User talk:Cberlet

On the road

I am on the road and have few opportunities to post to Wikipedia. Speaking in Chicago. Back next week.--Cberlet 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please post ALL new messages at bottom of page.

Please Note: After much painful experience, I now do not engage in content discussions on this page. If you wish to have such a discussion, please post it on the discussion page of an actual entry, and perhaps post a note on this page. Thanks.

Archives
User talk:Cberlet/Archive_2004-12_2005-05
User talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08
User talk:Cberlet/Archive 2005-09 2005-12

Wikipedia:Truce

I was looking over Special:Contributions/Sam_Spade, and I noticed something I didn't like. Far too many of my recent edits have been to a small number of obscure talk pages involving yourself.

I am going to do my best to avoid you, and articles you edit for a good long while, and I would appreciate if you did likewise. Not to be rude, but the work to satisfaction ratio just hasn't been there. Too much static, or something. Cheers, Sam Spade 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Borg-resistance is futile

My page has been saved by the Borg Queen! Thank the hive!--Cberlet 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible request for comment?

Do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [1] On the one hand, I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But on the other hand, it so pisses me off that even if I tried to respond, my response would be unconstructive. 172 suggested I rely on your experience here. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll try to bear with it. It does get tiring after a while, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't consider your comment glib! But please consider this[2] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Amazons

Thanks again for the support. On another note, I am particularly interested in the material you cite on "Amazons." I conduct ethnographic research in Amazonia, so I am always fascinated by work on European notions of "Amazon." No rush -- I am overwhelmed myself and won't be fit to do any serious work for weeks -- but if you can send me a short bibliography I'd be grateful. Ironically, perhaps, Peter Gow is a top-notch amazonianist at St. Andrews. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nazism

Could I ask you to take a look at my comments at Talk:Nazism#Long, problematic, mostly new passage? At the very least you may have relevant citations. You may also be able to tell me if there are things I've got wrong that the passage actually has right, or if there are additional problems I haven't spotted. Thanks in advance. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascism (United States)

I have withdrawn my deletion nomination as I inadvertently failed to take note of the fact that the same page was nominated just two weeks ago. Hopefully, you can clean up the page into something encyclopedic. I assure you that the nomination was not "POV warrior bashing". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• But can we please do something about all those templates and warnings? This article is incredibly ugly with all of that stuff right up at the top. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving and editing

Hi Chip. I appreciate the fact that you moved rather than simply deleted my contribution. However, you also changed it in a way that rendered it factually inaccurate. Mises' Omnipotent Government was about Nazism, not fascism. There are differences between the two, just as Marxists claim there are differences between their philosophy and Stalinism. For example, Mussolini, a lifelong socialist, former Socialist party leader, and admirer of Lenin, believed that he was taking an intermediate step towards internationalism; Hitler certainly had no such desire. I have changed the wording back, but it belongs in a discussion of Nazism, not fascism, because that is who von Mises and Hayek were talking about. I know their criticism is hard to take, so I understand your desire to censor it. Thanks, Ehusman 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not censoring anything, and your assumptions about my views are false. Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn all wrote about similarites among fascism, national socialism, corporatism, and the U.S. welfare state. Your ignorance of this has created your anger. Please chill out.--Cberlet 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL - "angry"? I don't think I'm as ignorant as you claim (BTW, that seems a bit provocative for someone claiming that my comment was "nasty" and that I need to "chill out"). I've read all three authors (though I don't know why Flynn got into the discussion - Schumpeter seems more relevant to Austrian economists in making your point). The two books I cited were specifically about Nazism, not fascism. You're the third person to remove or alter them in a way that rendered them factually inaccurate. I understand, it's okay. I fixed it, but I left it where you want it. Thanks again (really, you're the only one who's had the courtesy to notify me), Ehusman 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Fine, I will wait for the outcome of the RfC with respect to VENONA materials. DTC 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on Venona

I saw your complaint on ANI, and I sympathize. Without looking into the matter, I have a suggestion.

• First, contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. They do answer their mail, and there are two ways they might actually resolve tha problem:
  • I have just seen a dogmatic bully back down after respectable outsiders endorsed the other position.
  • An outsider can sometimes see what it is that an irrational, demanding editor actually wants; and if he gets that one thing, I have seen the irrational editor go away.
• This is a list of people who can check the IP an editor uses. If your present headache is a Nobs01 sockpuppet, he will be out of your hair.
• If neither of those work: by the time they've both failed, there will be a new ArbCom - and evidence you've tried dispute resolution.

Courage; Good luck. Septentrionalis 06:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies...

... for helping to perpetuate that distracting fork on the talk page at Islamofascism (term). I shouldn't have jumped into the pool, and would unjump now if I could. BYT 13:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Research Advice

Hi Mr. Berlet. I have decided to do a research project on the question "how might a form of Christian theocratic government function, based on the principles of the Bible and Christian Reconstructionism?" I am asking you if you think:

1. It is researchable (as in, if there are enough sources, esp. journals, to verify what sort of government these folks envision). 2. If it has a valid implication to the study of political science.

Now, since this is a homework project for this semester, I'm not asking you to help me in great detail. Mainly if you think this is something that IS researchable and that implications can be drawn from that research.

I plan on structuring it in a way that compares/contrasts their view of government with the view in the Constitution, writings of the founders, etc. I might also look into how Freedom House does their methodology, and use a similar system to "score" the Christian theocratic government.

Thanks in advance. JJ4sad6 18:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my professor said that such a project may not work because it is an abstract concept that doesn't exist, so it can't be measured and studied. This does make sense logically, but I was really hoping I could do a project on this. I may still do something similar anyway, but she does have a point.

We have access to the General Social Survey and the National Election Survey, so she suggested I might form a new project based on that data. I suppose I could do something along the lines of the propensity for people to support Bible-based legislation (gay marriage, abortion, etc). It will be more narrow a focus, but at least it is something that can be measured.

What do you think? JJ4sad6 17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello...

Just a short note to say "hi" and let you know that I'm now at the ACLU of Massachusetts. Hope all is well. BCorr|Брайен 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Friedwardt Winterberg

Hi there! I recently ended up writing up a page on Friedwardt Winterberg, mainly because he kept getting cited as an "authoritative source" on the Einstein-Hilbert priority dispute (don't even ask) by people who had no idea what his personal agenda was and constantly wanted to just describe him as a "well-respected physicist" (which he is -- but the importance of his judgment in historical questions is considerably more contestable). I had come across him before in some other research I did, and found it especially odd that he had lots of strange and on-going ties to the LaRouche movement and the Fusion Energy Foundation. I thought I would just send a link to the page to you, since you seem to know more about the LaRouche people than anyone else around here, to see what you thought of it and to see whether you knew of anything else about him. Thanks a bunch. --Fastfission 03:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism in relation to other concepts

Heya...given that the disam page it was redirecting to was deleted, I restored the Nazism in relation to other concepts page for now until something else is worked out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I just restored the old page so it wasn't redirecting to a non existent page. That's all. Do whatever you want with it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism mediation request

Mr. Berlet, I'm going to request mediation for the neoconservatism article. It seems to me that you are in the right—and that Jacrosse is acting in a manifestly unacceptable way—but I think we need a neutral third party to help us out (if, indeed, the situation can be improved at this point). Hydriotaphia 05:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request is here. Hydriotaphia 22:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Berlet, you really took one for the team by walking away from the article for two months. Perhaps, if we're lucky, this will calm Jacrosse down and he will agree to discuss his edits. It seemed like—for whatever reason—you had provoked his irrational ire. Again, thanks so much for doing this. Best wishes, Hydriotaphia 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have now referred User:Jacrosse to the Arbitration Committee for their consideration. Let me know if you would like to be a party. You can find the arbitration request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jacrosse. If you wish to, please append to the "Statement by DuncanBCS" heading. We must keep our response to 500 words or less, or it may be removed without warning by the Committee clerks.

Biting

It wasn't intended as biting; the user was mentioned on AN here for actions that suggest he is not quite a new user (the latest sockpuppet of a long-term user, perhaps, but not a new user). I'm sorry if my response sounded like newbie biting; I don't believe it was, although it might qualify as sockpuppet biting. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ANI or AN/I = Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents. I frequently use the shortcuts, but usually try to either link them or put WP: in front of them. WP:ANI is one of the shorcuts for the noticeboard. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

MONGO is not the mediator assigned to the matter; he is not a member of the Mediation Committee, nor has he been deputized. It generally takes a few days after a mediation is accepted for a mediator to be assigned; most of the committee is actively mediating disuptes, and we generally try to give members a day or two to look over the cases and volunteer to take on mediations before we begin assigning cases. If you add Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neoconservatism to your watchlist, you will see when a mediator is assigned to the case; you can also look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Current to see which mediators are assigned to which cases, and which cases are unassigned at the moment. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Postmodernism on crack"

I don't think I've read a more succinct way of summing up some people's misinterpretations of the NPOV policy. Good job. Rhobite 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamism move

Saw your message, responded on the discussion page for the article in question. Thanks. (It is a tough subject to sort through, I admit. There are also a lot of strong feelings.)

Adam Holland 22:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the move, in that it blunts the argument for the use of the term "Islamofascism". Of course, that's not my main point. Here's the point: Fascism and Islamism are linked and that connection should be reflected in the title. Why bury the lead?

Also, I've just battled over the Carrel article with a fan of Carrel who says he isn't surprised that he was in the PPF, knows that he worked for Vichy, and yet denies Carrel was a fascist.

Carrel is STILL popular among both National Front neo-fascists and (to a lesser degree, but still available on their websites) Islamists. Ain't that a kick in the head. I just want to be clear about the connections because they're interesting and important.

On a personal note, I must say that I've admired your work over the years, Chip. I had no idea who you were before today.

Adam Holland 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Since Mr. Holland referred to his numerous edits to the Alexis Carrel article here, and to mine, I felt I should comment. Mr. Holland is apparently on a crusade of sorts against alleged Fascists, and seems to have stumbled upon some works connecting Islamism and Fascism. In the other article, he more than TRIPLED its size by adding many obscure references to modern Islamism, when in fact the subject of the article (d. 1944!) had NO connection to the philosphy in his lifetime (he admits this, but says they, including Bin Laden himself, were later "influenced" by Carrel, a mystical Catholic who actually saw Islam as a threat.) Carrel was a Nobel-prize winning scientist, but his decades of important medical achievements were diminished, downgraded and dilluted by Holland in the article in his inexplicable crusade to smear the man. Reading your User page, I know you have worked for groups that hunt Nazis. Nazi-hunting's great. But finding a REAL one is better than manufacturing one in Mr. Carrel, as he has done. I know even the SPLC doesn't call people "facsists" or "nazis" without cause. Mr. Holland's exuberance in that regard is what needs watching. Another good lesson would be that what is merely "interesting" is not necessarily "important" to an encyclopedia article, and to learn that while articles should not cover up aberrant views, it shouldn't blow them into something they are NOT. Nhprman ^UserLists 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Then again, Chip, since I Just read an article condeming your place of work, and you, as smear-mongers and Nazi-hunters, maybe I won't get any sympathy here, since this man Mr Holland is seeking to emulate what you're *alleged* to be (and is doing a fine job of it.) Frankly, though, I admire anyone like you who goes after lunatic neo-fascists like Larouche and the anarchist libertarians, so maybe we do have some affinities after all. Nhprman ^UserLists 05:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Where in this note do I say that the move was censorship or stupidity? I said you buried the lead. ?????

Adam Holland 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. You say that I "implicitly" called the move stupid, and that you object to that language. I find that argument confusing.

I agree in principle that compromise is best. I think this one is wrong. No name calling needed.

Adam Holland 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that a page called Islamism and Fascism might be a better compromise? What's the argument against that again?

Adam Holland 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

THAT is a legitimate point, and one I understand. Thanks for stating it clearly and not accusing me of implicit insults that I did not make.

I support the spirit of compromise. Like you, I think that a co-operative ideal should be strived for. And I know that you've worked hard on this, so I don't condemn you.

I don't agree with the decision, but I support the process and admire your tenacious attention to the project. I sense that you may have been on the receiving end of abuse by others and I would prefer not to be involved in that. I would prefer to co-operate.

All the best,

Adam Holland 04:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorry to have the Carrel argument spill into your page--into the middle of a previously posted paragraph in fact. (Oh boy...)

Adam Holland 15:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted exactly where you ranted about me to Mr. Berlet. It "spilled" onto this page because you put it here. Nhprman ^UserLists 18:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought the material added by Adam Holland to Alexis Carrel was at least interesting and it made some sense to me so I don't understand the hostility.--Cberlet 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you understand. Some of it's interesting, yes. (Though much of it sources are obscure and a stretch, at best.) But Wikipedia articles cannot have undue weight and bias, and adding piles and piles of words that absolutely overpower the rest of the article skews its emphasis. That's really not acceptable. The Neutral point of view policy states that articles should have a sympathetic tone. Now if this guy was a member of the Vichy government or a Waffen-SS member, I'd say "expose it" and I would by hard to have a sympathetic tone, nor should it be overly sympathetic. But Carrel, like millions of other Frenchmen, was to a degree a collaborator with Vichy, and held views that were common at the time about eugenics that were later (thankfully) rejected by society. And Thomas Jefferson, for example, held slaves. But while we must mention that in his Wiki article, we don't let that be the ONLY word about him that gets space there. Nhprman ^UserLists 04:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly certain why you bothered to come visit my talk page, but please, don't feed the trolls. Kyaa the Catlord 09:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

National Lawyers Guild

Unless a discussion breaks out at National Lawyers Guild it will probably be unprotected soon. I don't know if there's any specific issues that you'd like to raise there. -Will Beback 02:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche mediation

Cberlet,

just as an FYI, there is always an uncomfortable period at the beginning of mediation while people are a justing to a new mode of communication. if you like, we can restart the entire process, and I can lay down a more specific and explicit structure. Ted 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

if you have a moment

Hi Chip,

I don't know whether the Sandinistas and Latin American politics falls within your expertise and/or interests, but I would like to draw your attention to an edit yesterday by TDC to the Sandinista article. [3] Apparently drawing on a source called The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (Andrew, Christopher; Mitrokhin, Vasili), TDC has inserted substantial material which alleges extensive Soviet involvement in the SNLF. Among TDC's additions include the following assertions:

During the following three years the KGB handpicked several dozen Sandinistas training in Honduras and Costa Rica for intelligence and sabotage operation in the United States. In 1966 this KGB controlled Sandinistan sabotage and intelligence group was sent to the US/Mexican border. Their primary targets were southern NORAD facilities the oil pipeline running from El Paso Texas to Costa Mesa California. A support group, codenamed SATURN, passed as migrant farm workers to conceal themselves and smuggle in arms caches.

and

Sandinista defector Álvaro Baldizón alleged that Cuban influence in Nicaragua's Interior Ministry (MINT) was more extensive than was widely believed at the time and Cuban "advice" and "observations" were treated as though they were orders

He also inserted material which I consider unattributed POV:

In contrast to the Cuban revolution, the Sandinista government practiced political pluralism throughout its time in power although this was primaraily to appeases its external critics.

Since I don't have a copy of the above-mentioned book at hand, I can't verify this material, but based on my previous experiences with TDC's shabby "scholarship" all of his additions and changes need to be rigorously examined. Could you lend a hand? Viajero | Talk 09:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Visibility vis-a-vis harassment

I wonder; is the harassment against you in any way a function of how visible you've made yourself in the Real World? I noticed your complaint on WP:AN/I about five minutes before I read today's featured Salon article; does this sort of thing attract noticably more goons? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Village Voice

Could you have a glance at Talk:Alternative_press_(U.S._political_left)#Village_Voice? I figure you might have an opinion. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche again

Herschelkrustofsky is attempting to cover up information about LaRouche's conspiracy theories on the "synarchism" article. I'm having trouble dealing with him, despite the recent arbcom sanctions. If you have time to take a look, please do. Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Chip, after my intervention in this page, some anonymous person sent me some material apparently trying to discredit you and LaRouche. Obviously a hornet's nest...--Jack Upland 05:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade and socialism

Hey, you said that Sam Spade has been trying to insert that sort of thing for months. I know you're very busy, but if you have time, could you provide some examples? Thanks. -- infinity0 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

National Alliance

Hey Chip, do you think we should refer to the National Alliance as white supremists? I don't really think it is "just an opinion" like that anon is insisting. If we can show that they actually hold the position that Whites are better tha other races, then it doesn't seem like there is that much ambiguity involved.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Do you think you can respond on my talk page? I tend to forget about these posts, Thanks.

TfD nomination of Template:Dominionism

Template:Dominionism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 21:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

British National Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey Chip. Given your expertise in the field of right-wing politics, perhaps you could assist in improving the BNP article. There are many anon editors who refuse to discuss their frequent and occasionally controversial edits, and it's sort of hard to build a consensus without deliberation. So if you have the time I would appreciate it if you could read the talk page and interject your opinion on the article's current state. Thanks. -- WGee 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

August Kreis III needs help

Hi. I just tried to turn this article into intelligible English, but failed. I see that you've done some work on it. I'd like to encourage you in your efforts with it.

Also, I've done some work on the list of Contemporary White Supremacists in the White supremacy article (see Talk:White supremacy/Workspace-People). If you could check my edits, I'd be grateful.

Cheers, Chris Chittleborough 10:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind about the Kreis article, User:Jahiegel has fixed it up nicely. CWC(talk)

Julius Evola: Perhaps you can help?

Hi, Chip -- You may or may not remember me from the old Eclipse Comics political scandal trading cards days, but i remember you and am glad to see you here. I know you are very busy with LaRouche and modern conspiracy issues, but i hope you can take a moment to drop by the Julius Evola page -- and, more to the point, the Julius Evola talk page. The Evola page, and the Mircea Eliade and Rene Guenon pages also, have long been a playgroupnd for fascist / anti-Semitic apologists (you can see their user names in the histories of the articles). I wandered into this area because i was working on putting the "list of Occult writers" page into tight enough shape to be promoted to category level, and what i found on these pages was pretty disturbing to me. So i rewrote a bit, and now user Lholder is saying that he or she will rewrite the Evola page because it contains too much "speculation" about Evola's fascism. Lholder has his allies (morningstar et al) but i have none, so i wish to draw attention to this contested area of Wiki. I have approached you because you make a routine of checking contested pages dealing with fascist and anti-Semitic apologetics. Thanks for any help you can offer, whether with rewrites, getting some sort of mediation in place, or just helping me watch the pages for signs of creeping bias flying in under the radar due to being tagged with misleading comment lines (as has already happened). Feel free to say "no" or to pass this request along to someone else who may be more interested in the inter-war time period than you are and wishes to help.Catherineyronwode 20:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with rewriting the lead on the Julius Evola page. I have since revised the article again, as i told Lholder i would (no editing war here; he is being very courteous). But now the Traditional School and Radical traditionalism are being used as covers. Check them out -- and their respective talk pages. The denial by Bloodfox that radical traditionalism is connected to Fascism, Nazism, or anti-Semitism is disingenuous, to say the least, as the R.T. folks site Julius Evola as an inspiration. Likewise, as another editor notes, the Wiki Traditional School page is referenced from nazi.org. =Sigh= So, i hope you have time for this. If not, i'll understand. Thanks for all your good work. Catherineyronwode 01:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppression

I would be interested to hear which systems, structures and institutions you feel oppress us that we should be fighting against as you said on the talk page. Who are the oppressors? Is it relative-depending on your perspective? Or is it black and white to you?SkeenaR 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily looking for a debate, just interested in the opinion of a writer in your field. And I would just read what you have written about it if I knew where it was, but you've done a lot of writing, so I'm not sure where to look. SkeenaR 03:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag Removal: 9/11 Attacks - The Facts and Nothing But

Hi Chip, I wanted to follow up with you regarding your removal of my POV tag on the 9/11 attacks. I would like to explain my reasoning for placing that tag and the actions I have taken to resolve the issue but first, let me say I was heartened to read your notice: Opinionated, but willing to talk... I love that line.

I take back what I said above. After seeing your last post to Striver I don't think you deserve to have that line on your homepage if you can't live up to it. (It's still a great line though) Digiterata 07:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a conspiracy theorist and I do recognize how sensitive this topic is. However, I do believe that there are specific factual anomolies that may indicate inconsistencies in the official accounts of what happened on 9/11. User Cathal has recently joined the discussion adding some good quality material to the 9/11 Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks The Facts and Nothing But.

The reason I added the POV tag is that I believe there are a number of specific factual ommissions from the current article that have been excluded primarily because they discredit the official accounts of events on 9/11. As a first step towards addressing this issue, I have compiled a list of specific facts on my own Talk:desiderata page. Could you please take a look? My plan is to solicit input from a few key individuals who are active on 9/11 Talk, specifically targetting users who have reverted my edits, and ask them to comment. My hope is that we can use this as a tool to highlight my concerns. I also fully expect these facts to be ripped apart. That's healthy, I think.

I won't add back the POV tag until I can test this approach to see if it yields some results, but I reserve the right to add it back if stalls. If I do add it back, I think it is only fair that anyone who removes the tag a second time explain their reasoning on the Talk page, and if possible an Admin should be the one to remove it.

I welcome your feedback. Digiterata 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Chip, I placed this content on my personal talk page to act as a staging area. Adding this material in its current form to an already lengthy 9/11 Talk would be a disservice. If you think it would be of benefit for me to move my content to the main discussion page, please advise. Also, could you please respond to my comment above as to my reasoning behind the POV tag addition? Thanks. Digiterata 12:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine Chip, no more content questions, but please respond to my question about the POV tag. You removed the tag without adding anything to Talk. I have explained my reasoning for adding it. Please respond or explain your reasoning for removing it. Thanks. Digiterata 14:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for posting your explanation to the 9/11 Talk. I will migrate my comments to the main Talk page and in the future my comments will be posted there instead of your/my Talk pages. Digiterata 15:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A little favour

Hi again. It's good to see that someone else is on the look out for POV edits to articles. User:Vision Thing has been inserting multiple spam links from mises.org into almost every article you can think of - see User:Infinity0/Drafts#Vision_Thing. Most of the pages he edits are on my watchlist, so I can see and remove much of the worst of his edits. However, I am short on free time and do not want to add any more pages to my watchlist if at all possible - could I ask that you watch Criticisms of socialism for a while? Thanks :) -- infinity0 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sam_Spade_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.

Assume good faith an no personal attacks

Do not leave edit summaries like this: [4] You are accusing me of "POV trolling." My only intent is to improve the article and make sure no unsourceable claims are made --afterall I created the article and only want the best for it. Be civil. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If you make a claim you, should be able to source it instead of getting upset that someone requested a source. RJII 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please leave me alone and try to edit constructively on the entry page. Try to understand why you are on probation for tendentious editing.--Cberlet 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We've been mentioned in the blogosphere

Hello,

You, me, and some other users have been mentioned in a blog post.[5] It talks about how we're ruining the 9/11 pages. Enjoy.--DCAnderson 04:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Think of it as a badge of honor in the battle against incompetence, free-floating anxiety, paranoia, rumor-mongering, and scapegoating.--Cberlet 06:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt's article

Hi. BrokenSegue has made the same edit to Daniel Brandt's article again that you reverted before. I thought of merging in the stuff that he removed, but since the article's currently nominated for featured status, I don't want to put back in non sourced stuff. I was thinking of just using some of WP:POL as sources - what do you reckon? Do you fancy having a go at it? --Hughcharlesparker 14:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment re: "Waco Siege" article.

I cannot support the fellow who said "Get lost asshole." HOWEVER, I do think his changes, deleting "compound" and substituting either "site" or "building," were legitimate. "Compound" is a loaded word, first used by the FBI when they moved in to avenge the killing of their fellow federal ATF agents. It is a depersonalizing term, and the Branch Davidians themselves NEVER used this word. It is also somewhat inaccurate--"site" and "building" are preferable in my opinion.

Hope you two (and others) will stop feuding over this.Founders4 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Types of socialism

If you have time, could you please take a look at this text dump started by User:Vision Thing? This user is still manically attempting to resurrect the old mess in the socialism article, and has been recalcitrant from the start. Thanks. 172 | Talk 17:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Do you want to list it on AfD? It think it has a better chance if you do it. I'm feeling too burned put from dealing with Vision Thing to come up with a pithy arugment for deletion that those not familiar with the topic (probably the bulk of voters) will grasp. 172 | Talk 03:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

68.239.87.12 report on WP:RFI

It is true that generally you are discouraged from adding links to websites that you are personally associated with. It is generally best to let other edits add them, feel free to point out potentially suitable links on the article's talk page. However in this case it appears both you and the IP are acting in good faith, so unless you get into an edit war over it (don't) then I'll be leaving this one. Petros471 09:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Check User

Your ethics are almost as poor as your lying ability. My email was on site, from a validated address, otherwise I would never have had access to you in the first place (hence the header, "Wikipedia email"). Your vague aspersions about "potential 3RR avoidance" are a rebuke from the sting of POV battle of yore. I knew Nobs back from the VENONA articles, and my position on them has not modified since then. Suck it up and quit fishing for half-concocted conspiracies--it strikes one as rather McCarthyist more than anything. --TJive 20:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue of Nobs01 was used to distract attention

By whom, exactly? You were the one who brought it up, and who initiated the RFCU. Do not complain now that you did not get what you wanted because you posted bogus charges. YINever 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It has already been proven that User:YINever is a sockpuppet of User:TJive. See this: [6]. I suspect the other accounts listed at RFCU are also sockpuppets of User:YINever

Neo-Nazism in Croatia

Hi! I posted a reply to you there. Although I do not fully agree with your last post, I would be very glad if you continued helping us make a NPOV section. The topic sorely needs someone other than Croats and Serbs participating in the discussion. --Zmaj 14:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Please comment my proposal: Talk:Neo-Nazism#Proposal for a new article.

--Ante Perkovic 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Purger

Hi,

I have a big problem with user Purger, who do not wants to play by the rules even after being explained that he broke the rules of wikipedia. Can you please try to talk to this user.

The problem is explained here.

Thanks in advance. --Ante Perkovic 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Purger just reverted 3-hours work by user:Zmaj and user:Marinko on Neo-Nazism in Croatia, alltogether 13 changes!!!

He didn't even bother to read it, he just reverted to his (while he was unlogged) last version.

This guy has been vandalising croatia-related articles on wikipedia for too long.

Can you help us or we will have to fight alone (this user is extremelly unwilling to make compromise).

Please, help!

--Ante Perkovic 13:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-fascism

You still haven't responded to my position that the criticism on the Republican Party or George Walker Bush should be entered in their respective article, and not in the Neo-fascism article. Currently, it reads as a blatant POV piece. Intangible 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go away. You are a pest. Your request is another bogus stalking incident. Stop bothering me. If you refuse mediation next time I will seek further sanctions for your blatant POV trolling. If you insist on this confrontation, have it on entry discussion pages, not here.--Cberlet 01:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Hello again! If you have time, your expertise will be helpful on this page. [7] Regards. 172 | Talk 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom Parole

If you feel that I have violated my Arbcom parole, then by all means report me. I know what a revert is, and am very careful not to engage in it beyond my limitation. If you do not believe that your allegation is valid, as I do, then please do not make it again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Flagrantly mocking an Arbcom parole, Torturous Devastating Cudgel, is disgusting. You must be very proud.--Cberlet 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, take it to an admin, or stop the WP:CIVIL. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Via Wikipedia e-mail

TDC [rick2needham@yahoo.com]

To: Chip Berlet

7/5/06 10:50 pm

• Nobs may have been kicked off because he did not know when to stop, but as I have said to you on more than one occasion, I am not Nobs, and I dont appreciate the agressive treatment.

• As my user page indicates, I might just be the most stubborn person on earth; you can either decide to work with me and collaborate is kinship like other editors have had a good experience doing, or you can continue to beat your fists into the grond arguing with me, the choice is yours.

Another fine communication representing good faith.--Cberlet 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Posting a private email where I ask you to stop arguing with me and start cooperating with me. Real classy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I read it as a thinly-disguised threat. I have filed a 3RR complaint and am seeking an investigation of a parole violation--Cberlet 03:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you before to do that, lets see how far you get with that, mabey then you will stop making the allegation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Political Correctness

[copied]

I know it is a lot to ask, but could you eyeball Political Correctness when you have a chance. It now reads like a Michael Lind - Pat Buchanan essay. Sigh... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.

[end copied]

A maelstrom in which editors are dragged downward to their doom. I have once escaped it with life and limb intact, and am not sure I wish to venture in again.

I'm more inclined to leave it as an obvious shipwreck site than to improve it just enough to tempt others aboard. Which is to say, it's so bad that no one in their right mind will trust it, which is probably better than fixing it just enough to make it look plausible, while still leaving, in fact, a disaster waiting to strike the unwary reader. As it stands, the first sentence is enough to warn all but the most foolhardy or Randite.

Not to say that I won't try someday… - Jmabel | Talk 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chip, I wish I could help, but sources such as this and this appear to be personal websites/opinion pieces that do not meet the requirements of reliable sources. Am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to delete Category:Far right political parties in France

...and in general left & right categories for France (having been created there, I'm sure as a person knowledgeable in political issues, you will understand the necessity to impede any ethnocentrist illusion which would transpose foreign, US political concepts such as "liberalism" and "conservative" to the French context, better classified by René Rémond's classification of right-wing parties between Legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists... Regards, Tazmaniacs 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

"Wagnerian": Thanks for the compliment. I find it highly amusing that any discussion of facts in the Holocaust Denial article is considered too detailed, too lengthy, too Wagnerian. I've had every one of my contrubutions deleted by the Wikipedia control patrol, despite the fact that each has been pretty much in keeping with the article and all I'm attempting is a factual discussion, The word "hypocrisy" keeps creeping up in my consciousness and I don't think it's self-referential.

Doremifasolatido 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Wagnerian" part I did find genuinely amusing. The rest of the controversy, which you may not even have been aware of, seems geared towards shutting down discussion rather than opening it up. I understand it's a highly charged issue and that many find it incomprehensible, if not horrible, that a few want to take a look at the accepted version of the Holocaust. Frankly, it doesn't appear to be in my nature to be a true believer in any one thing, no matter how I try, so I can't say I'm a Holocaust denier, either. Maybe I just enjoy stirring things up. Anyway, thanks for responding.

I only wish I could sing opera.  ;-)

Doremifasolatido 09:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Condi Rice

Hi there, whilst waiting to adjust a minor mistaken detail relating to Cuba on the Condoleeza Rice page, I've stumbled across a dispute raging relating to "views from the African American community". One (albeit rather angry) user has been collecting material to support that the theory that many in the community have a somewhat negative view. I've been attempting to lower the temperature and in certain ways support case of this lone editor who appears to have alientated just about everyone else on the page. Interestingly, he/she has just produced a piece I believe is written by yourself [8] and it is in discussion. Your input may help to lower the antagonism levels if you could spare a moment. The issue is : How to best represent the various opinions of Dr Rice from the Black community. (Previously I believe that this issue was being stifled). Thanks.--Zleitzen 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input on the above page. It does indeed appear to have lowered the antagonism somewhat. --Zleitzen 12:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Drieu La Rochelle

Hi Chip! I was just wondering, Intangible (still him...) insists on inserting on Drieu La Rochelle's page that he was "in favor of a federal Europe devoid of nationalism", and has inserted this cite to prove his point: Tucker, William R. (1965). "Fascism and Individualism: The Political Thought of Pierre Drieu La Rochelle". Journal of Politics 27 (1): 153-177. I have no access to it, and finds quite strange Intangible's description, which seems to oppose Europe & nationalism (as if federalism, which is, in de Gaulle's terms, "Europe of nations", was opposed to nationalism; as if the Third Reich's version of an Europe was "devoid of nationalism", etc.) I very much doubt that Drieu La Rochelle was "opposed to nationalism", as we all know that he was fascist. I don't want to make you loose time on this one, but maybe you already know this article and can quickly debunk Intangible's claims. Regards, Tazmaniacs 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Antichrist

So you're rude to me on the talk page, telling me in effect to get off wikipedia and say my comment was pointless...

... then you make the exact changes I bought up on the talk page before I even have a chance to. You're a mysteriously rude fruit Mr. Berlet. How 'bout a little nicer approach next time? -Quasipalm 03:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you fix the page rather than browsing by and just making rude comments on the discussion page? That is what was pointless. We are writing an encyclopedia, not trying to impress other editors with our glib denunciations of a page that has obvious problems. It would have taken you 30 seconds to fix the page. So I fixed it. And you suggest that I am "much to busy to be bothered with such trivial matters." Do some work here, don't just pontificate.--Cberlet 13:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Rude? What was rude? I said nothing about anyone and only commented on the content. You were the one who was rude -- you told me leave Wikipedia!

You take yourself far too seriously. Relax a bit guy. And don't insinuate I haven't done plenty for Wikipeida -- that's just ignorant. -Quasipalm 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tavistock Institute/Tavistock Clinic

Hi there,

We had a major revert and then reediting today at Tavistock Institute. I wonder if we should be looking back to the Enforcement request re: supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. I think we are now in a revert war with supporters of the LaRouche view. I am on holiday for the next week, but would appreciate it if you could stop by the page. Some of the material being introduced could be correct, however without precise references it is hard to validate. It certainly is the case that much of what is said is clearly mistaken, and needs to go through the Talk page first. --Duncan 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Producerism

An anon. editor has been making repeated edits to the Producerism page under the theme that Nazi's aren't fascist (???). Actually, I've heard this line before, mainly from admirers of Mussolini who don't like Hitler, or from lukewarm neo-fascists. It reminds me of that scene from The Believer, which went something like this:

Lukewarm Nazi: "The Holocaust never happened."

Hardcore Nazi: "Of course it did! Why else are we Nazis?"

Anyway, could you keep an eye on the page? I'll watch it as well. Thanks! Mjk2357 02:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting the marxism article

Hi, I noticed you've made contributions to the marxism article in the past. I was hoping you could look at User:JenLouise/Marxism proposed and give me your ideas. I think you'll see from the outline that I've created, that I have really big plans for creating a Marxism article that is structured and comprehensive and deals with everything that Marxism implies. It's a big task, and I need as much help as I can get! (I noticed you're quite involved with some issues on the Cultural marxism page, and that's the thing I am trying to avoid on the marxism page, so I'm hoping to get as much early input as possible.) JenLouise 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikis and Conspiracy theory

Hello, I am an editor for the Tinwiki, a conspiracy wikipedia (think "Tin Foil Hat Wikipedia"). I noticed that you have intersts along that line. Please feel free to check out our wiki fledgling wiki. The Main wikipedia tends to not approve 'original' research, we just love that sort of thing, perhaps you will enjoy it, or have something to add to the entires? Nygdan 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi again - fair enough, I'm not trying to promote conspiracy theories, I just saw that you seemed to have an interest and might like to check the site. Thank you for the reply Nygdan 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

TheocracyWatch

Nice job incorporating thorny content into the Weyrich article. We could use your critical eye for a similar treatment at TheocracyWatch if you don't mind. FeloniousMonk 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC on Hilary Putnam

Dear Mr. Berlet,

I have read and admired many of your political/historical commentaries in various newspapers and journals. I have also been impressed by your writing and editing abilities as demontsrated in the various fascism artciles, some of shich I have helped work on myself.

Well, anyway, I am having an extraordinarily difficult time with my self-nominated FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam. The issue concerns 2a (prose style and copyedit) and, since I know that you are a professional writer with a great deal of experiecne, I was wondereing if you can possibly find the time to help out either with addressing the objections being raised or just with constructive suggesions and comments. The discussion and debate has been preposterous, as you can see for yourself (0;, but there are really no issues of philosophical content or knowledge in question. The objections are centered all concentarted on "flabinnes", "wordiness", redundancy and such things.

If you can find the time, could you please leave aside the fascims stuff for a bit and take a look (just ignore most of the comments and focus on objections by Tony1 and a few others). He insists that I can't get the thing thrugh without the help of some professional copyeditors. Well, I am asking you becaue I have great confidence in your writing and edititng skills. I would deeply appracite any help you can give. Thank you. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Hi Chip, I noticed previously that you have been one of the few editors working to preserve the factual integrity of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I admire your work trying to deal with these unrelenting conspiracy theorists. I was wondering if you are still active in editing that article, and also if you think its quality (and neutrality) has improved or deteriorated in the last 6 months to a year. Bonus Onus 00:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian Democracy

I would be interested in your views of the Christian Democratic movement because it is a paradox. On one side it is conservative on sexual and family issues, but to the left on environmental and socioeconomic issues. Many of the Catholics in the Christian Right, especially the traditionalists, would fall into this category?

I would consider myself in the Christian Democratic camp. Christian Democrats believe in deference to Christian institutions, but believe it's the Church's job to define public morality without state interference. I know many people on the Christian Right have some rather nasty things to say about you, but from reading your work, you actually seem fair.

I don't agree with many of your conclusions though. I think most people on the Christian Right are Christian families who want their children to grow up in their Christian faith, and who fear how a state they believe is hostile to their beliefs will affect their kids.

They fear a theocracy as much as anyone on the Left because history has shown that theocracies corrupt both the church and the state. Orthodox Russia theoretically was a theocracy, but the monks and lower clergy frequently rebelled against the hierarchy because they became bureaucrats rather than real spiritual leaders. The same has been true in Catholic countries.

I think those of you on the Left need to do a better job of not lumping everyone on the Christian right into one pile because our views are every bit as diverse as those on the Left. Your work has been somewhat fair, but I would encourage a friendly dialogue to help both sides understand each other better.--146.145.70.200 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Fascism delete

COuld you point me to a discussion where you were authorized to delete and redirect islamic fascism? Thanks Mrdthree 06:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not enganging in serious discussion either...

...regarding the Islamofascism/Islamic Fascism pages. You're just commandeering, based on "ad antiquam" arguments. There is currently no disheartening debate regarding these pages in the terms you describe. If there ever was, that's history now. As far as I know the protagonists of these previous debates have all ended up in ArbCom cases one way or another, so I don't expect there to be a revival of the old debate style. If you want to join new discussions, feel free (these are all quite polite). The old ones are dead, and I don't think it's good to allow "commandeering" based on them. --Francis Schonken 07:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Schaeffer as Godfather of Dominionism - Issue Still Alive One Year Later

Please see this section on the Discussion Page for Francis Schaeffer. I know you've been off for a while and I can see your backlog. So when you have the time I'd appreciate a comment at that Discussion Page. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the same Discussion Page again when you have time. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know whether you know that at 02:22, 19 September 2006 FeloniousMonk wrote the following on the History Page for the (Francis Schaeffer) article: "(rv to last version by me. I still disagree, and chip has asked you to discuss your changes first and seek consensus)." I've been waiting for more discussion. So what more do you want to talk about concerning the change and consensus about it? Please refer to the same Discussion Page again when you have time. Thank you :-) --Awinger48 12:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Chip Berlet isn't the devil. He doesn't even look the part." I found that "olive branch" article that is basically an interview with you. I connected it to the Note in the Dominionism article. Doing that is kind of an "olive branch" from me to you :-) I think I heard where you're coming from in that article. Allan Winger isn't a devil either and probably looks more like Santa Claus if he put the outfit on :-) Schaeffer may have "influenced" the Dominionist movement much like Van Til did, but like Van Til, Schaeffer would not have been a part of their extremism. Hey, I've read enough over the last few weeks about Dominionism that I don't want anything to do with them either, and I probably have you to thank for that. I'd never heard of Dominionism before I read Wikipedia. I hope and pray that we can come to some balanced viewpoint about Schaeffer. You may be from the left and I may be from the right but I think we may have enough in common to work together. Hope this has been a help for the discussion :-) --Awinger48 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Afds -- more if you're interested

See GabrielF/911TMCruft for a complete list. Morton devonshire 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WTC

Hi. The north tower had the relay tower and was hit higher up so it's the one on the right of that crummy image.--MONGO 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points...I wish there was a better image, but can't seem to find one.--MONGO 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from Islamic fascism

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Islamic fascism. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Francis Schonken 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Intangible and AaronS are placed on probation and may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison (politician)

Hi; If you have time, would you take a look at this? I want to be very sure we follow WP:BLP, and I would like someone else to check my work. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront

Greetings, Chip. I hope you've been well. I am writing to you in regards to the above entry which I provisionally denazified today after noticing it had tens of stromfront and sympathizers links as refs (see some diffs here). If you get a chance, your expert opinion is sought. All the best, El_C 09:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Larouche sources?

There is a section in the October surprise conspiracy article that relies on Larouche sources. Is it OK in this context? (It's in the seciton "Larouches' theories" Thanks!Borisblue 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation has been filed

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

- DNewhall 05:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Specific Info regarding statements you might have made

I'm trying to get the praise/criticisms section for Mark Robinowitz expanded, and since you're mentioned by name, I'd like to get the info straight from the horse's mouth.--Baltech22 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Neofascist group dismantled in Belgium after strategy of tension plot

Hi there! It's a bit old already, but I just wanted to make sure - as the story only made headlines in Belgium, but very few articles even in France - that you were aware of the neofascist terrorist plot in Belgium, by a group called BBET (linked to Blood & Honour). If you need any further info, I'll be happy to provide you with translations of relevant articles. Note that they've had contact with a US revisionist historian (if Intangible hasn't deleted this part, check history). Regards, Tazmaniacs

== LaRouche

Have gotten interested in LaRouche from reading your articles. Cheez I agree with a lot of his positions. Bush (Dumbya) being a puppet and DeadEye Dick being a beast. I totally agree!!! I don't know about Lynn controlling things though. Definitely against the Irak wars- both of them. I was reading the Wash Post story. What is the big deal about "doubling the square?" Are these people mathematical midgets? you just take the diagonal of the unit square and use it as the side of your new square. Or you take one half of your unit square, the triangle and put four of those triangles together. How about if I put some LaRouche statements on Israel and fascism instead of Cole in the neofascism article. Just kidding. Obviously La Rouche must be a magnetic personality. What is this Gauss-Riemann stuff in the article about his views? A lot of bullcrap voodoo nonsense in the article. Best Wishes. Will314159 21:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

PC

I still could use a little help at Political correctness and intervention in the present dispute for the next few days. Andrew Levine 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia

Hi! You deleted the Britannica reference from Nazism. Why?

Encyclopaedia Britannica references? We don't need no stinkin' Encyclopaedia Britannica references!--Cberlet 01:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

image in your userpage

The image was on wikipedia under fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in the user namespace.Geni 13:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

you have permission to use it on wikipedia only which on it's own would mean delete on sight. It can only be on wikipedia due to the fiar use claim (which is somewhat questionable but no matter) thus is cannot be used in the user namespace.Geni 13:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Fascism. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Fascism and ideology (for the last time)

I have worked hard to finally sort out the POV mess in fascism and ideology, but, as you might expect, I have drawn the wrath of POV-pushers who wish to revert me out of hand. I would greatly appreciate your help. -- Nikodemos 19:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia related, but...

I really liked your review of David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." You really routed his claims at the most basic logical level. I always find it amazing how so many books by "Truth movement" writers are just so incredibly poorly written and argued. By the way, have you read PM's debunking book? Keep up the good work on the subject. -Bonus Onus 19:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Progress Party (Norway)

Take a look at this article if you have the time. Intangible is up to his old games again, trying to stifle the opinions of reputable sources with his ridiculous arguments. There's also another far-right sympathizer who's doing the same. -- WGee 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image

Chip, I've just been told that your image may be deleted because it fails the fair use rationale, in that a freely licensed alternative should be relatively easy to obtain. Are you willing to release it, or do you have another one you would like to release? The image is here and has been tagged for deletion after November 13. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you're willing to release it, the easiest thing is to add {{no rights reserved}} to the page, and add words to the effect of: "I hereby release this image for commercial and non-commercial use with no restrictions," then sign. Or if someone else holds the copyright, you could ask them for permission to release it, and post their e-mailed permission to the page. Bear in mind that we can't use images with any kind of restricted permission: it must be free for anyone to use with no restrictions. These are not my rules, by the way; I'm just the messenger. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit to being bewildered by our image/content policies too. I've had to write countless times to people asking if I can use their image, and having to tell them that, if they agree, they have to release it entirely with no restrictions. Invariably they write back and say: "Yes, you have my permission to use my image on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for asking. I love Wikipedia" and so on. Then I have to write back and say, actually I can't use it with your permission; you have to release it entirely. In fact you have to write the following exact words ..." By the time the correspondence is over, they feel exploited, I feel like an exploiter, and then I feel exploited myself because these are not my rules. Marxist alienation all round, innit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A variety of concerns,

Regarding this edit I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and [[WP:AUTO|Wikipedia's guideline for editing topics related to yourself]. JoshuaZ 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

fraudulent claims re arbitration

The next time you make another one of those fraudelent claims re arbitration, I will you report to the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard for repeated and continuing personal attacks. Intangible 14:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)