User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia! Your articles and edits are very helpful and appropriate; keep up the good work! Feel free to drop me a message at the "talk" link beside my name. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 06:09, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

The text at Helga Zepp-LaRouche seems to come from a copyrighted web page. Do you have permission to publish it under the GFDL? Thue 11:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Thue, I appreciate your alerting me to the fact that I had violated plagiarism guidelines on my article on Helga Zepp LaRouche.

User:Herschelkrustofsky I stand corrected. I have re-written the Helga Zepp LaRouche and Schiller Institute pages as per instructions. I am pursuing the permission for the photos, but withdraw them until that has been brought to successful conclusion.

Is there anything else I should do, to help re-instate the two newly written pages?

Nope should work now. I left a note on Wikipedia:Copyright problems asking that an admin can remove the copyrighted versions from page history. Then it will be fixed when an admin sees it (shouldn't be too long). Happy wikipedia writing :). Thue 11:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mediation request regarding Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Both Adam Carr and John Kenney have declined mediation in messages left on my talk page. I have moved the discussion to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. Thanks, Thanks, Bcorr, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 03:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Anti-cult movemement[edit]

See talk:anti-cult movement Thanks. To make sure that readers of Wikipedia are not misguiged, I have given the article an accuracy dispute warning. Andries 17:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)`

I agree with you that there is something wrong with the anti-cult movement though it has become better. They exaggerate sometimes. Besides some people in the anti-cult movement are ignorant but pretend to know. In spite of that, I have to say that I am basically positive about the anti-cult movement because, I think, they prevent people getting harmed. Andries 20:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

URGENT: Opposition to "Sam Spade": See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade[edit]

See a critic's tracking of SamSpade's activities on Wikipedia at User:Spleeman/Sam Spade Vote "NO", or reverse your vote, even at this late hour. This is criticle (and critical) information! IZAK 09:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: User:Spleeman/Sam Spade#Political bias:

  • From Sam's own user page: User:Sam_Spade/Theoretical_Biases
  • Removes references to groups such as the KKK as "right-wing" [1]
  • Attempts to sugarcoat racist views [2]
  • The claim the Geli Raubal was Hitler's mistress is just that, a claim [3].
  • Wants Hitler labeled as a socialist on the communism page (see Talk:Communism)
  • Insists on including his personal theories regarding a relationship between nazism and Chinese communism in nazism article:
  • From Talk:Socialism:
    • "I intend to do what I always have, which is insist that the Nazi's were socialist because... they were." (Sam Spade 00:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Called another editor a "fascist" (Talk:Socialism#protection). This is similar to his attempts to try to provoke me by implying that I was a nationalist, or not an anarchist:
  • More on belief in non-racial eugenics: Why Sam is Right Wing (a list by User:Stopthebus18)
    • Stopthebus18: "People (including our country) have done horrible things in the name of eugenics." (StoptheBus18 16:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
    • Sam Spade: "Seems to work in Singapore. Bad things have been done in the name of all sorts of medicine, but we don't stop going to the doctor, do we?" (Sam Spade 17:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Guess what everybody!!! "The attempt to paint them [the Nazis] as "reactionaries" is a propagandistic fraud." (Sam Spade 16:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC), Talk:Nazism) Wow! You learn something new everyday.... Not.
  • Hmm. For some reason, Sam doesn't want anybody to know that white-supremacist Wolfgang Droege was involved in drug trafficking [4].


Apology, etc.[edit]

Once again I want to apologize for calling your edits "crap". I'm now excited about your contributions there.
Secondly, I wanted to drop the following note: "Please provide an edit summary. Thanks!"
Last, the above note is in regards to Musical development, which I just shortened. Despite my previous demeanor feel free to discuss my changes on the articles talk page or my own. Hyacinth 20:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

There is a survey regarding a disputed paragraph in the PNAC article that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 19:16, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)



Apology, etc.[edit]

Once again I want to apologize for calling your edits "crap". I'm now excited about your contributions there.
Secondly, I wanted to drop the following note: "Please provide an edit summary. Thanks!"
Last, the above note is in regards to Musical development, which I just shortened. Despite my previous demeanor feel free to discuss my changes on the articles talk page or my own. Hyacinth 20:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

There is a survey regarding a disputed paragraph in the PNAC article that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 19:16, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I thought you may be interested in commenting or voting (possibly negatively) on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hyacinth. Thanks. Hyacinth 01:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Hyacinth 05:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noriega and Operation Just Cause[edit]

I changed the location of the paragraph you added earlier today as per the talk page. I tried not to change any meanings. Also I preserved your modifications to my earlier edits regarding the U. S. reasons for the invasion (taken out of the Times as referenced). Your phrasing is more neutral. CSTAR 04:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with your suggestion in principle, so long as the current tone of the article is maintained. At times I've reverted edits to this and related articles which seemed inflammatory in either direction (although for this article, the bias is usually in favor of the U.S. side on the issue). The article should be useful to anybody wanting to learn something about the invasion. My rule though I generally like to see references from major newspapers (NY Times, Major Latin American Papers, FT, Le Monde etc).CSTAR 05:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Carter-Torrijos treaties[edit]

Do you have the reference for Noriega's claim about Torrijo's intentions? It would be useful to put it in to avoid subsequent disputes. Note: I have no problem with the statement, which is clearly NPOV. I just want to preserve the nature of the article as it now exists. CSTAR 01:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did a quick check too, and found that in addition to whatever Noriega revealed or alleged, novelist Graham Greene apparently got cozy with Torrijo during the treaty negotitions. You can Google it and find the reference. Greene made essentially the same allegation/revelation. -Willmcw 02:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Omar Torrijos[edit]

I'd qualify your addition often English speaking Rabiblancos.. This social group is almost predominantly Spanish speaking, but is usually fluent in English, many of its members have studied in the United States and have cultural contacts with the United States. I think the characterization that is currently there is misleading, because it somehow draws a connection between the social characteristics of this group and Native English speakers. Native English speakers living in Panama are numerous, but not in the same league as regards direct political power as (at one time) English speakers in Argentina.CSTAR 01:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More on Torrijos-Carter[edit]

I would change Noriega revealed there was a plot to Noriega alleged there was a plot . CSTAR

Re: Postscript on edits of various articles[edit]

Thanks for your remark on edits.CSTAR 05:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Neocolonialism and the Socialist Block[edit]

Greetings sir,

As the principal author of the aforementioned article (and as the one who submitted all the scholarly references to it), I was wandering whether you could provide, for my own couriosity, any reputable sources whereby the Soviet Union (and/or or its competitor, the PRoC) was accused of conducting a neoclonialist policy (explicitly stated as such, as opposed to imperial policy, etc.). Note that the 'especially the United States' in the op. paragraph was not part of my rewrite (parts of which were vehemently, and I think unfairly, objected to by a Mr. Adam Carr; see discussion, he never returned to answer my responses) – I do, in fact, expend a lot of words on allegations of French necolonialism in Africa later-on in the article – but was in the hitherto version which I found ahistorical and highly lacking. So, in that sense, note that most of the op. paragraph, in fact, was left unchanged in my rewrite, minus some copyediting, so this comment should not be taken as a criticism of your addition in defence of my own, but a collegial querry.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your contributions to the article. El_C

Thank you, sir, for the prompt response, and for your honesty. No, I cannot revert it since I am abstaining from all article contributions (as a matter of principle). Perhaps I could persuade you to revert it yourself, hopefuly without coming across as condecsneding and patronizing (hah!). Yes, that op. paragraph need further work; also, my own writings in the article, I felt suffered from non-NPOV, which is why I created the 'critics' paragraph and the Modernization theory article. By extension, note the discussion there by someone else who tried to insert a 'some critics argue' which he, of course, invented: he has never read about critics saying any such thing – much like you (and I hope you will not take offense to this statement). That is poor scholarship on both of your parts; again, I hope I am not coming across as too harsh, but I prefer blunt honesy to circular diplmaticism (well, somewhat!). To your credit, though, I think you are able to face such errors constructively and learn from them – whereas with him, I would not even bother even beginning such a discussion. Some people are seemingly beyond reason. With you, it remains to be seen, and more on that bellow. Not that I entirely disagree with your position (see my very first 'See Also' entry, as an example), but I simply do not find it to be encylopedic to proceed in the manner you have.

Yes, that was certainly poor scholarship on the part of Mr. Adam Carr (or perhaps it is Dr. Carr to us, heh). If an historian ventures outside of their own respective field(s), they should tread lightly and catiously. As for the nature of his other (truly staggering, I should add) contributions, I am going to refrain from any further comments at this point in the discussion for reason which I will outline immediately. Now, regardless what you may think of my worldview (and let us not get into that), unlike Mr. Carr, I am a professional historian with some background into the concept. I also am an avid proponent of the notion that one could learn much (whether it is phrased in NPOV terms or not) from thinkers who are situated on very different positions along the political spectrum's continuum. Which is why, for example, one of the foremost works I would recommend on Southern Rhodesia (see my big and incomplete project: Southern Rhodesia draft) would be of the Conservative historian, Robert Blake: A History of Rhodesia (I highly recommend it as just a fun and fascinating read per se., but I digress). So, all of this preamble is really intended as a question to you: whether you would like to continue this discussion, whether you are open to persuasion from me. To be perfectly honest, I am at my wits end with this encyclopdeia, and if I am to continue this, I need to be absolutely certain that such a dialogue (if at all) is reciprocal. If not, then no hard feelings, I will bid good day to you, and that will be the end of it. If, though, it is so, I think (and esp. in light of your user page) I could offer you some insights into the concept (it will be a lot of reading though, since as you may have gathered, I am rather long-whinded). Thanks again. El_C

I'll take that as a yes. No, I disapprove of the changes you have made, I did not see that sentence as an NPOV issue, you are actually the first to take issue with it and I felt it was within the realm of consensus. The passage is significantly less accurate now, I feel, and serves to ahistoricize and oversimplify rather than elucidate and clarify. I hope to persuade you to revert it as well. But not now as (as often is the case), I am writing in haste, and as well, will not have much time to spare in the next several days (though, we'll see). I think I will need to explain how I see an encyclopedic exposition for the concept – as internationally, demographically, and historically representative one. All in due time. As for that, and as for your request for me to outline how I view the distinction between Imperialism and Neocolonialism, I could do so in a very concise manner and condense my thoughts to a very high level of generality, but this will presuppose your familiarity with pertinent events, concepts, works, etc., so I am not exactly certain how to most effectively attempt this. Perhaps if you could briefly touch on that. And lastly, if you have any responses to the comments made by Slim (beyond et cetera), feel free to enlighten me on that front as well. Thanks. El_C

I realize it's been a while, but the discussion (in itself in-depth) seems to have expanded to unexpected directions whereas my time now is especially scrace. I am hopeful that I could attend to the issues at hand soon. El_C

I decided it will take me far too much energy at the moment to factually substabtiate how neocolonialism was a term predominantly used against capitalist countries – Wikipedia is just too political for that extra bit of historical accuracy. As per your comments on Jeffrey Sachs, that is emblomatic as per this right-wing climate Wikipedia instils – of course it would be formulated differently (more topically and accurately) had this been an academic rather than journalistic (encyclopedia?) forum whereby the ideological constraints Wikipedia editing imposes (lip-service to NPOV notwithstanding) are less intellectually vulgar and transperent. Thus, that bit on Jeffrey Sachs is, in fact, somewhat of a compromise: as in, 'critics say that -even- the economic conservative, Sachs, is for clearing African debt,' I thought this was sufficiently qualified as such, at any rate. At the event, I thought you were, at the very least, due an explanation on this more limited front of Sachs, if not the aforementioned beyond. A quick note on that, I have yet to look at your dispute with A. Carr, perhaps I will get a chance to do sometime later, but in the immediate future it looks unlikely (not that you asked me to, but I sort of committed myself to this). Same goes for my Imperialism viz. NeoC argument. With respect to the former, I am pleased to learn that you and Slim are in the midst of conducting a civil discussion. Lastly, as for your stated ideological affiliation with LaRouche, I think it would probably be best for me to refrain from making any comments on this at this time. El_C

Headers on protected pages[edit]

I wasn't aware of that statement, as nothing of the kind is contained in the main Wikipedia:protection policy. Upon investigation, I determined that this supposed requirement was added to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute without any discussion by EntmootsOfTrolls, a disruptive user (since banned) whose history I won't bore you with. The fact of the ban is neither here nor there, as the reasons are largely unrelated, but my point is that there is no consensus for such a policy. It has no relationship to how page protection is actually handled, and I regret that this statement was left in place to mislead people about use of the NPOV dispute tag, probably because nobody with knowledge of actual practices noticed it until now.

The protection notice that is added to all protected pages already provides the information that the content is disputed. Adding an NPOV dispute tag does not convey any additional information, and cluttering articles with templates simply overwhelms the content while serving no useful purpose. If the neutrality of the article continues to be disputed after protection is removed, you are free to add an appropriate tag at that time. --Michael Snow 17:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletions by Adam on pages you created[edit]

Quite a new and unusual phenomenon you have. All I can say is, from what I can tell, each of the articles have been properly quoted and attributed. Unquoted material appears factual. Just to say that I am unfamiliar and have no interest in Australian politics. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Mediation[edit]

This is to let you know, as a matter of courtesy, that I have turned down your request for mediation. I feel it would do no good given the ArbCom ruling and other mediations that have already taken place. Having said that, I noted today that you feel Wikipedia is now an unpleasant place for you to edit in. I did not intend that. No matter what you think of me, I can assure you that I am not an anti-LaRouche activist. I simply care about accuracy. The only thing I would like is that reputable references be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. I am therefore willing to discuss with you what might be regarded as a reputable reference if that would help to clear the issue up. It is doing neither of us any good to be in conflict. If we can agree on a standard for references (e.g. what kinds of claims need referencing and what kinds of publications tend to be acceptable to Wikipedia) that might go some way to clearing up the matter. In case you want to do this, I have created a separate page for it so we don't clutter up our Talk pages. It is at User:SlimVirgin/references. The only condition I place on doing this is that our discussion remain courteous. If it becomes discourteous, I will withdraw. Let me know what you think. Slim 07:27, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate the courteous tone of this message. When I first began editing Wikipedia, I thought that all the stuff about Wikiquette and so forth was a bit on the cornball side, but now that I am the veteran of numerous edit wars, I can see that it is very wise to discourage editors from waxing wroth.
Frankly, I don't think that these edit conflicts have much to do with the amount or type of references. They are POV battles, and I think you should admit it to yourself. I think that mediation would help -- oddly enough, every time I have tried to initiate it, the other party has refused (Adam, in the most recent case, has in effect refused, without saying so directly). However, in the one case where a mediator just showed up and volunteered his services, it worked like a charm (I refer here to Snowspinner). As you can see, there is still no love lost between AndyL and myself; he is certainly no dummy (despite all the typos) and he understands Wikipedia policy as well as the next fellow, but he has a deep and abiding hatred of LaRouche, something to do with bygone days when he and LaRouche were both on the Left, and as soon as that kicks in, his only interest in the rules is how to bend them to his advantage. You are no different, and I'm sure that in the eyes of my opponents, neither am I -- which is why I think mediation would help. If a genuinely neutral party can be found, that party tends to gain the trust of both sides of a conflict, and his pronouncements on sources, NPOV, and other policy issues will be more credible to all concerned. --H.K. 06:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schiller Institute[edit]

Has Dan given any indication that he wants to edit it? Slim 17:45, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've put up a request for unprotection of Schiller Institute. I should have added to the above that, yes I agree. I would trust Dan with this edit, and any other, based on what I've seen. Slim 18:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

My request for unprotection has been turned down because the dispute is not resolved. I suggest we continue with our discussion about references/mediation on the other page to try to make general progress, and also see what Dan does with Jeremiah Duggan first, as he seems to want to re-write it. Then if he wants to edit Schiller Institute, and everyone involved in that page (including C Colden and Weed Harper) agrees, we can ask again for unprotection. Are you in agreement with that? I personally don't like to see pages protected for a long time, so we should try to reach a consensus. Slim 20:05, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
Slim and H.K: I don't really want to "rewrite" Jeremiah Duggan; I have already made the most substantial edits I'm going to make to it. I just started backing off and seeking prior opinions because I didn't want to be reverted. H.K.: Thanks for your kind words. You are correct that I've been making my way through the LaRouche series. As time permits, I will try to get involved in editing SI. However, I can't make promises. It is one of the LaRouche-related subjects I know little about. DanKeshet 22:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

See my reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Greetings_from_HK. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Classical Music[edit]

The addition of a modern period was merely part of the addition of Modernism (music) to the history template, as was suggested some months ago. The article originally didn't have much substance to it, and so was not included at the time. Stirling Newberry 00:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive1&oldid=16591774"