User talk:Cberlet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please post ALL new messages at bottom of page.

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

Recent articles by this editor in real life

Contents 1 Archives 1.1 Topical Work 2 Messages and Notices 2.1 History Channel 3 Dominionism 4 Blocked for edit warring 5 Request 6 December 2007 7 Request for mediation accepted 8 Neofascism and religion 9 Neofascism and religion2 10 Category:Antisemitism for discussion 11 Question 12 Attempted impersonation 13 best snarky edit summary ever 14 Images 15 My Rfa 16 Lyndon LaRouche article 17 Venona 18 Collapsable sections 19 Just making sure you know... 20 New antisemitism 21 That was fast 22 Heads-up 23 Interesting critizism? 24 Re: Phyllis Schlafly Photo 25 Problems in the Right Wing article 26 right wing definition 27 Just hello 28 RFA 29 (WP:WQA notification) Please maintain civility in edit summaries

[edit] 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

[edit] Topical Work

User talk:Cberlet/Fascism

[edit] Messages and Notices

[edit] History Channel

Saw you on the History Channel .. nice. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Omigod! Thanks...I think.  :-) --Cberlet 17:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, really, it was a good program. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominionism

As per your request, I am not asking you to discuss article content here. But I wish you would discuss article content there. The section appears to fail WP:SYNTH. If you think if doesn't, then please explain why. It has nothing to do with truth, neutrality or accuracy. Guettarda 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cberlet. The protection on Dominionism has expired, and no one has ventured to disagree with you on the talk page after several days. I really think you should be the one to fix the page, once you are able. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring at Nazism. I encourage you to pursue dispute resolution when your block expires. Should you wish to contest this block, you may add {{unblock|reason}} on your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

--Cberlet (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this: Cberlet agrees to not edit Nazism until this time tomorrow, and he gets unblocked so he can keep working on other pages? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently seeking an equitable solution is not high on the list of Wiki priorities. This is just depressing. --Cberlet (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cberlet: Citizen's Electoral Council of Australia has raised its well funded head in Australian politics, we have a federal election on Nov 24. I go some stuff from CEC and wanted to know more about LaRouche. It was good to see the blocked article about him and the hagiographic article about his views. Thanks to your work I suppose. One way you could get around this impasse is just to create a new article "Cberlet's views about LaRouche" and write in your well researched and referenced scholarly style. I agree with you, Wiki editors should offer greater support to scholarly articles instead of blocking them. Just a little note to say "well done" from down under. D.Tzumli (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I am asking you politely not to taunt me about my name, not to call my edits "cult fiction," and not to otherwise attempt to intimidate me or others who may disagree with you. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never attempted to intimidate other editors who disagree with me. Please do not use my page for making a record based on faleshoods. If your edits mimic the cult fictions of the LaRouchites, consider why that might be. LaRouche is frequently reported by reputable published sources to be a crackpot, convicted felon, antisemite, and neofascist.

I did not taunt you about your name, I mentioned that it was the same as a famous composer. I put this on the record on your talk page. If you wish to discuss this further, please take it to a entry discussion page (your choice).--Cberlet 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Actually, I did not make changes to another editor's post, but I have no explanation for what happened. I did get an edit conflict notice, but I thought I handles it properly. No clue.--Cberlet 03:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's why there was an edit confict -- because it could not resolve it. If it can it just saves it. Gscshoyru (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, sorry anyway, I know better than to edit another editor's post on a discussion page.--Cberlet (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Moved petulant personal attack to proper page.--Cberlet (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neofascism and religion

I don't understand why the article is a part of WikiProject Judaism or why it carries the antisemitism/judaic studies in academia categories. I realize that you have been around these pages longer and have a better grasp of the context that is going on, so I assume you are aware of some historical facts about the article that I am not. Nonetheless, I feel categories such as 'Religous persecution' and 'Religous academics' would better fit the page (because they are not limited to one religion). I'd be curious to get your input about why one religion is singled out, and also your input about keeping the Judaic ones but adding others as some sort of compromise. Thanks, --68.72.44.153 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes have no idea why something ends up on the page. But given its controversial nature, it is a good idea to discuss first, come up with a logical explanation, seek consensus, and then make edits. Just deleting without any explanation is a bad idea. I agree that one religion should not be singled out. Balance is good. If you have a plan, post it on the discussion page. Your ideas may well make sense.--Cberlet (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neofascism and religion2

Hi Chip, I'm not planning to neutralize descriptions of "Hindu fascism" on wikipedia, which would be a hopeless endeavour, when even some admins are trying to push false claims of Hindu nazism and fascism. Many of the ones who make such claims have a prejudice against Hinduism, and are not as much against nationalism or fascism, in my opinion.

I see that the Golwalkar is quoted on the Neofascism and religion article. Elst has discussed the two Golwalkar quotes, which are often quoted by Indian Pseudo-secularists, in some articles on his homepage, e.g.:

This, incidentally, explains the sudden popularity of this Golwalkar quote in anti-Hindutva writings. The main exploiters of this quote, the Indian Marxists, have seen their intellectual power centre expand from India to North America. In the US media and academe, they have cornered the same power position that they have enjoyed in India for decades, and they largely control the information flow from India to the American public including the professional India-watchers in academe and the government. From there, they exercise a lot of influence on public political discourse back in India. However, to secure their position in the US, they have to deal with the powerful Jewish influence there. The Jews are not stupid and they know that in the Indian ideological spectrum, it has always been the Hindu nationalists who supported the Zionist project while the leftists opposed it. Just as it was always Hindus who let Jews live in peace in their own country, while Hinduism’s Christian, Muslim and Communist enemies have a rather darker track record in this regard..... Very often, the Marxists even add their own explicitation to this quote: “Here, Golwalkar is applauding the genocide of six million Jews.” That, of course, is a lie..... [5]

The best discussion that I know of about "Hindu fascism" claims is by Koenraad Elst. Espcially the books The Saffron Swastika and "Decolonizing the Hindu Mind. Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism", but a lot of information is also in his articles. I have added some of his quotes on fascism here, because some editors were claiming that Elst was a neo-nazi. And one Dutch wikipedian was so friendly to explain Elst's opinion on the Vlaams Belang from his articles in Dutch language here. Merry Christmas. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Antisemitism for discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_3#Category:Antisemitism...thanks. Ra2007 (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What do you think of this and this. Someone apparently decided that it was completely non-notable and unencyclopedic to mention that people left the Board of Advisers over a serious issue because, get this, Daniel Brandt told them so. This does not seem appropriate. Like A Rainbow (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted impersonation

Eeek! I've never come across that before, feel free to contact me again if you suspect the same thing. Rudget. 14:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] best snarky edit summary ever

"(to counter scholarly sources with FrontPage is like comparing fresh filet mignon to rancid hamburger)" ... <snort> --Lquilter (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I hope you don't mind, but I took the image you seemed to have uploaded, and adjusted color and contrast levels. TableManners^C·U·T 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am thinking it might be better for you to upload it to the exisiting location, and then we can delete the _cc version of the image. I do not need credit for the adjustments. TableManners^C·U·T 19:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I am still a bit clueless about the images stuff. I plan to upload a few dozen more photos of political figures. I will try to adjust the as you did. Meanwhile, I will reload the one you fixed in a day of two. Busy on writing deadlines. Thanks again.--Cberlet (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyndon LaRouche article

Please participate at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Is_there_a_content_dispute.3F. The article was locked over a content dispute in November. Do you know anything about that? CM (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venona

There's at cfD on and its subcategories, a general topic on which you have previously worked--some informed help seems to be needed. DGG (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsable sections

Hi! You have done considerable work on the {{fascism}}. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just making sure you know...

The usual suspects with the totally non-Larouche fusion megalomania related names are trying to rip into the Synarchism article at the moment. John Nevard (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New antisemitism

Hi Chip. The main question being discussed on that page is whether writers who may used the phrase "new antisemitism" in the 1970s were referring to the same concept of NAS that has been used in the present century. I don't think it could have been the same concept, because the idea of convergence between right, left and political Islam could not have been present at that time. If you have a view on this, it would be interesting to hear it on the articel talk page. Regards. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That was fast

I just wanted to let you know that my proposed opening paragraph for the fascism article has already come under fire, less than a day after I wrote it. I'm surprised - I expected it to last two days at least. Anyway, you're an expert in the field so your contribution to the discussion is really needed. I really think we should make efforts to prevent the definition degenerating into an incoherent mess or something so vague as to be tautological (a definition amounting to "fascism is an authoritarian ideology that is authoritarian", like we had before). Thanks. -- Nikodemos (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-up

Somehow your last edit to Talk:New antisemitism wound up deleting a section of the talkpage. I fixed it, but thought I should let you know. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting critizism?

Hi Chip. I have been watching the New Antisemitism page for a while and understand that you are a researcher in the area. Something which is quite refreshing because there are too many activists editing pages like this. I tried to add a source year or so ago, that I think is interesting as a strong critizism of the (use of the) concept. At that time the page was in a situation of heated edit warring, and the tempers were quite hot. Since you are a researcher in this area, I suppose you would be able to asses the source, and also to what extent the critizism expressed here is representative of some part of the academic community, and finally if it is something that could add to the article. It is a book-review from Race and Class: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertn (talk • contribs) 09:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry about that. It is also listed in the further reading section here. This is not a pressing issue, so just look it up when you have the chance. The article I was thinking of is : "Bourne, Jenny. "Anti-Semitism or Anti-Criticism?", Race and Class, Vol. 46, 2004. " pertn (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Phyllis Schlafly Photo

The person who uploaded the color-corrected version didn't put a license tag on it, and didn't even credit you - they falsely claimed that the image was "self-made." I've fixed up the licensing information and put it back into the article. east.718 at 03:54, May 3, 2008

[edit] Problems in the Right Wing article

Hey, user: Jtd00123 says that the scholars you cited are not enough because of a study that says that most polictical scientists are liberal and are POV. Does he have a case? I think you should check it out. Bobisbob (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The study itself is debated among scholars and social scientists so can it be the end-all-be-all study for this issue? Bobisbob (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] right wing definition

I was wondering if you feel the current defintion of right wing sounds good to you. Just having the ideologies listed is not good enough but I have a feeling Vision Thing will remove it. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just hello

Good to see you're still around. I've been back a bit lately, but mostly working in somewhat less contentious areas (although Blackface isn't exactly kumbaya-land, either). - Jmabel | Talk 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I noticed this Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cberlet laying around from 2 years ago. I've been going through the old uncategorized RFAs and was wondering if you'd like me to keep it for a future RFA run or just delete it as a housekeeping matter. MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (WP:WQA notification) Please maintain civility in edit summaries

Hey there Cberlet. Please be aware that there is a conversation involving you taking place at WP:WQA#Cberlet. You are invited to participate in a constructive manner.

I understand you are frustrated by some ongoing edit warring involving a number of other users. I am still looking into that, but right off the bat I can see that this edit summary is not appropriate. Please try to refrain from making nasty or incivil comments, especially in edit summaries because it is impossible to go back and edit them after things cool down (at least not without admin help). Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)