User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/threats and insults

Adam Carr
Danby (Labor) 25,757, Isherwood (LaRouchy) 105. Jabotinskyism triumphs again. Adam 07:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Goliath 1, David 0. But since Aaron Isherwood is about 20 years old, there is a good chance that David will prevail in the long run. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the long run, like most brainwashed cult youth, he will grow up and get a life and wonder why he ever got involved with such a pack of nutters. Adam 13:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam Carr
I have spoken to Adam Carr but got nowhere. The suggestion at No personal attacks is:

If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, you can request the attacker be blocked.

He claims your editing on Australian topics is not appropriate. I did not look into that as whether it is or not does not under our policy justify personal attacks. But you might try to see if you are overreaching in some way with your editing. Fred Bauder 12:35, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Leo Strauss
Re Leo Strauss see which predates LaRouche's "expose" by a year and the book Leo Strauss and the American Right which came out in 1997 and was republished in 2001 once the Bush Administration was installed. I've accordingly removed your claims from the Leo Strauss article. It is interesting how various of your claims melt away upon further investigation. AndyL 04:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thats not a very nice way to discuss the possible correction of a factual error, now is it? Sam [Spade] 04:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you're hardly one to lecture on manners. AndyL 04:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It would appear I am exactly the one who lectures you on manners. Sam [Spade] 04:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam, you're a hypocrite when it comes to manners. You are quite rude and abrasive on a regular basis. You should mind your own behaviour before you lecture others. AndyL 05:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also this article in the Observer from February 2002.


 * American conservatism, following the teaching of the influential conservative American political philosopher Leo Strauss, unites patriotism, unilateralism, the celebration of inequality and the right of a moral élite to rule into a single unifying ideology. As Professor Shadia Drury describes in Leo Strauss and the American Right (St Martin's Press), Strauss's core idea that just states must be run by moral, religious, patriotic individuals and that income redistribution, multilateralism and any restraint on individual liberty are mortal enemies of the development of such just élites is the most influential of our times.


 * Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of state for defence pushing for an early invasion of Iraq, is a Straussian. So is John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, who has legislated for military tribunals both to try and execute suspected terrorists beyond the rule of law. Straussians build up the military capacity of the nation while invoking the Bible and the flag. This is not prejudice; this is a coherent ideological position.

It's clear the news about Strauss and his influence over the Bush Administration was already in the zeitgeist prior to LaRouche's April 2002 article. It also seems more likely that Hersch was influenced either by the new edition of Drury's book or by reviews and references to it in various media than by LaRouche's article. The fact that LaRouche's article appeared a few weeks prior to the New Yorker is a matter of coincidence rather than influence particularly since LaRouche was simply repeating what he'd read in Drury's book (or in the reviews of same). Given that LaRouche reference's Drury's book and that Drury's book was being discussed prior to LaRouche's article your claim that LaRouche either said anything original or influenced the New Yorker and NY Times articles is dubious. It's far more likely that Hersch either read the book or the article in the Observer than it is that he was twigged by LaRouche AndyL 04:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My sole edit of Synarchism consisted entirely of substituting the word "currently" for "presently" I look forward to Herschel's explanation of how this edit either started an edit war or led to the protection of that page a full thirteen days after my edit. AndyL 21:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for your hopes re the Arbitration Committee, I suggest you look at Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision AndyL 21:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator's Proposed decision
See Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Proposed_decision 22:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The various computers and internet accounts that I use to edit Wikipedia are shared with many other people, including Weed Harper. I regard SlimVirgin's accusations of multiple identities as petty harassment."

I find past claims that HK is in the US while Weed Harper is in Australia difficult to reconcile with your new claim above. Either you computer spans several oceans or you have demonstrated you cannot be believed when making claims about your identity and location. AndyL 07:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the past you indicated that you (Herschelkrustofsky) are in the US and Weed Harper has indicated that he (ie you) is in Australia. Now you claim that the two of you work in the same office and share the same computer. How do you reconcile the contradiction? And given what are evidently past lies about your location (you aren't in both Australia and the US) how do you expect anyone to believe your current claim that you are two different people who work in the same office and share the same computer? (apparently you also live in the same house and share the same home computer as well). C'mon HK/Weed/C Colden, the jig's up. AndyL 16:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are several times when Herschel posted on a Talk page and then, a couple of minute later, Weed corrects Herschell's syntax, you use not just one computer in common but several in what seem to be different locations (home and office?) so the two of you are either the same person or you're so close you finish each other's thoughts and live together. Herschel, you've made much of Adam's employment by Michael Danby and he has declared that openly when necessary. Perhaps its time you and Weed Harper publicly admit your relationship to each other (same person, husband and wife?) and the fact that you are employed by the LaRouche movement or one of its subsidiaries. Time to stop playing games and put everything above board. Perhaps by doing so you'll salvage some of your rapidly declining credibility. Otherwise, you will appear to everyone to be a proven liar.AndyL 06:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Plagiarism?"
I wrote the massive revision of the JINSA article that you claim was "plagiarized" from www.fact-index.com/j/ji/jinsa.html. I spent a couple of hours composing that predominantly original article (which preserved as much of the accurate parts of the previous revision as possible). I don't appreciate the implication or your apparent motivations. If anyone has committed plagiarism, it's them and all of the other sites that parrot what's posted to Wikipedia.

Please stop slandering people and revising articles simply for the benefit of Lyndon LaRouche.

--Mustang dvs 07:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

SlimVirgin
Herschel, do you also write under the name Ralph Gibbons? Slim 02:09, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I saw the name on Usenet and he seems to use a lot of the same turns of speech that you do. I just wondered whether it was you. Slim 06:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

User accounts
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. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 01:24, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The information comes from the developers and is based on technical information. It would be appreciated if you would use one user account from now on. Or, if you feel the technical information is not correct, it would be appreciated if you would offer an alternative explanation. This is not intended as harassment or a personal attack; it is simply an effort to stop the considerable disruption of the LaRouche pages. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 02:06, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Ex-IWP.org
In the article on Dennis King, SlimVirgin is now objecting to the use of ex-iwp.org as a source, on the grounds that the IWP is a cult. I can go either way on this, but if it is unacceptable as a source on the King article, then it is also unacceptable on the LaRouche article. I suggest that you and Slim come to an agreement on this, and let me know. --H.K. 01:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't try dragging other people and articles into this dispute. You're being manipulative and highly disingenuous. I am objecting to the IWP as a reference for two reasons: (1) as you say, because it appears to be a cult, and (2) because the article you quoted from on the IWP website appears to have come from a far-right white supremacist magazine and contained phrases like the "white Left." When I ask for a "reputable source," I mean things like the Guardian and the Washington Post. I don't mean the staple reading of skinheads. Please continue this on the article's Talk page. Slim 02:38, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia research standards
Please adhere to the following, with no exceptions. Slim 05:50, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Verifiability
 * Cite sources
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Copyrights

Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)

And note that you have already been cited for violation:

User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of adding original material, not his own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles, see for example, the material in the article, counterculture,. This is then followed by further linkings such as that in this edit of the article Frankfurt School, which form a pattern of attempting to insert the original work of Lyndon LaRouche into Wikipedia.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

User Herschelkrustofsky has engaged in a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.
 * Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

White supremacist article
Your use of a white supremacist. neo-Nazi magazine as a source shows you haven't yet got the message, so here again is Wikipedia policy. Please read it this time. Slim 19:42, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Below are the principles and policies that all editors &mdash; including those editors, like yourself, who support or work for Lyndon LaRouche &mdash; must adhere to, with no exceptions.


 * Verifiability


 * Cite sources


 * Neutral point of view


 * No original research

Regarding novel narratives involving a new synthesis of information: "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one," Jimbo Wales (WikiEN-l, Dec 6, 2004)

"National Alliance"
I cited a page from an organization (www.ex-iwp.org) of former members of the International Workers Party. It turns out that one such former member, Dan Friedman, wrote an article, which appears on the ex-iwp website, that was published in a magazine called National Alliance, which is completely unrelated to the White Supremacist group with the same name. It is published by the New Alliance Party of Lenora Fulani (who is African-American). The New Alliance Party appears to be an IWP front. --H.K. 13:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xtra
could you please stop putting up your pro-israel = anti muslim POV on the Michael Danby page. there is absolutely no proof that he is anti-islam and your edits are complete nonsense. i ask you to stop reverting that article. Xtra 01:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i have no quarel with muslims! stop putting words in my mouth. what a few extremist fringes believe is not necessarily the truth. if you want evidence of danby's stance, look at his speeches, not those of extremists who don't represent the real muslims. Xtra 02:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inserting LaRouche theories into unrelated articles
Please provide a non-LaRouche source for your connection between the American System (economics) and the Centennial Exposition of 1876. Without such a source, it would appear that you have violated the Arbcom's restrictions on your editing. Thank you. -Willmcw 05:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume that your blanking of this comment is an indication that you have no non-LaRouche source for your edit. -Willmcw 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche
Please remember that you may not insert LaRouche material into unrelated articles, per the ArbCom decision. "Physical economy" is a LaRouche term. -Willmcw 23:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)