Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cberlet: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:34, 3 August 2005 editNobs01 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,011 edits →Nobs01 strikes again← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 19 December 2020 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,689 edits Notification: proposed deletion of National Student Educational Fund.Tag: Twinkle 
(663 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{not around|3=July 25, 2008}}
== Please post ALL new messages at bottom of page. ==
Greetings Chip,
I am brand new to wickipedia and have made the ultimate error.
I submitted a new page, Treason In Wartime,and it was immediately recommended for deletion. It was only after that I took the time to review the rules on personal essays, points of view, personal research, etc. I am attempting to find out if there are salvagable steps that can be made and have posted an inquiry to that effect.


I have asked that my user account be deleted.
This material has a significant historical effect on the history of the USA. It also delves into the unilateralism of the Intelligence Community and their allegiance or lack of to the President, especially during wartime.


==Chip Berlet==
Some folks would, and have, said that this is a nice history lesson. So far I have been unable to put forth the reality of how this activity has a great impact on all Americans, whether they like it or not.
], per your request. ]] ] 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:Also, I have deleted your user page, as requested. ] (]) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. I appreciate it.
The information on the soon to be deleted page, while polemic, does not address the fact that I was personally involved in this matter as a direct result of decisions made at the National Security Council meetings mentioned in the article.


== Restructuring and NPOVng ==
Some interested parties believe that I qualify as an 'expert' on these issues because of my involvement in the exposure and exeperience of the disastrous results of the treason.
I have made some efforts in restructuring your biographical article, as well as adding information from several sources to attempt to cover additional viewpoints for a better NPOV presentation. If you have any further concerns about your article, or to offer suggestions on how to improve it, please do not hesitate in dropping me a line in my talk page. Note that I will not have access to the Interwebs for the next week or so, but on my return I will continue monitoring the article alongside others. ] <small>]</small> 00:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


== ] nomination of ] ==
I would appreciate your ideas on this subject.
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").


Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
Ironically, most of this information has been posted in Covert Operations for over two months without notice or comment.


You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Off topic, I have fringe experience on the field usage of MK-ULTRA in 1962.
Bests,
John McCarthy vpocv@comcast.net 08 03 05


'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
==Photograph==
Hi Chip, do you happen to know who took the photograph of you and Dennis King that is on the ] page? I am trying to find out who the copyright holder is and whether Misplaced Pages has permission to use it. Any information you have would be helpful. Many thanks, ] 22:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)


== January 2011 ==
Hi,
] Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been ] or removed. Please take a look at the ] to learn more about contributing to ]. If you would like to experiment further, please use the ] instead. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-test1 --> ] (]) 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


: For those who are outraged at the notion that a long-time Wikipedian like cberlet merited this notice, please note that ] has been permanently banned for various unacceptable behaviours. ] ] 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It was taken by a member of the LaRouche group outside the courthouse in Alexandria, VA the day LaRouche was led off to jail. I presume the photographer was working for their newspaper, or another of their publications, since it has appeared in LaRouche publications from time to time. I am sure they would be delighted to give permission.
:-)
--] 04:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


== ] of ] ==
== John Train Salon ==
]


If you think an article should be deleted you have the option of nominating it for deletion at ]] 03:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
:'''] - indiscriminate list of magazines & websites that some people believe share similar political ideologies - simply not encyclopedic'''


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
==Your photo==
Chip, I'd like to use the photograph of you at http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg for the ] page. Do you know who owns the copyright and how I can get permission? ] 00:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
Hi, PRA owns the copyright to the photo, and you have permission to use it on Misplaced Pages as long as you preserve the copyright notice and say used by permission. I can't wait to see it appear in a LaRouche publication. Sigh... --] 03:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ]] 22:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Chip. I'll check that it's okay to do that. There's sometimes a problem with Misplaced Pages and copyrights, because everything is supposed to be open-source. But if you'd rather I didn't use the photograph, I won't, so do say if you're prefer not.


== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
In the meantime, I've started to rewrite your page. At the moment, it's on a subpage that I've created at ], and there's a Talk page for it at ], where you're free to make comments, or else you can e-mail me if you have any information you feel should be included, bearing in mind that everything in Misplaced Pages must have been published somewhere already. It's probably best if you don't edit it yourself, so that no one can accuse you of interfering. Once I've finished the draft, I'll try to get a few other editors to read it, and if they think it's okay, we'll put it on the page instead of the current one. Then if the LaRouche editors try to attack it, we may have to look into asking for page protection. ] 04:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
I will see if we can get the original photographer to grant us a release.--] 04:35, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ]] 09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, I've labeled it "fair use," which means there's a copyright on it, but Misplaced Pages has decided it's fair use under United States law. I'm sure that'll be okay, so long as you've no objections. ] 05:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Sounds like a plan. --] 13:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ]<sup>]</sup> 07:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
=="Chip Berlet" article==
The article on you has been re-edited in an attempt to make it conform with last year's Arbitration Committee ruling concerning the insertion of LaRouche related material in non-LaRouche related wikipedia articles. LaRouche supporters have been that if they continue to insert LaRouche material into non-LaRouche articles their violations of the ArbComm ruling will be brought to the ArbComm's attention. ] 04:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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


Hi,<br>
Thanks!--] 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 -->
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
==Wrong title & redirect & delete?==
<blockquote>'''The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing ] and the more detailed ] requirement. ] did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ] through ] or by leaving a note at ]. Thank you.'''</blockquote>
You did everything perfectly up to putting the delete tag on it--common/likely misspellings (or alternate spellings) are left (or even created) as redirects to help people using the "Go" or "Search" button find the article at the correct location. It also helps prevent people from creating a duplicate article at the misspelling/alternate spelling. For example, note the redirs to ] (actually, it should probably have more), or to ]. The relevant guideline is ]. ] 03:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
==Alternative news==
Maybe ] - like ] (presently just a redlink on ], but oh well) and I don't think it would be necessary to disambiguate U.S. because... where else were there any covered by such a name? Great good stuff, regardless! ] 15:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
==Stygean stables==
CB - If they were ''Augean'' stables we might be able to muck them out by re-directing a river. Unfortunately, you are correct, they are ''Stygian'' indeed. The "Political Views" article is a mess and SV apparently has a plan to fix it, so I will step aside from that article while that plan is pursued. I enjoy editing articles, however just talking about editing articles is tedious. Sometimes having too many editors on an article can prevent forward motion. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki. Cheers, -] 21:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 07:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
==New articles==
Chip, did you intend to create new LaRouche articles (e.g. ]? These are in the main Misplaced Pages namespace i.e. in the encyclopedia. If you want to write a draft, it should be preceded by Talk: Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/followed by the name of the draft; or preceded by your user name User:CBerlet/followed by the name. Best, ] 04:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

== Fascism and racism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Finished playing in the sandboxes ==

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

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

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

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

== Arbitration Committee injunction ==

Pending a final decision on ], you re also prohibited from editing articles on ] or creating new articles related to the LaRouche movement pending resolution of this matter, though you may continue to work in the present sandbox articles ], ] and ]. Violation of this injunction will result in a block of up to twenty-four hours. Pages relating to the case are not included. Please see ] for details. -- ]] ] 04:03, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

== Don't let... ==

...them get to you, Cberlet -- just a short note to say "hi" and to urge that ''nolite bastardes carborundum''. I'm taking a "wikibreak" as parenthood and work in my non-wiki life have been taking up most of my time the last few months. Hope all is well. ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 23:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== Arbitration Committee ruling ==

As a ruling has been made on ], the ] has expired. Please see ] for details. -- ]] ] 01:23, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

== Conspiracy theory ==

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

== Fascism and Neiwert ==

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

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

== ] ==

Hi Chip. I hope you don't mind, after you renamed this I cleaned up a dozen or so links to the old article. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 21:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

==Israel Shamir article==
You might find helpful when making future edits. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

==Current debate at ]==
If you have a chance, would you mind taking a look at the current debate at ]? Your opinion would be welcome. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 19:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:That's ok. I was looking more for clear thinking than a specific viewpoint. Thanks for responding. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

==Barnstar==
LOL! My pleasure. You certainly earned it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 02:46, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

== Thank you for demonstrating that your views and this page on the subject are highly biased POV ==

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


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


== misinfo and rumors talk page ==

Hey Cberlet, I am wondering if you noticed my response on the ] page? I provided numerous examples that it seems to be wikipedia policy to put the word "Criticisms" first in an article's title, I understand the desire to put "9/11" first but that is needlessly encumbersome. What do you think? ] ] 22:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ] ==
Hi, based on some writing you did about 10 years ago, I thought you might be able to help out with this page. Also, what kind of magazine is The New Internationalist? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 01:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks, Chip. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== 9/11 titles ==

I think Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report is good, but what do you mean "would the 'other' titles be 'OK'?"? Where was this question listed? ] ] 17:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Ward Churchill==

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

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

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

== COINTELPRO ==

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

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

==Page protection==

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


==Reverting==

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


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


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

== you over wrote Viajero's post ==

Was this an accident?

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

== ] compromise attempt ==

I noticed that your compromise version of TonyMarvin's changes was basically the version I reverted to plus some minor tweaks? Anyway, TonyMarvin apparently disagrees with your compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ward_Churchill&diff=0&oldid=12548435 ] ] 03:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

== Nation of Islam and anti-semitism ==

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

==]==

Hi Chip, that's done. For future reference, if you need a page protected or unprotected, you can either approach an individual admin on their talk page, or you can make a request at ], which is where requests for unprotection go too. Best, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

== Huh? ==

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

== Request ==

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

== John Birch Society ==

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

== ] ==

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

==]==
I am getting sick and tired of our anonymous AOL IP editor running roughshod over the ] article while refusing to participate in any sort of consensus building on the Talk: page. Is there something that can be done about it? ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 04:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==]==
There's a discussion and vote going on about the use of the term "conspiracy theory" in the title of this (and other) articles. I thought you might want to put in your 2 cents worth and/or vote. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 15:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

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

== 'Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism' chart ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== your blog ==

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

== mediation ==

See ]. Cheers, <big>''''']'''''</big> 21:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

== "fixed plagiarism of Lind" ==

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

== ] ==

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

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

== Mediation Request ==

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

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

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

:::See also: ]. ] 11:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

==Plagiarism at ]==

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

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

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

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

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

==Mediation==

If you're willing to move forward with me as a mediatior, I've created ]. If you'd start by offering a slightly more detailed explanation of the problem, that would be tremendously helpful. ] 16:57, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

== ] ==

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

== ___fascism ==

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

== On sources outside the MSM ==

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

== Thanks for commenting on 'Anti-Globalisation and anti-semitism ==

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

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

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

== Vandalism ==

Read ], and ]. <big>''''']'''''</big> 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

==Edit summary==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==]==

Hi, Chip. Please see ] and comment if you like. Thanks. ] 22:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

==], links to Selected papers==

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

===copyedit & such===

Hi again, Chip. I gave the article a cursory copyediting, please have a look and let me know if you find any rewording to be odd or in error. Also, I noticed that the criticism section isn't entirely symmetrical at the moment, missing a response from yourself on Daniel Brandt's criticism as well as that of ''The New American''. In the interests of consistency and fairness, I think these are due (I also notice that the last paragraph, about LaRouche, dosen't depict any actual criticisms of you, only that they had some &ndash; any thoughts on that?). I find myself in the fortunate position of being able to ask you these questions directly, it makes my work much easier, as in research that I would otherwise be obliged to carry. :) ] 09:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Your messages ==

I'm sorry not to have replied to your first message; I somehow missed it, and was only alerted to it by your follow-up. Good luck with the redirects &mdash; I'll keep an interested (and sympathetic) eye on things. ] (] 15:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Requesting Copyright Permission ==

Dear Chip,

I believe that Misplaced Pages’s article on Right Wing Politics would be enhanced by an article (chart) found at the Political Research Associates website. I would like to edit Right Wing Politics article on wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Right-wing_politics). I am seeking permission to add Political Research Associates’ “Mapping the Right: Chart One. Sectors of the US Right Active in the Year 2004”, located at (http://www.publiceye.org/research/concepts/Mapping-the-Right-02.html).

Thank you for considering my suggestion,

Daniel

:Political Research Associates allows Misplaced Pages to use specific copyrighted material on a case-by-case basis as Fair Use for educational purposes.

===Permission granted===
This message will serve as permission for use of the Chart of Sectors of the U.S. Political Right.

The page with the most recent updates of the chart is: http://www.publiceye.org/research/chart_of_sectors.html

It is possible that there will be objections to the insertion of the entire chart. Wiki editors can be opinionated. :-) You can also consider using selected material from the chart as long as you somehow credit it to PRA. If it would help, PRA could produce the chart as an expandable image file. If the chart is used in its entirety, PRA will add a small copyright/permission note similar to the ones used on the page for me on Misplaced Pages where two images are located: ]. The code for the notice and other instructions are located at ].

Good luck with your editing.--] 20:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added the .png version to the PRA website:
http://www.publiceye.org/research/Chart%20of%20Sectors.png
---] 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==LaRouche==
Hi Chip, we have another LaRouche editor {{User|The Power of Reason}}, possibly a sockpuppet. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at the deletion vote regarding two articles he's created about LaRouche economic theory. See ] and ]. Many thanks, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

== RfA thanks ==

Thank you for your support for my adminship. It's a pleasure to collaborate with you. -] 22:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

==Personal attacks==

First your spurious accusation of plagiarism, and now you accuse me of vandalism. This, combined with dozens of other ugly statements on your part seem to be leading up to a rather damining arbcom case. I suggest you chill the fuck out. ] 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Ed Poor has been kind enough to nominate me for an adminship ==

I thought of your conciliatory work on the whole Islamofascism thing, and certainly wanted to get your opinion on the nomination.

Anyone who is interested in voting one way or the other is invited to the discussion . ] 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==]==
Are you sure that you are being more "NPOV" by rendering questionable things that are demonstrable? 14:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==RFM==

Please see ]. ] ] 16:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

==]==
Chip, would you be willing to merge whatever is salvageable from this article into ]? The VfD was clear that ] should be re-merged, but the creators and maintainers of that article seem reluctant to do so. I will be re-directing soon, so I'd appreciate any assistance. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 28 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)

== ] ==

I see that youu've written about the Mises Institute before. The article here is undergoing active editing, with a number of LVMI faculty and staff participating. If you have any interest in it you might be able to bring a different POV to the article. Cheers, -] 19:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for your input. -] 22:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

==911 Prediction Photo==
Why do you feel the and are "too bizarre"? Are not all predictions bizarre? And how few of them come with photos and credible witnesses? I think you were too hasty in removing it. It took less then five minutes from being posted for you to remove it.

If you it is the top link, so it is not completely unknown.

::Dear anonymous. It does not belong on a page about real death and destruction. It would be outlandish and painful to many. It is a bizarre claim, there is no substantial coverage (astrology weekly notwithstanding). And if I Google "lunatic" and "prediction" I get 55,500 hits.--] 22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


:Dear Chip. You are a journalist...so check it out. Apparently it was a real prediction witnessed by a credible journalist. There is also a very specific from the same person witnessed by a PBS Frontline producer, apparently with video tape.

Be more skeptical. Before 9/11 there were studies by think tanks warning about jets being flown into buildings as a form of terrorism, as well as the use of anthrax being sent through the mail. Please stop bothering me.--] 22:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::Dear Chip. Okay. Fair enough. Still I have never seen a photograph like the one linked above. What about this: from the same guy. Again very specific, and he posted to usenet 4 days before the gas station building bomb, so the timing is real: So, three terror predictions, that appear dead on? I know I am very curious.

== On primary sources ==

Hi Chip,

If you have a moment, could you take a look at ]? You are probably familiar with him; he is a prominent Marxist economist who has been an co-editor of '']'' for many years.

Last week, I asked 172 to have a look at the article; at the time, it was dreadful, very little on economics, lot of dubious allegations that he was a Soviet spy, largely the work of a {{user|Nobs01}}, a conspiracy buff who seems to find a spy under every bed. 172 rewrote the thing, and turned it into a decent article. Now, however another user, {{user|TJive}}, has re-added a huge amount of this espionage stuff,
], thereby undoing nearly all of 172's work. The article, as it now stands, is basically a MacCarthyite smear.

The crux of the issue seems to be the the reliance of Nobs and TJive on what appears to me to be dodgy primary sources, such as Venona transcriptions, the type of things which 172 has says have not been sanctified by secondary sources. Given your experience as a researcher, I wonder whether you would care to weigh in. Any help you can offer in helping restore the balance to that article would of course be most welcome.

Thanks, ] | ] 13:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:Alas, I just noticed that the situation is very similar with ]. ] | ] 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

== Red Scare ==

Hi. I see you're helping get rid of some of the nonsense on the ] and ] pages that ] put in (and which his reactionary helpers try to keep in).

I haven't seen you break it, but just as a precaution, the reactionaries often try to trip people up on the ] which is to not revert a "page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." So familiarize yourself with this rule. Not that I've seen you break it, but I know they try to goad people into breaking it. Otherwise - good work. ] 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==Note on Harry Magdoff==

Mr. Berlet, I should remark that I am familiar with some of your work outside of this site (some of it I agreed with and some not). I welcome your constructive engagement on the Harry Magdoff article but preemptive mass deletions and moving entire swaths of content is not a good way to initiate discussions, which have already been ongoing for some time now. If you would indicate support for remerging and verifying the content and sources it would be a sign of good faith towards rationally compromising on the material. Thank you. --] 02:24, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

:Cberlet,

:In my experience when there is a dispute over the ''accuracy'' of content a tag is placed on the article and it is discussed in the talk page. That is what was occurring in the article until you moved it elsewhere. Usually moves are for the purpose of saving space on an article which is not a concern here. That you dispute the text is nearly self-evident, but not justification in itself for ''creating a new article'' with an inflammatory title and introduction. That was bound to elicit a negative response no matter how you view it and I do not believe it is appropriate, as you can see by the Vfd. If you wish to compromise over the material I would be glad to participate but I am not going to do so on what amounts to a POV ]. Please reconsider. --] 03:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

::In response to your comments on my talk page, I must say that I had already posted the Vfd by the time I had asked, which is why I asked for your support in deleting and merging the content. I had assumed that you were perhaps initially acting a bit rashly (out of anger or otherwise) and might reconsider, as I have attempted to encourage you. --] 03:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

:::I have indicated a few times now that I look forward to constructive discussion and compromise on the matter but that I do not believe ''at all'' that the ''manner'' in which you have done so is helpful, that it is in fact counter-productive and inflammatory. Nobs, another major contributor who believes in the value of this material, agrees with me which is why he refused to comment on the page. There is no real reason for its existence. If you wish for constructive dialogue as you say (and having already read your comments I believe that you do), then simply move this content to the ] page where we will discuss it. I maintain there is no reason for what has been done and that it is counterproductive towards accomplishing the stated goals of both you and myself. --] 03:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I should add as an observer that the results of a VFD do not matter at all if the title violates wikipedia NPOV standards, which this one does. ] 11:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::If we are going to have a discussion, let's have it on the discussion page. This is very frustrating and irregular.--] 11:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On a personal note, I prefer the original Magdoff article I wrote after it was merged with Ruy Lopez, et al contributors. It appeared well rounded. They insisted on a confrontation and no reference whatsoever as to the facts of his involvement with Soviet espionage. Hence, the result what you have now. This will continue, I suppose, until facts become accepted, and old myths discarded. My personal interest is in espionage activity, not counterespionage files, which is where most of the evidence is drawn from. But let me clearly state, the fact Harry
Magdoff's espionage career may overwhelm his bio page, is not my doing. If the arguements are over what the meaning of "is" is, then the weight of evidence must be inserted. ] 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==invitation==
Cberlet, it seems that part of the problem that Rangerdude et al have with one of your edits on the Mises institute was that your affiliation with SPLC isn't declared on your user page. They seem to be of the opinion that if they declare their relationship to the Mises institute on their user page then they aren't hiding anything, so their edits can't be NPOV. That is my loose interpretation of some of their comments. Anyway, I thought that perhaps it would help resolve at least some of this mess if you put something on your user page that announced you affiliation with SPLC. Misplaced Pages policies don't require it, and I know the notion that "declare affiliation ==> therefore ==> exempt from NPOV" doesn't really add up, but maybe such a gesture would help, at least while you are editing the Mises institute article. I am not an admin or a mediator or anything official like that. Just consider this an invitation from a lowly editor with a silly idea that may or may not help anything. Accept or decline as you wish. ] 15:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

:thanks ] 20:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

given all things I've been accused of recently, either you are a saint for putting up with what you did, or I am a very bad wagon indeed. ;) ] 23:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

==I. F. Stone==
As a gesture of good faith in resolving a myriad of disputes, I will lay some cards on the table. You will note my input and/or reverting of material on the main article ] has been minimum. I inserted an understanding of what Stone's relationship to the KGB was on the Talk page, and will deal with it fully once I have completed the review of Venona information regarding Washington, D.C. operatives within the U.S. government. Afterwards, I intend to review the Archives of the Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB), which are now open, and should shed more light on I. F. Stone and other issues in question. It should be noted, Haynes & Klehr place I. F. Stone in their Appendix D, ''Americans and U.S. Residents Targeted as Potential Sources by Soviet Intelligence Agencies'', or "uncorroborated" as I refer to them; in this regard, I have departed from Haynes & Klehr's conclusions based upon the corroborative evidence of Oleg Kalugin, and as such, have not marked Stone with an (*) on the ]. Conversely, I have not engaged in an edit war over placing Stone in . It seems the consensus is to leave the Kalugin material in the Stone article. I am happy with this, and would be willing to fall back on a presumption of innocence stand vis-a-vis leaving him out of , ''and'' marking him with an (*) on the ] as "uncorroborated" until such a time as the ] materials can be dealt with. I would be willing to cooperate with you in this regard, if you are willing to work with me in resolving several of the other disputes, including the persistent vandalism that now is occurring on the ] page itself. ] 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:Dear Sir: I approached you in good faith; please direct any personal sentiments regarding my postings or others to my Talk page. Thank you. ] 20:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::I am debating in good faith on the appropriate talk pages. Please do likewise. I have no interest in a side conversation.--] 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
:I do not believe I have acted without good faith in any manner whatsoever. If I have offended you somehow, I apologize. ] 21:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::I really prefer to work on public talk pages. Happy to continue working with you there.--] 01:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

==] VfD==
I have closed the VfD you opened for this category, and moved the discussion to ]. This was done because ] is the prefered location to debate deletion of categories. --'']''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 20:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

== Leftist Lie Factory? ==

Chip, is this you they are talking about? Please refute these charges! ] 05:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:Please refute that you put kittens into dryers!!!

:Don't be coy. Not an auspicious start. However, here are my comments about the hit piece written about me.--] 12:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

=== Red-baiting Lie Article! ===

David Horowitz had a fit when he read my article in the SPLC magazine, and commissioned a hit piece by Chris Arabia. It is full of distortions and factual inaccuracies based on assumptions that are false.

Here is my original article, for starters.

Horowitz complained about my article:

As the Chris Arabia article reports:

:“Because Berlet impugned the integrity of the CSPC (among many others), David Horowitz thoroughly rebutted Berlet’s bile. Undeterred as ever by reality, Berlet repeated his distortions and SPLC endorsed and defended his misconduct.”

What that means is that I wrote a lengthy memo defending my few sentences about CSPC, and after the attorneys at SPLC read it, and compared it to Horowitz’s complaint, they and the editors felt the Horowitz complaint had no merit and defended my article as written. Horowitz then published the memo, even though he did not ask permission.

Horowitz’s counter response is here:

The author, Chris Arabia, mentions my role in the Albania friendship group, but fails to mention my article where I talk about what I did in that group, especially my struggle against anti-democratic Stalinists and my criticsm of the “democratic centralism” of Leninism. See: “Abstaining from Bad Sects: Understanding Sects, Cadres, and Mass Movement Organizations.

In case that is not clear, it means I am critical of communism. I have also written about Stalinism as a form of totalitarianism.

:“In Berlet’s mind, North Korea on the Adriatic was paradise.”

Not true. Never said it, never thought it.

:“Because Berlet arbitrarily redefines words such as ‘fascist’ to fit his delusions, he need not confront a reality that lays waste to his worldview”

Not true. I write scholarly articles on neofascism that have been published internationally. See, for example, Chip Berlet. (2003). “Terminology: Use with Caution.” Fascism. Vol. 5, Critical Concepts in Political Science, Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman, eds. New York, NY: Routledge.

:“Reviewing one of Berlet’s screeds, one leftist writer mentions Berlet’s “crusade” against Progressives who stray from Berlet's ideological fever swamps by working with non-leftist groups. In a fascinating conclusion, the leftist commentator warns that Berlet “may try to undermine your work and isolate you.”

This complaint was written by Daniel Brandt, who I criticized because he was urging people on the left to read the anti-Semitic Spotlight newspaper (at the time published by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.) I left the board of a group Brandt ran when he refused to discuss my concerns over his increasing tolerance of conspiracy theories and antisemitism. He was mad.

:“Even ''The Nation'' has printed criticisms of Berlet’s venomous proclivities.”

Apparently not on the page linked in the article, which is an attack on ''The Nation'' by the CSPC. It does not mention my name. Once, Alexander Cockburn felt I had not criticized the ADL strongly enough for a spying scandal in San Francisco (I guess co-writing an op-ed in the New York Times was not critical enough). Cockburn criticized me in ''The Nation'', but was forced to retract some of his claims by the editors.

:“Berlet’s unstated litmus test for ‘fascists’ is deviation from his far-Left political views.”

Not true and surreal.

:“For example, Berlet has recently turned his poison pen on such dubious ‘anti-Semites’ as David Horowitz.”

Not true. The quote is ‘cooked,’ I never called Horowitz an anti-Semite. Read for yourself, here is the text:

:“By falsely insinuating CSPC's devotion to bigotry and hatred (a devotion belied by David Horowitz's multiple decades in the Civil Rights movement), Berlet created the false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand.”

Not true. Misrepresents my article. I never wrote that CSPC had a devotion to “hatred.” I wrote, at the beginning of the article:

:“How do ideas that once were denounced as racist, bigoted, unfair, or just plain mean-spirited get transmitted into mainstream discussions and political debates? Through a wide array of political and social networks.”

:“Today, there are still political and social networks that seek to undermine full equality for all Americans. Their messages are spread using the standard tools: prejudice, fear, disdain, misinformation, trivialization, patronizing stereotypes, demonization and even scare-mongering conspiracy theories.”

This next paragraph by Arabia is quite interesting:

:“To aid the radical Left, PRA identifies three primary tasks: boosting ‘dialectical materialism’ to combat ‘conspiracism,’ continuing to support Palestinian anti-Semitism, and promoting ‘progressive internationalism’ to thwart the successes of capitalism.”

Not true. At PRA we could never figure out how he cut and pasted snippets of language (off of our website?) to assemble this totally false claim. Especially since we have multiple articles warning about anti-Semitism.

:“Berlet is also on the roster of ‘Speak Out Now!’ a left-wing speakers bureau that features such luminaries as veteran Communist miscreant Angela Davis.”

This is a good example of the guilt-by-association red-baiting that is laced through the article.

And that's just a few of the reasons I call the CSPC article by Chris Arabia the "Red-baiting Lie Article!" --] 12:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:*Have you ever read Justin Raimondo's great book review of Horowitz's biography? It's really great. He tears it up. (I can't find the original Chronicles review; but here are some related comments/discussions.,,) So, what, are you some commie or socialist? I have always been curious why socialists and leftists act righteous and take the moral high ground, despite the fact that without property rights you can have no other rights. ] 16:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:"Abstasining From Bad Sects" confuses me; the term "ultra-Leftism" confuses me. It appears there is a mountain of ideological belief somewhere underneath a construct of "left" or "Leftism", this all theoretical, and I haven't the patience to attempt to making sense of it. Seems it is all built upon the ], which I am disposing of in my tract "Fallacy of the Left/Right Spectrum Theory". Can you somehow make it more specific. Thank you. ] 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::So guys, if I ever run into you in person I will buy you a drink and try to explain it all, but there is such a vast ideological chasm between us, it would give me carpal tunnel syndrom to start typing a response. Well, except to say that I am a dull democratic socialist like Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornell West. Pinkish but not a full-fledged Red. Some of my best friends are commies, though. ;-) But to suggest I am a Stalinist is like suggesting Ludwig von Mises was a neoconservative. Wrong era, wrong ideology, wrong category. --] 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Thank you for the clarification; I have engaged at ] in an attempt to dispute the whole theory. Suffice it say, I reject the basic concept that all political activity is ideologically driven, hence the very underlying construct of a "left-right division". ] 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Chip, I believe that this "hit piece" as you describe it is entirely too bombastic and its conclusion precedes its evidence but there are still some points to my mind not sufficiently resolved. I don't believe, tough as it may be, that I have been thrown into confusion or convulsion by the left-lingo of the sect article and yet in reading it I can not for the life of me figure out why in the world you would participate in such an organization to begin with. This was a "friendship" organization pertaining to a country which felt itself scorned by the rejection of Stalin and Mao in the USSR and PROC, respectively. It was itself the most sectarian and ideologically extreme of the communist bloc countries and yet you write almost as if you were surprised to see all sorts of Leninists and Stalinists show up, rigging and running the show for whatever minute pathological purposes it serves at that moment. That is like joining the "International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic" and being shocked and dismayed that you find yourself amongst racist and totalitarian cranks and are forever haunted by it. It's certainly not the fault of someone who gets a bad impression from the act.

::::For the purposes of full disclosure I have to say that as I referred to before I am familiar with some of your pieces. I think your material on LaRouche is generally valuable, but I also believe your work with SPLC was as much a "hit piece" on Horowitz and co. as this was on you, so in that sense it simply returned the favor. Horowitz is a grown man and can certainly defend himself (and he did), but I think you underestimate the exasperation that comes when a man who dedicated years to (real and faux) civil rights causes is being lumped beside neo-Confederate authors and racialist science proponents for what entirely appears (to him) as being a case of not conforming to an arbitrary expectation of what opinions and language is proper when dealing with already hypersensitive issues like slavery reparations. I've read quite a bit of his material and get entirely the opposite impression that you have of him; to my mind conflating people such as he and actual, fringe racist groups is a disservice to the SPLC's stated goals to be engaging in and, in fact, wasting time on. --] 00:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Chipster, sure, I guess you can say you are not a commie, but still, all leftists are systematically hostile to private property rights to some significant degree, are they not? And if so, you are opposed to the very institution and rights necessary for human freedom and prosperity; you necessarily then want some collective group with Big Guns--the state--to own the property instead. But he who owns the properts gets to tell the others what to do; it's a control thing, ya know.
:::::What have you written on that nutjob Larouche? ] 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:::: Or perhaps his encounters with "the Right" in Misplaced Pages he can then write investigative journalist articles and then sell through a non-profit organization, for which he he gets paid. ] 02:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::That conjecture does not ], nobs. ] 02:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:::Interesting premise; we will see in three or four months in upcoming issues of ''The Public Eye'' if Venona project materials are being used by neo-fascist skinheads to promote anti-semitism. ] 15:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:<code>And if so, you are opposed to the very institution and rights necessary for human freedom and prosperity</code> &mdash; Always convinient when the the premise is so... self-contained. I, however, dispute it. ] 02:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::It doesn't really matter whether it's disputed, what matters is that all long-term successful economies and societies have been market-oriented to some degree, and have included property rights. ] 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I maintain that it does, in fact, matters; and I dispute this definition you set out above. But I don't wish to engage in these polemics at this time. Also, we are intruding on Chip's talk page, which is unfair (on my part, too). ] 02:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::::No polemics, just stating a fact. ] 03:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::As I said, I'm not interested in continuing this ] at this time, nor with rhateorical or semantic epilgoues. ] 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::No smiley? :( ] 05:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I thought I added one, actually; doing too many things at once. :\ ] 05:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

== Nobs01 strikes again ==

''Old version:''

], editor and publisher of '']'', a publication which has itself had two correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:

''Nobs01 version:''

], editor and publisher of '']'', which has '''been referred to as a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece" evidenced by having two of its own''' correspondents identified in the VENONA decrypts, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage:
----
Cberlet: see my message to you at . ] 18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:29, 19 December 2020

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Cberlet has not edited Misplaced Pages since July 25, 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I have asked that my user account be deleted.

Chip Berlet

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chip Berlet (2nd nomination), per your request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have deleted your user page, as requested. Jonathunder (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Restructuring and NPOVng

I have made some efforts in restructuring your biographical article, as well as adding information from several sources to attempt to cover additional viewpoints for a better NPOV presentation. If you have any further concerns about your article, or to offer suggestions on how to improve it, please do not hesitate in dropping me a line in my talk page. Note that I will not have access to the Interwebs for the next week or so, but on my return I will continue monitoring the article alongside others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rumors about the September 11 attacks

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rumors about the September 11 attacks. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rumors about the September 11 attacks. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Someone65 (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For those who are outraged at the notion that a long-time Wikipedian like cberlet merited this notice, please note that Someone65 has been permanently banned for various unacceptable behaviours. Noel (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alternative press (U.S. political left)

The article Alternative press (U.S. political left) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:LISTCRUFT - indiscriminate list of magazines & websites that some people believe share similar political ideologies - simply not encyclopedic

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 22:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Alternative press (U.S. political left) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative press (U.S. political left) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political left) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 09:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Alternative press (U.S. political right) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative press (U.S. political right) is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political right) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Northamerica1000 07:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of National Student Educational Fund

Notice

The article National Student Educational Fund has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Misplaced Pages:General notability guideline and the more detailed Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Categories: