User talk:Cberlet/Archive 2005-09 2005-12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive of User talk:Cberlet[edit]

Sun yat-sen[edit]

Since you're the expert on this kind of thing, HerschelKrustovsky added this to the Sun Yat-sen article years ago:

"Sun is highly regarded as the National Father of modern China. His Political philosophy, known as the Three Principles of the People was proclaimed in August 1905 and was based strongly on the American System. "

Is this Larouche propaganda? This article is nearing FA status, so I thought I would want to clean it up first. Please Reply ASAP, on my talk page if possible. Thanks, Borisblue 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington[edit]

Howdy, since you seem to be the resident wiki-expert on matters of paranoid american politics, I was wondering if you could take a look at my article and add context and spices. etc etc

Thanks Klonimus 03:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help, especially adding references. As you may have noticed, There is currently a VfD campagin against several books in Category:Books critical of Islam. I'm trying to fill out this category with post 9/11 books on this subject, and a small team of wikipedian's is trying to remove anything perceived as Islamophobic from wikipedia.

Perhaps you might have an opinion on the merits of the following articles. Klonimus 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Political correctness[edit]

I'm not quite sure whether you objected to every P.C. example I gave, or if reverting all of it was just easier to do. Be that as it may, I will sanitize the stuff you consider politically incorrect, and put the other stuff back in as is, when I find the time. If you have any other specific objections, maybe you could tell me now, and save time later. Wahkeenah 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I had previously put similar remarks on the P.C. article's discussion page. Wahkeenah 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Harry Magdoff and Wikipedia[edit]

I've made a comment on the talk page of Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage.

I see you took a break from Wikipedia. Such frustration is inevitable, you're banging your head against a brick wall. I've discussed my sentiments regarding this here User:Ruy Lopez/NPOV and categories. Wikipedia will always have the bias it has now, or may get even worse. While I don't discount the need to fix errors here (Wikipedia is the 36th most popular site on the Internet according to Alexa, and is moving up in rank every day), I think an alternative wiki which is run by progressives/leftists/whatever is a necessity. Several exist, and are listed on my page above, Demopedia, Dkosopedia, the niche-focused Sourcewatch, plus more radical ones like Red Wiki, Anarchopedia or's OpenWiki. I have the ability to put up a wiki, but would not be able to pay the bandwidth charges at the current time if usage took off, so for the current time I am not putting one up. I'm happy for now trying to build up critical mass on the progressive wikis. Whether you participate to some degree or not, I hope you see the need for a progressive wiki that has hit a critical mass and is a resource for progressive movements.

I have been on Wikipedia for a long time. The pattern I see here is often thus: a progressive comes on, sees what appears to be an open, democratic atmosphere and begins editing, begins to get into arguments, thinks he (or she) can win, begins getting frustrated and on and so forth. Often at this point I pop in and tell them that the progressive wikis do not have momentum, have not reached a situation of critical mass to get momentum yet, and that their frustrating experiences on Wikipedia are fine, but perhaps they can spend a small percentage of their wiki-time building momentum towards a critical mass level on the progressive wikis instead of being frustrated bailing water out of a leaky boat on Wikipedia. Usually they don't participate in the progressive wikis, eventually get frustrated with Wikipedia and often quit Wikipedia. Anyhow, most of that I discuss in my above article. It's not like no one reads alternative wikis - one article I started on Sourcewatch has had over 10,000 views so far, so my hour or two writing the article was not done in vain. Although it depends on the subject - few people will read the Harry Magdoff article, despite all the time we all spend fighting over it. Ruy Lopez 02:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to contribute on Magdoff, but I don't know the case. I think this is a difficult issue, particularly because leftwingers tend to be more interested in fair and open debate than rightwingers who will quibble and distort endlessly. But that's our strength. I don't see that hiving off to a 'progressive wiki' is the answer - though these might be worthwhile. Wikipedia provides a possibility of a participatory democratic information source. I believe it has a future. It does have weaknesses - but less so than mainstream media/academe. Do we boycott them? No.--Jack Upland 06:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why contributing to other wikis is "hiving off" or "boycotting" this one. Isn't it possible for someone to visit two different web sites? If working on this website is so great, why did CB say he had to take a break for a few weeks due to the stress and frustration? Ruy Lopez 08:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I did say other websites were worthwhile. And I misunderstood your comment about a leaking boat/brick wall.--Jack Upland 05:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

On crack[edit]

"Is this Postmodernism on crack?" LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi, got your message. I must confess that the discussion associated with Talk:VENONA Project is all but impenetrable to me. I have no special knowledge of espionage or communism really. I do agree, though, that these "materials" deserve watching. I applaud you for your interest, but I don't know how useful I can be. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I started that RfC to try to draw some more attention to the situation, from editors who hadn't already been embroiled in it, some of whom might be able to engage with Nobs & you on the actual content issues - which I can't really do, because of my lack of familiarity with the sources. I've already expressed pretty strong opinions on Nobs' style of editing and argument, on the McCarthy article and on his talk page, but the RfC is supposed to be about the article(s) rather than about personality. I don't expect it to be very fruitful - Nobs' contributions there so far have been typically off point - but as far as I understand WP process, it's the first thing one ought to try. And although he's dominated the "discussion", there is a small minority of editors who share some of his POV, with Noel being the most vocal - so it's a relevant question, even if he doesn't address it in any useful way. Anyway, I think an RfA is definitely called for - but that's up to you and/or Nobs to start. Hob 21:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Chip, I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, I've been away for a bit. Like Katefan, I tried to get into the discussion at Talk:VENONA Project, but I couldn't make heads or tails of it. If you like, you could e-mail me a synopsis, so I could understand better what's going on. I wish I could help more. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm impressed and somewhat frightened by the amount of energy and detailed attention you've spent on this. I don't know if it will be possible for Nobs to collaborate constructively, but stranger things have happened... still, I think that the time to request arbitration/mediation is probably now. I don't see any sign that he's getting any nearer to responsiveness, and I also don't think the argument will spiral out of control into blatantly abusive chaos - it'll just go on this way, but longer. I think your attempts at breaking down the issues have been above and beyond the call of duty. Maybe the other editors above will step in at some point, but I see that the factual background is a pretty steep barrier. But then again I don't think it's going to be possible to resolve the factual issues till the amazingly frustrating and time-wasting behavior is addressed. Hob 03:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Both of us have had the same problem with Nobs (necesarry for the RFA), and others have to, to some extent. Maybe it's time to get an RFA together about this. RFA's take months to get resolved, so we might as well start now. On some level, I'd just leave Wikipedia to the Nobs's and go off to the happy hunting grounds of Demopedia, DKosopedia and whatnot, but anyhow. I think Hob is right, now is the time to start thinking about an RFA. I don't know what my schedule will be, but if I have the time, I will spare some time for it, if I do have the time. Ruy Lopez 04:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the above two editors have not been following the discussion; nobs & Cberlet appear to have resolved a major issue today. nobs 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, all I did was give up arguing over a cite that is unclear until we get some sort of confirmation rom the government as to proper title and authorship. The circular arguments and foot-dragging is still ridiculous.--Cberlet 16:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: see my last posting at [1] Talk:Venona project; I'll give you time to get caught up on digest the work I did. let me know when your ready. I'll be here for at least another 4 hours. Thank you. nobs 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I know you invited me in on Venona, but I just can't do it. It's been such a process just trying to get an answer on what I thought would be a simple uncontroversial question about how the material is organized. The experience was like wrestling with an enormous creature made of Jello: you can't pin it down, but if it gets on top of you, you may smother.

I'm not all that knowledgable on Venona, so I don't really have that much to bring to it. I have what I'd consider a healthy skepticism about two-level decrypts (first, decrypting the documents themselves, then interpreting what name refers to what person in the real world) and I suspect that the Soviet agents in the U.S. were often reporting "successes" at turning people that had no basis in fact (if I had Stalin for a boss, I'd hesitate to report a failure), but this is more a POV opinion than anything based in real knowledge. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Hello, Cberlet! I've been assigned to your case, and I'll be happy to help you and Nobs out. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, where I've left a response. Would you prefer that mediation occur via talk pages and a special page (something like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop), or via email? I would prefer that it stay on Wikipedia, but I'm fine with both. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 19:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Cberlet! I've moved Nobs01's previous workshop to a subpage and created a new workshop. There, I've created three sections- one section where both of you should agree on a few basic policies, another section where you should state your goals of mediation (i.e. what you hope to accomplish), and then a section where each of you can give a summary of the dispute. I ask that you do not respond to the other party's summary yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi Chip, Cognition has been busy tonight. Among other things, he's inserted LaRouche material into Physical economics and Abba P. Lerner, in the first instance to claim that LaRouche developed the ideas or coined the term, and in the second, to add a section about a debate LaRouche had with Lerner, though there's no indication this was a significant event for Lerner. I've removed the material, protected both pages, and requested sources. For Physical economics, Cognition has produced a source that is paid subscription only, so I asked him to upload it, which he did at File:Pu 45 977.pdf. Because I protected the page, I feel I ought not to be the one to judge whether the source is credible, though I notice that it cites a LaRouche paper as its source — Lyndon LaRouche, "The science of physical economy as the Platonic epistemological basis for all branches of human knowledge," Part 1, 2, 3 Executive Intelligence Review, 21 (9-10), 1994

Would you mind taking a look at it? Also note the new Cognition-authored Lerner-LaRouche debate. I've also left this note for Will. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


I don't think we have met before, but I have heard of you :). I was wondering whether you would be interested at voting at my Rfa? Please see here. Thank you very much. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support and comment :). I look forward to working with you around the wikipedia. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 03:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory[edit]

Hi. Zen-master has added a {twoversions) template that on the verge of deletion (actually he subst'd it) to the article. Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Twoversions for reasons why this notice should not be used. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Protocols conference[edit]

I was very impressed by your presentation at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion conference at Boston University. I took a class on millennialism with professor Landes last year which got me interested in all these conspiracy theories. I look forward to reading some of the things you have written. Keep up the good work.--Alhutch 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Political Views.." OR[edit]

Hey, Chip. (talk • contribs) is still not convinced that Political views of Lyndon LaRouche is well-sourced enough. He's put a list of quotes on the talk-page, and I'm adding some hidden comments to the article where the source isn't obvious to me. I need your help, either to source everything or rework some things that seem original research-y. Thanks.--Sean|Black 22:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm relatively familiar with the situation. This particular incident is not something I'd worry about, because the "unsourced" stuff, well, is sourced. This user is just being obnoxiusly persistant despite my explanation. I totally agree that we need more editors to work in these pages. Anyways, thanks for the help, and you may want to reply on Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche.--Sean|Black 23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You may want to vote...[edit]

... on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political correctness in the United Kingdom. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Jane Hunter[edit]

Aloha. I was wondering what you could tell me about Jane Hunter. I think she's an investigative journalist, but I could be wrong. A user recently quoted her work, and I notice that you've referenced her on your website. Thanks in advance. --Viriditas | Talk 03:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 00:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(removed hyperbolic antisemitic screed)[edit]

I looked at what you did and didn't find anything "anti-Semitic" that you removed. Very strange. My link showed that the official explanation is a lie. The 9/11 conspiracy guys almost always ignore the fact that the political claim for 9/11 was that we were attacked because of our freedoms when the fact is we were attacked because of specific foreign policies. I hope to God you don't have it in your head that pointing out that the major motive for 9/11 is "anti-Semitic"

The conspiracy nuts can't see a real example of feeding the public a false story. The false story is that we were attacked because the terrorists hate our freedoms. I looked over what you deleted and it is disturbing that you said you were removing a "hyperbolic antisemitic screed" because nothing you removed meets that definition. 02:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not recognize what I consider to be antisemitic screed as such. I thought it was clear.--Cberlet 14:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me, could you please identify what it is you are talking about? Here is the page you made the edits on: your edit there are 21 yellow rectangles that contain info that you either deleted or altered. Could you kindly point out which one is "antisemitic"? For example, the first one starts with "{{NPOV", that isn't what you are talking about . So please identify what is "antisemitic" by saying it is the one that starts with "---------" Thank you for your time. 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory redux[edit]

"This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends..." See [2]. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Cberlet, are you logged on now? If so (and if you have IRC), would you mind joining #wikipedia-mediation? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Sam Spade 00:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page to a user subpage: User:Nobs01/Workshop. Since the page wasn't heavily utilized during mediation, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

anti-Semitism is a serious charge[edit]

Cberlet, you made a serious charge that something was an "antisemitic screed." I am asking you to identify what it is you are refering to because I think you have made a serious error. I gave you the link to the edit you made, could you please identify what you are talking about? 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant to cut several links to websites that were, in my view, "antisemitic screed." It looks like I also inadvertantly deleted a large block of text on Building 7. That was a mistake. My Wiki editing window in Explorer sometimes goes haywire and crashes, but I usually see it happening and go back and fix the text. Apologies for leaving the wrong impression regarding the block of text that vanished.--Cberlet 15:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01. Thank you. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and ideology[edit]

You may be able to help out at Talk:Fascism and ideology#Cut by Sam Spade. Sam cut the statement "The majority view is that fascism is a movement of the right that co-opted certain tactics, rhetoric, and even policies of the left." Fine, I guess: although I am sure it is a majority view, that is not something I have a citation for (although you may know someone reasonably authoritative to cite saying just that). This ended up with me saying that I would come up with some specific citations for prominent scholars who consider fascism in this light. My guess is that you may have numerous such citations at hand. I know where I'd start looking, but for me this would be a day or so of library research, and I'm way too busy to do that the next month or so. Do you have some citable sources of prominent scholars overtly stating roughly this view of fascism, preferably with some concision to avoid than the endless debate that is liable to arise if I say something like "if you bother reading David Schoenbaum you will easily see that this is his view"? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Your iguana[edit]

"I used to have a large pet iguana, more than five feet long. When it got angry it puffed up its throat sack and made growling noises. For some reason this page reminds me of that iguana, a primitive beast." LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am being as clear as possible[edit]


I have been asking you to point out what it is you are labeling "anti-Semitic" and you still have not done so.

You originally were referring to one thing, a "hyperbolic antisemitic screed" yet now you say that you cut SEVERAL links because you thought they were?

I have now spent my time following each of the links you removed and none of them, except mine, even mentions Israel or Jews. So it must be that you are talking about the link I added and only that link. If you identified what you were labeling as "antisemitic" you could have helped clear this up already. Why are you being evasive about what specifically it is that you have deemed "antisemitic?" If you already see you were mistaken then just admit it.

The bottom line is you clearly must be referring to my link since it is the only one that mentions Israel. The think I am telling you is that you are mistaken. The charge of anti-Semitism is VERY serious. I am pointing out to you that you are wrong to slander that article about 9/11 motives as "antisemitic." Instead of attempting to actually look at what it is you deleted, you continued to be evasive with me. What gives? Bottom line, stop carelessly throwing around charges of "hyperbolic antisemitic screed" because NONE of the links were.

It is interesting that people are so quick to label things as "antisemitic" that point out the basic facts about the 9/11 motives.

You are polluting the public discourse with these false charges and creating a false impression of anti-semitism where none existed. Creating a false impression of anti-Semitism is as seriously wrong as real anti-Semitism is. You now have creating the false impressions that SEVERAL links were anti-Semitic. Here is the page you made the edits on: your edit 16:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Calm down and stop flailing about. I already have said that I botched the edit and have apologized. Because my edit window crashes so often, I frequently copy page text over into a page text editor. Sometimes, when saving an edit, my browser crashes, or Wiki locks or returns an error message. IT WAS A MISTAKE. I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. I APOLOGIZE. Now to set the record straight, I provide the following:

This link was tasteless and not appropriate for the page, but not hyperbolic antisemitic screed

This link is filled with lunatic crackpot assertions, but is not hyperbolic antisemitic screed

This link revives the old conspiracy theory from the late 1790's that the world is controlled by a Masonic plot; it combines lurid conspiracy theories, astrology, astronomy, and numerology, but is not hyperbolic antisemitic screed.

This link was a well-produced flash presentation but it was a clever sleight of hand that provided mosty unsubstantiated claims that are easily refuted; however by following the links one quickly found material that was arguably antisemitic. The main link, however, is to a book that promotes the idea that "extra-terrestrial entities that have insinuated themselves into positions of power," as one eager reviewer gushed.

Now, as for the specific link that I meant to delete. It was the one you posted.

Highlights what most conspiracy theories ignore: 9/11 motives not what Bush claims[3]

It is, in my opinion, hyperbolic antisemitic screed. It uses the classic language of antisemitic conspiracy theory about "special interests" controlling the United States on behalf of Jewish/Zionist interests. I hope this establishes the corrected record you desire. It is clear that you do not agree with my opinion. We will have to agree to disagree. May I respectfully suggest you read the book A Rumor about the Jews by Stephen Eric Bronner or the graphic novel The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by Will Eisner.--Cberlet 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


In reviewing our source discussions, I noticed you have not posted the GPO citation for Counterintellignece Reader you had offered to share. Has it come through yet? Thank you. nobs 19:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

iguana alert[edit]

Eloquently put the other day. And if that's how you feel, perhaps you would consider talking a look here: [4] BrandonYusufToropov 22:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing politics[edit]

Could I ask you to look in at Talk:Right-wing_politics#Two_versions? I tried posting to WP:3O, but no one seems to be chiming in. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see that you are doing basically good things on Far right, etc., but when you want to move entire articles (which I think you've done in here), please use the "Move" tool instead of a cut-and-paste move, so that the history goes with the material. In some cases, the move requires an admin, but then you still should request that an admin do the move instead of you doing a cut-and-paste.

In this case, there isn't enough copyrightable content to make it a real problem, but in other cases it really can be. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Lulu's and Cberlet's Defamatory Comments Toward Keetoowah[edit]

Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?--Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Cberlet: What I did was quite simple. I returned the changes concerning the ethnicity issues to state that they were in before Lulu came along. For example, Lulu charges on this page (See below.) that I am misquoting the Keetoowah band. That is quite clearly untrue. I quoted the Keetoowah directly from their Web site. Please review the Keetoowah's Web site yourself. Please don't jump to conclusion because you have some kind of bias toward wanting to defend Churchill for whatever reason. Clearly Lulu has a personal bias also. Go to the Keetoowah's Web site and move all the way down to very end of the various statements. The original statement of the Keetoowah is the one that I am quoting. It is the official position of the tribe. I personally know the Keetoowah and I know that they do not know you and I can't be sure of this but I would be more than willing to bet that they don't know Lulu. I would also be willing to bet that Lulu is not very aware of the issues between Churchill and the tribe because his edits give him away that he just does not know the topic. He is allowing his bias to guide him, not a knowledge of the topic. If was fully aware of the topic then he would know that I have had this discussion--concerning the proper quoting of the tribe--with other Wikipedian editors and I have guided them to the proper quote before. If Lulu and you were aware of the discussion that took place on the Churchill Talk Page then you would be aware of the proper quote. Please Cberlet and Lulu do your research first before you make wholesale changes to the document. That due diligence would include reviewing the all the comments on the article's talk page.--Keetoowah 17:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah... I spent quite a bit of work today trying to get this page improved. I didn't take out much of the various criticisms of Churchill, but I tried to get them into an actual narrative flow, rather than just reading like a bunch of random quotes thrown at the page. I did also try to put in a bit of stuff for balance, like the quote from CU President Betsy Hoffman expressing concern about academic freedom.
And the art stuff is notable too... I admit I know some of it from personal acquaintaince (I've seen his work in galleries, and own the drawing I included as an example); but it's not exactly a secret that Churchill is an artist. In fact, all the silly allegations of plagerizing art don't even make any sense if he isn't an artist. Someone's not going to suddenly make a plagerized lithograph without knowing how to make a lithograph in the first place! Certainly if there is any real question, we can dig up some citations to gallery reviews or the like.
While it's understandable given the national attention, this article is quite unbalanced as a bio. Some right wing national press decided to make an example of Churchill, and so we have these endlessly recycled half-sensible sound bytes about it filling most of the article. But in fact, Churchill was a pretty well known scholar ten years before any of this ever happened. Sure, minus Fox News, his article would be quite a bit shorter; but his fifteen books are well read in philosophy, political science, and several other departments courses (like ethnic studies, where they are taught). Churchill isn't uniquely important in that regard, but he's up there with the top dozen or two notable critics of US foreign policy in academia, quite apart from the recent scapegoating and hysteria. This article would be a lot better if it gave a better sense that Churchill was not suddenly generated as a chthonic golem in 2004. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Misquoting United Keetoowah Band[edit]

Lulu's false and defamatory comments about Keetoowah and his Ignorance of the topic[edit]

I recently changed the quote about Churchill's membership in the Keetoowah Band to say what the source URL actually says. I had not looked through the edit history, but it turns out that the bogus quote was inserted by User:Keetoowah way back in July. Several users back then had put in the correct quote, but our vandal user managed to sneak in the misquote after a bunch of reversions. I guess it shows vigilance is always necessary. I just started working on this article, but it sure make me wince to think the fabrication was there that long. Oh well, once it is unprotected, let's watch this to make sure the quote stays authentic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lulu: You are absolutely wrong when you state that I am vandalizing the page and that I am putting bogus quotes on the page. This is perfect example of how you and Cberlet do not know what you talking about. Please review the coments above of mine. Please review the previous discussion of this issue on the Churchill talk page (in the archives ) and Please review the Keetoowah's Web site at the bottom of the Web site. You are clearly mistaken and this out and out lies that you making about me and what I did shows your bias and your lack of understanding of the topic. Please do your research before you make wholesale changes to the article. Unfortunately, for you and for Cberlet you both have shown your ignorance of the topic and your bias. Please correct your mistakes immediately.--Keetoowah 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Keetoowah, look at what I wrote to criticize you, look at what you wrote here, and look at your tone, and ask yourself if that is how you like to be treated.--Cberlet 18:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Cberlet: Lulu has finally went to the Keetoowah Web site and he found out that I did not make up the quote. You are defending him. He has stated that I lied, that I made up a bogus quotes and put them in the mouths of the tribal Council. Now that he has actually taken the time to go there and look it up he has found out that I DID NOT make up quotes. And you are defending him. Now, I ask you. Do you like it when people call you a liar? Do you like it when people don't do their research and jump to conclusions?? I notice that you are quick to judge and criticize me but your criticism of him admitted lies goes unnoticed by you. How one-sided is that? He hasn't apologized but I don't expect him to because he is a schoolyard bully, but I expected more from you. You attempt to maintain some respect.--Keetoowah 19:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


A Request For Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ward Churchill. karmafist 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll send a postcard[edit]

Looks like a win-win situation, and we both accomplished what we set out to do. Later my friend, catch you on the flip-flop. nobs 01:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


I would like to thank you for your unfailingly helpful comments at Talk:Fascism. Furthermore, my (barely-informed) understanding is that your experience of Wikipedia has not been unconditionally positive, but that you have handled the situation with grace and patience. Jkelly 22:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theory stuff[edit]

Hey Chip. I know that you're busy with the Arb case, but if and when you get a chance, could you take a look at Talk:Conspiracy theory? The intro as it stand is not the best, and I'm attempting to revise. If you can take a look, it would be much appreciated.--Sean|Black 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway, Chip. I should be able to get something hammered out soon, and I'll let you know what progress has been made when the arbitration concludes. Thanks again.--Sean|Black 23:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not a public persona[edit]

Do not use my name. I removed my personal information from this site beause of people like you. People with no regard for the safety of others. You choose to edit publicaly, so be it. I do not. Do not use my name again. Sam Spade 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good faith request[edit]

Mr. Berlet, in the spirt of Wikipedia's civility policies such as Wikipedia:Assume good faith, I am interested turning a new page and reaching out to you in order to collaborate with you in striving for the truth on Wikipedia. Therefore, I ask that you verify that the meeting you attended widely known as the John Train Salon actually took place. I know that there will be serious professional fallout on your part if you make a show of courage and finally admit that the meeting took place; but I believe that Christ puts such a matter in best context in John 8:32: "The truth will set you free." So let's tell the truth! Cognition 19:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche is an antisemite, a fascist, a crook, a demagogue, and a "small time Hitler." This from reputable published sources. I provide this in the spirit of telling the truth. I wish you well finding reputable published sources regarding the John Train meeting. Alas, I do not plan on assisting you.--Cberlet 20:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. There is not one bit of anti-Semitism in his thinking. If there were, I would not be supporting him, since I am Jewish myself. So is Jeffrey Steinberg. LaRouche is an admirer of great Jewish thinkers such as Moses Mendelssohn. He supports the existence of the State of Israel; and he respects great Jewish statesmen who fought the British, such as David BenGurion; and Yitzhak Rabin, because of his role in the Peace of the Brave. There is not one bit of fascism in LaRouche's thinking. How can someone who follows the tradition of FDR, MLK, and Ghandi be considered a fascist? LaRouche is not a crook, demagogue, or a "small time Hitler" either; indeed, he made many great personal sacrifices in the struggle against Hitler fascism, including his first marriage and his own freedom behind bars. This will be my last post on your talk page requesting help with the John Train matter. So I close urging you to study the examples of Martin Luther King and Lyndon LaRouche-- great men who spent their mortal lives wisely, for the sake of the betterment of future humanity. "The truth will set you free." MLK died a free man. Lynn was always a free man in that regard when he was behind bars. Coming clean on the John Train meeting will set you free. Cognition 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Leave me alone! Please do not enter any more text on my user page. I consider it harassment. I wish to have no contact with you whatsoever outside of text entry talk pages and mediation/arbitration. Please do not respond to this message. Please go away. --Cberlet 23:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Note from User:Larvatus[edit]

Please accept my thanks for your kind and fair evaluation of my fitness for encyclopedic commemoration.

I am equally thankful for your activism in the culture at large. Larvatus 08:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This was moved from Cberlet's user page.

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others case. Raul654 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Question On A LaRouchie[edit]

Hey Chip, I don't know if you remember me, but I moderated things in the rfc in regards to Ward Churchill. Anyway, I met a bunch of LaRouchies during the New Hampshire Primary season in 2003 and attempted to WP:AGF, despite their horrible reputation. When you strip away their political views, some of them were nice people, but after hanging around them I think they were too brainwashed to be reasoned with in any case. I'm telling you this now because one of them from then e-mailed me a week ago, I told him to take me off his mailing list, and he came back with a defensive e-mail.

Do you think any of that monster's accolytes can be reasoned with? Is it truly a waste of time? I've become so jaded in the past year that i'm trying to avoid any more cynicism if I can avoid it, but you're the expert on them for the most part, so I figure i'd ask you. karmafist 06:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Fascism_and_ideology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[edit]

I am concerned about your recent editorial actions, and would like to bring them to your attention:

Please review your actions, and the policies regarding them (Wikipedia:Cite sources, WP:3rr, etc...)

Sam Spade 21:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to split 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

User:Blackcats has proposed splitting the 9/11 conspiracy theories article into Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. If you're interested, please comment here. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

I am sorry that my advise to the anon upset you. I don't think it was a personal attack, but if you are uncomfortable being known for who you are, you may want to consider renaming your account. I was attempting to inform and enlighten, rather than to antagonise. Sam Spade 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)