is to leave a note for C Colden asking if s/he can shed light on the relationship between the C Colden account and the other two, which I have also done. SlimVirgin 01:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, just to let you know that Herschel has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin 07:02, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * And the Weed Harper user account has been blocked for 48 hours for making an edit while the H user account was blocked. SlimVirgin 19:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

See Requests for arbitration. I didn't know Snowspinner was going to do this, so I have quickly cobbled together a request to add to his. If the request is accepted (I don't know how many arbitrators have to agree), the issue moves to an evidence page, which is where all the diffs have to be produced. SlimVirgin 05:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Finished playing in the sandboxes
CB, I'm done. I've tried to describe, at least generaly, what my edits were in the summaries. I've torn the LaRouche bio apart and tried to make it as chronological as possible. I know you listed future plans in the Press & Criticism sections, but I tried to move most of that material into the relevent places and I think the story of LaRouche can be more easily followed that way. For example, the Train Salon takes on a different look when preceded by years of negative press reporting and lawsuits. And I've been equally merciless on the Political Views article, trying to make that more thematic and less biographical. In any case, I'll now leave the sandbox so the next editor can have their turn. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS Feel free to undo/redo/overdo anything you like. This link shows all the changes I made to the bio, and this one does the same for the Poliviews. I've deleted almost nothing. Both articles are obviously rougher as a result of being re-arranged, but once the outlines are in place we can work together on the completion. I wish I could have marked more verbiage with strikeouts, as I hope we can get these articles into forms that people can actually read in a weekend or less. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PPS I've made a new sandbox, Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox, take a look. It's just a sketch, and I'm not entirely sure if it can be filled out in a useful way. Let me know if you have any thoughts about whether such an article, under some title, would be worth pursuing. It could potentially handle some topics that are hard to fit into the existing series. -Willmcw 10:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding and posting the black ghetto mother page. I wonder what he's talking about. I like Will's new page by the way. Shall we create another LaRouche talk page instead of posting to each other's user pages? Might be faster; or do we have too many to remember already? SlimVirgin 02:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, well I've created one. Feel free to use it or not, as you see fit. It's Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/organization sandbox/talk

La Rouche arbitration
The La Rouche arbitration part two has been accepted; temporary injunctions have been proposed which would affect your editing of La Rouche related articles; please made any comments at the talk page of Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_Part_Deux/Proposed_decision. Fred Bauder 15:46, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction
Pending a final decision on the case concerning you, you re also prohibited from editing articles on Template:LaRouche or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though you may continue to work in the present sandbox articles Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox, Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/sandbox and Talk:United States v. LaRouche/sandbox. Violation of this injunction will result in a block of up to twenty-four hours. Pages relating to the case are not included. Please see the injunction order for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:03, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Don't let...
...them get to you, Cberlet -- just a short note to say "hi" and to urge that nolite bastardes carborundum. I'm taking a "wikibreak" as parenthood and work in my non-wiki life have been taking up most of my time the last few months. Hope all is well. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 23:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling
As a ruling has been made on the case involving you, the temporary injunction against you has expired. Please see the final decision for details. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:23, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
Hi, and thanks again for rescuing Conspiracy theory from my catastrophic 'fix'. You've done a great job sorting this out - I think it's fine as it stands. I'll see about reconciling your exported collection of theories material into the List of conspiracy theories article, unless you suggest a better idea. Adhib 09:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and Neiwert
No hay de que, amigo mio. If the topic is of interest, I highly recomment setting aside an hour or two to pour over the second of those two articles, "The Rise of Pseudo-Fascism." His thesis is not that Fascism is on the march, but rather that a set of traits are emerging that superficially resemble Fascism but absent the key element of violence, thankfully full far short of the genuine article. --AStanhope 11:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note and the link. It looks/sounds like this is your area of expertise.  I am fascinated to see that Lyndon LaRouche is still doing his thing.  I still have a copy of There Are No Limits to Growth! from like 20 years ago that has long been one of my favorite examples of extremist, crackpot rhetoric.  Nice "meeting" you.  --AStanhope 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories claiming involvement by Zionists or Jews in the September 11, 2001 attacks
Hi Chip. I hope you don't mind, after you renamed this I cleaned up a dozen or so links to the old article. Jayjg (talk) 21:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss
Hi Chip, do you know anything about the political ideas of Leo Strauss? I recently encountered the article on him here, and it was nearly exclusively a highly academic discourse on his philosophical ideas. I have just added a section on political ideology, but it is pretty rudimentary and still needs some work. He seems to be a seminal figure for the US neocons, so it would be useful to have a clear exposition of his ideas here. -- Viajero 17:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * PS, I have known about your work since hearing you and Holly speak at ZMI '95 in Woods Hole. Viajero 17:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracies
thanks for moving that link, i was just about to do that. Looking at the linked site, it was hard to tell what view it held, but i'm pretty sure it is a general site, not making a specific claim. The linked page does, however debunk the "there was no plane" claim, so the "debunks" section is the right place. Bonus Onus 02:30, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Israel Shamir article
You might find this article helpful when making future edits. Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak
If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at the current debate at Talk:Israel Shahak? Your opinion would be welcome. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I was looking more for clear thinking than a specific viewpoint.  Thanks for responding. Jayjg (talk)  20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

conspiracy theory
Hi Cberlet. Rhobite and Jayjg and you and I and others should talk about this. Sorry I was lazy to not get to your talk page. Initially I was communicating with Rhobite via the "revert comments field". He/she had 3 issues with my initial changes and I addressed them all. However my version did not please you and Jayjg. Let's try to build consensus. I don't care who writes the lead definition, however I am not happy with the current one because I (and likely Rhobite) think it is incomprehensible, inaccurate compared to the dictionary definition and leans more towards the colloquial definition over the legal one.

From what I have read and my understanding of English, the concept of "conspiracy theory" is really just the combination of the concept of "conspiracy" and the concept of "theory". To conspire is to plan together to do something, usually bad. However you and your mom can conspire to surprise your dad with a party! Theory is like a guess. So a "conspiracy theory" is a guess that a group of people conspired to do something. It is a guess, because the person guessing has no direct knowledge that the group of people planned it and executed on it. In the previous example, after the surprise party, your dad might suspect that the two of you were in on the surprise because he doubts either one of you could have pulled it off on your own (his conspiracy theory) and ask you both how you planned it. [Perhaps only your mom knew that he would be there at that time and only you could have invited his friends]

If you check the dictionary definitions (google it if you like), you will see that my above example is correct usage of the term.

Do you want to give a shot at writing a lead wiki definition that works for this case and is consistent with the legal definition?

The lead definition should not be focused on the political examples with "secretive powers" and "common understandings". Bogusstory 07:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
LOL! My pleasure. You certainly earned it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that your views and this page on the subject are highly biased POV
Comments like this don't improve the quality of dialogue. Following it up with "Don't be patronizing. I write NPOV" and so forth creates not only an extremely unconvincing argument, it also creates a hostile hypocracy which I would like to see less of. We've gotten along well editing a variety of contentious pages together in the past. Lets return to the method of compromise, civility and citing references which has served so well, and leave the incivility and rhetoric out. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11
>> "There is a discussion going on at Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks on where to put what. Your recent posts fall in between proven material with multiple named sources and unproven conspiracy claims. When you track down some of the cites to their primary publication, the sources get thin. But most of the claims have appeared in major press outlets, so they deserve to be put someplace other than a conspiracy claim or rumor page. Anyway, please join the discussion."
 * Thanks muchly for the heads-up. It's a long-winded messy article... can you summarise briefly where its gone since those additions, what you see the issue being, and where I could contribute?  I saw missing material and added it as best I could, but that doesnt mean I necessarily know enough to make the finer judgements that perhaps you might think I have knowledge of...?  FT2 00:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

misinfo and rumors talk page
Hey Cberlet, I am wondering if you noticed my response on the Talk:Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks page? I provided numerous examples that it seems to be wikipedia policy to put the word "Criticisms" first in an article's title, I understand the desire to put "9/11" first but that is needlessly encumbersome. What do you think? zen master   T  22:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism
Hi, based on some writing you did about 10 years ago, I thought you might be able to help out with this page. Also, what kind of magazine is The New Internationalist? Jayjg (talk) 01:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chip. Jayjg (talk) 15:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

9/11 titles
I think Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report is good, but what do you mean "would the 'other' titles be 'OK'?"? Where was this question listed? zen master   T  17:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
Please be specific in your complaints about the Churchill article or be silent. Your choice. Johnnyio 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is an asswipe, but please note I didn't put that in the article and nor would I. All I want is for the unvarnished, unedited facts to be recorded. Johnnyio 21:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This guy has been blocked for 72 hours, so I think the coast is clear again. -- Viajero 18:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COINTELPRO
Some law & order types are threatening to run away with the COINTELPRO entry. In response to POV changes (ie. characterizing all COINTELPRO targets as "violent") I've attempted to provide some historical background the FBI's practice of targeting peaceful organizations. You have a lot of experience in research on counterintelligence activities and I'd appreciate your input. DJ Silverfish 21:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thanks, the article is much improved now. I've been checking some of Ward Churchill's primary source citations, which I will insert as article references (with appropriate credit) when I have time. Cheers. DJ Silverfish 18:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, nice work on this article! We are lucky to have you here. -- Viajero 01:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
You can either ask an admin to protect the page or put in a request at Requests for page protection. In any case, I've locked John Birch Society. 22:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
I don't appreciate you reverting wholesale a series of changes, most of which were painstakingly and individually added to the Temp article. Leave it alone please or make a positive contribution without destroying the hard work of others. TonyMarvin 02:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't care if you're polite or not, I certainly intend to be polite in all circumstances but I reject your swooping in and destroying the hard work of others. It's not a legitimate practice. Contribute something, as Viajero and I have been, we have a different view of what's neutral probably but at least we're exchanging and moving forward. You on the other hand are just deleting anything I contribute. I don't think it's impolite to call on you on it, I hope I provoke you into actually contributing something that isn't agenda pushing. Churchill is going to become - if he isn't already - a really important figure in education, especially if he is removed. I would like the article to intelligently reflect his importance and not just be a fanpage by those who agree with his politics. With every Colorado politician (GOP and Dems) agreeing to condemn him, one has to suspect his fanbase is pretty small. TonyMarvin 03:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're nearly there I think. I withdraw my comments that you were not compromising or participating. Kudos. TonyMarvin 03:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you over wrote Viajero's post
Was this an accident? 

Also, "American Indian" is still wrong I believe but I will acquiesce. zen master   T  16:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill compromise attempt
I noticed that your compromise version of TonyMarvin's changes was basically the version I reverted to plus some minor tweaks? Anyway, TonyMarvin apparently disagrees with your compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=0&oldid=12548435  zen master    T  03:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't disagree at all with Cberlet. The removal of the word 'some' was perfectly correct. Churchill said he meant 'some' years after he'd written the essay which made no such qualification. For Churchill it was OK to murder an investment banker but he was less comfortable with the murder of the receptionist or the janitor. I think the summary of his views is tighter and better now. TonyMarvin 04:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yeah sure like you do. Zenupassio 02:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-semitism
There was no consensus for LevelCheck's removal of content, including the removal of the quote by Political Research Associates. Please add this back into the article --Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry. I just don't understand why content was removed.  --Viriditas  | Talk 03:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society
Hi Chip, that's done. For future reference, if you need a page protected or unprotected, you can either approach an individual admin on their talk page, or you can make a request at Requests for page protection, which is where requests for unprotection go too. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Huh?
Your comment on my talk page doesn't make sense. If you wanted a literal answer I do play chess but I do not blow up frogs. zen master   T  01:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request
Could you please take a look at Talk:The_Matrix? Thanks. AndyL 17:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society
See the Talk page. The tag is certainly correct and justified. But if you disagree, you can remove it. Mirror Vax 21:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Keetoowah
I am considering opening an RFC on User:Keetoowah. His aggressive and nasty style is really not helping. But I'm not sure it would help. Thoughts? Kelly Martin 20:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note to Keetoowah. I know it is sometimes hard to resist being snide and patronizing--these are flaws I find in myself--but it does not help build consensus. I also am concerned that you seem to be taking a position that only your views count in this discussion. This is especially toubling since you appear to have deleted a discussion I was having with someone here on this talk page. See: diff-1 and diff-1. --Cberlet 13:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Cberlet: I really don't know what drugs you have been taking but I did NOT delete anything.  Also, the nature of Wikipedia makes your accusation absolutely ludicrious.  Why? Well, every change, whether an addition or a subtraction, is tracked by the Wikipedia software program.  My edits are a matter of record and the deletion that you unfairly, irrationally, and incorrectly accuse me of making does not appear in the record of edits.  You need to show me using the Wikipedia edit tracking system the deletion that I supposedly made or should keep or unfair, irrational, incorrect and unstable accusations to yourself.  So until you provide me evidence to back up your claim, and it would be in the Wikipedia system if I really did it, please get a grip on your grasp of reality.  When I did supposedly do this???  Wouldn't the date and time be in the Wikipedia system??? YES.  Show it to me.  I now understand the reason that you feel compelled to defend the FAKE Indian.--Keetoowah 18:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference that you are pointing to was made by 137.224.252.10 That particular IP address is based in the Netherlands.  I'm not in the Netherlands, I'm in the U.S.  So you need to talk to someone in Europe, not here.--Keetoowah 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note to Kelly Martin: I know that you don't like my position concerning the FAKE Indian.  That is your right, but you shouldn't really attempt to stifle my comments because you don't argree with my point of view.  I find your style as "aggressive and nasty" also.  You are not prone to consensus either.  You have given me direct orders when you should have been attempting to discuss and talk, but you have not been acting that way.  Also, your ally here,Cberlet accused me of deleting comments on the Talk page, which was and is not true.  The Wikipedia software system makes that completely clear.  You need to work on your attempts to work with me.  Your "aggressive and nasty" style is not helpful.-Keetoowah 00:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism
I am getting sick and tired of our anonymous AOL IP editor running roughshod over the Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism article while refusing to participate in any sort of consensus building on the Talk: page. Is there something that can be done about it? Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:9/11_domestic_conspiracy_theory
There's a discussion and vote going on about the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in the title of this (and other) articles. I thought you might want to put in your 2 cents worth and/or vote. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Chip, thanks for your note. I've set up a page at Conspiracy theory. I don't know whether it's more appropriate to use the talk page or the main page, but I've gone ahead and copied part of the discussion about this from elsewhere onto the main page. Feel free to fiddle around with it as you see fit. Hope it helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

'Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism' chart
Greetings, sir. You are noted as the copyright owner of the abovementioned chart, and I was wandering whether you would be willing to release it for use on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and keep up the great work, here and elsewhere! Yours, El_C 04:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of employing it in the White supremacy and Roots of anti-Semitism articles. While I do appreciate your concerns, at the same time, I think they could be addressed and accomodated, in more than one way, and with your assistance, relatively effortlessly (i.e. within the respective article/s, image field, etc.). What do you think? El_C 17:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for releasing this (in my opinion, very insightful) chart! I have a 700x gif of it, I will upload it later as I am writing in haste and am literally out the door. Please review it once I upload it (likely in a few hours), and if you happen to find a better copy, simply upload it with the same filename and it will overwrite the original submittion. Thanks again, much appreciated. El_C 18:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've inserted the chart into the Roots of anti-Semitism article, please review it, as well as the image field, and modify it as you see fit. I have yet to add it to White supremacy, an article that needs, I believe, an origin of section; one in which the chart would fit well. I cannot think of an editor more qualified to author that than yourself. I hope you will consider looking into it. If there's anything I could do to help, please do not hesitate. Regards, El_C 23:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Signs of a conspiracy theorist
A third would be the belief that people act for the purpose of "covering up" their activities and hiding them from scrutiny.. A fourth would be the insistence that those who oppose them are acting at the behest of secret masters (e.g. "your boss should be proud" ). That's four. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's another classic post: . Gee, I wonder why these two editors in particular are offended at the straightforward description of conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. Jayjg (talk)  21:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

John Birch Society
Hi Chip, I can protect the page, but can only do so on the current version, unless the anon IP has violated 3RR, in which case I can revert to the version before the 3RR violation. S/he seems to have violated it at first glance, but I'd need someone to show me the diffs. In the meantime, I've left a note for him/her about 3RR on the talk page of the most recent IP address s/he used. I can't act as though this were vandalism, because it's a content dispute. If you want me to protect, I'm happy to do so, bearing the above in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:14, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. --kizzle 20:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Christian right
It's a difficult one. The first step in dispute resolution is to put up a request for comment regarding the article. Go to that page and add a brief, neutral, and unsigned description of the dispute. Article RfCs rarely bring much response, but it's worth a try. At the same time, you could try to interest like-minded editors who care about sources, and try to get them to help edit the pages. The step after that is a request for mediation between you and Sam. This will involve the mediator seeking a compromise position between you: also not ideal and it can be time-consuming. Another alternative is to put up a Request for Comment on Sam. You can see how to do that on the RfC page. It's time-consuming as it involves providing all the diffs to the edits you're objecting to.

The best bet is to start editing by using good sources yourself for your own edits. If you keep linking to your sources inline, and if they're credible, the edits can't reasonably be reverted. Also, you could make a request on the talk page for good writing standards to prevail. I'd start by trying to interest other editors if I were you and I'm thinking specifically of Will, as he's very good at this kind of dispute, though he's a bit tied up at the moment with the conspiracy-theory issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

your blog
Hi, just saw your new blog -- I look forward to reading it! -- Viajero 14:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Link? Also, see also. El_C 14:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

mediation
See Mediation_Cabal. Cheers, Sam Spade 21:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"fixed plagiarism of Lind"
What the hell is that? I read a source, cited a source, and made an addition based on information from a source. Thats hardly plagerism, which can be a legal offense, and one I'm certainly not guilty of. Please don't make false legal allegations. Thank you. Sam Spade 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Dennis King
An unregistered user is deleting a sentence from King's bio that states King was a member of the Progressive Labor Party. I've been restoring it on the simple principle of an explained deletion of sourced material. However if it is wrong then we should correct or delete it. Do you have any knowledge of this matter? If so, your input would be appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I'll see if there is a way of wording the material to clarify that this was a youthful activity that happened many years ago. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:03, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Request
I am in receipt of a mediation request regarding you (cited earlier on your messages here), please contact me when you get a chance to let me know if you're agreeable to working on the issue. --Wgfinley 01:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding your reply on my talk page, mediation is not about mediating the content of an article, it's about assisting editors in reaching an understanding so that they can coexist in peace before other dispute resolution steps are required (RfC, Arb, etc). So, if you are interested in trying to reach such an understanding then let me know.  You can find me in the Wikipedia IRC room on freenode.net or you can reach me on AIM as progboatguy72.  --Wgfinley 02:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In your response to my message - as you wish, however I don't see where my political orientation would enter into the equation? Again, our job is not to mediate the content dispute but to see if we can mediate the personality dispute between editors.  If you're looking for someone to act as a jury for content disputes that would be the editors and the consensus building process.  However, there are other members who could take a look at the dispute such as Kim Bruning.  I'll note the reference page and sorry I'm not giving you enough specifics but the goal is to get the two of you together and air out some of the differences and see if something can be worked out.  --Wgfinley 03:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See also: User_talk:Kim_Bruning. El_C 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism at Political correctness
I looked into your claim that the passage in question was largely pilfered from William Lind, and indeed you are right. Since it was presented without attribution or quotes, that constitutes plagiarism. It seems the subsection at Talk:Christian right where you noted this has been deleted permanently from the page history, presumably by someone after 01:16 UTC today. What disturbs me is that since the claim was accurate and detailed an actual policy violation, deleting discussion related to it is no more than the destruction or manipulation of evidence, something that has been seen before.

If you are actually considering mediation over a dispute with another user, may I suggest going through the official mediation channel, as opposed to informal. You are more can be assured of receiving a neutral mediator, or at least one that you selected, as opposed to the alternative. FeloniousMonk 03:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Mediation Cabal was formed in response to recent comments on arbitration cases that the current mediation committee appears to not be functioning . This spawned a proposed revision to the mediation process known as Mediation (2005), of which it is a part, and which is supported by the current chair of the Mediation Committee .  Informal mediation is an important part of that process to head off problems earlier in the dispute resolution process, at least that's the idea.  --Wgfinley 03:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are you unwilling to even mention what pages are in dispute and who is the complainant? Can you see why this makes me lack confidence in this informal process as unbiased? I prefer waiting to see what happens on the pages I suspect are involved.--Cberlet 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It was cited up there a couple of times, Sam cited it in his message to you, but, one more time here it is ---> <---  --Wgfinley 04:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation 2
If you're willing to move forward with me as a mediatior, I've created User:Snowspinner/Sam Spade and Cberlet mediation. If you'd start by offering a slightly more detailed explanation of the problem, that would be tremendously helpful. Snowspinner 16:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE TO ALL: I am reluctant to enter into an informal mediation process. On both pages, Political Correctness and Christian right editing moves forward. I have always relied on formal mechanisms in the past at Wikipedia, and found them useful and constructive. Please stop trying to involve me in a process not officially sanctioned by Wikipedia as a community. --Cberlet 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns about informal mediation - that said, I have to say, as someone involved in informal mediation now, it works. And also, to be honest, our formal mediation system is in ruins, which is part of the appeal of the informal process. I ask you, at least, to reconsider. Snowspinner 21:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am out of town for the next few days. I hope this matter will have faded by the time I return. Lack of response during this period does not indicate lack of courtesy.--Cberlet 21:54, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Christian fascism
You seem well-informed about this sort of thing; would you care to comment on the article and the associated VfD? That would be much appreciated. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 14:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

___fascism
I endorse your proposal for merging the "religion and fascism" articles. The concepts are more similar than different, and by merging them they won't seem as much like attacks on particular religions. I'll support the effort in way that I can. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:30, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

On sources outside the MSM
Hi, I am currently involved in an arbitration case which partly revolves around the rejection by a rightwing editor of lefty sources. The case I cited in my evidence  deals with an article I wrote earlier this year on Allan Nairn, in which I allude a report he published in the The Nation in 1994 which revealed that FRAPH had been backed by the USG. One of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, who is a staunch conservative, appears to be biased against the Nation, as manifested in one of the (proposed) findings . Another editor has called him on that on the talk page, where it is now being discussed.  The crux of the matter is: is it scholarly admissable (ie, acceptable for Wikipedia) to cite news reports in avowedly "left" publications which haven't necessarily been reported/verified elsewhere? Given your long experience with this kind of research, it would be helpful if you could weigh in. Thanks. -- Viajero | Talk 12:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on 'Anti-Globalisation and anti-semitism
Hi there, thanks for your comments on my comments (I'm still learning how to write properly here) on the Anti-globalisation and anti-semitism page. I see that non-cited objections weren't very useful, so I'm trying to find some over the course of the next few days. As for the ethics of participating in a debate on which I am writing, please see my comments on the page. Thanks for your input, as I have found your comments on the above artcile to be very useful. Please bear with me, I'm still finding my way around here. illWill 12:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken your comments on board, and will think further about adding any subsections to articles, and the manner in which I phrase them - I'm used to different forms of etiquette for online communication, and I admit i did have a strong reaction to the article. I'm interested in finding areas to discuss NPOV, and also the idea that "we are writing an encyclopaedia, not talking about how to write an ecyclopaedia" - as I'm not certain there is a clear distinction between the two. Anyway, I didn't add this comment to draw you into a debate (as I'm sure you must be very busy) but just as a response for you taking the effort to write on my page, so feel free not to reply. Thanks illWill 16:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Neofascism and religion
Hi Chip. I appreciate your dropping me a line. While I think you have done good work on the page, I hesitate to get too involved. My experience on the Islamofascist page has left a bad taste in my mouth; it appears that a number of editors who lost a VfD are determined to delete the article "by other means", and I suspect they would do much the same here. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Read Vandalism, and Fascism. Sam Spade 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Recently you have been making a habit of violating the Edit summary policy, placing inaccurate information in your edit summaries,. This is unhelpful to other editors, and I advise you to give the matter thought. Sam Spade 21:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Comparative edit summaries
Complaints about your edit summaries are disingenuous and hypocritcal when viewed in light of his recent edit summaries which range from the plainly insulting, to churlish    , to the just plain odd. As you can see, he thinks "WTF" is completely acceptable for section headers and edit summaries (though no doubt he would object to STFU as a response to his WTF).

And mediation = direct communication? Mediation is communication conducted through a mediator, by necessity it is indirect. FeloniousMonk 08:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record, I ceased communication with him and sought an advocate immediately following an instance where he employed BS (wikiied) and "WTF" in edit summaries and talk page discussion against me. His response was that this was as polite he is going to get(!), and that it is I who needs to make the adjustments (for being too dispassionate, rather than emotionalist, abrasive and insulting? Dunno). El_C 08:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You've hit a nerve
You must be awfully close to the truth on this one point to pull this many right-wing defenders out of the woodwork:

And just when you think you've seen the last of it when they hit their 3RR limit, another one pops up to step in:

Keep up the good work. FeloniousMonk 00:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin
Hi, Chip. Please see this and comment if you like. Thanks. El_C 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet, links to Selected papers
Hi, Chip. I added a dozen or so links to the article. Please look over them, I'm not entirely positive how applicable all the links are. Thanks, El_C 12:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)