User talk:Herschelkrustofsky/archive2

Wikistalking guideline

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 18:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship

I happened to have Rangerdude's user page on my watchlist. The answer to your question is mostly at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. --cesarb 22:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from User:Cognition

It's great to see that you're back fighting the good fight against propaganda. On a related note, I have come across some information that may be worthy of further research. Perhaps you might want to look into it or pass it on to your associates... Anyway, it seems like the New School for Social Research is now avowedly professing fascism-- moving away from its long tradition of hiding behind the same cloaks and veils used by its founders. They are now opening eulogizing their intellectual founder Nazi crown jurist and Holocaust criminal Carl Schmitt.

See their "course description" on Schmitt: Carl Schmitt (1888–1984) has become a modern classic in political theory and has been called the Thomas Hobbes of the twentieth century. Most of his main texts are now available in English and will be discussed in class (e.g., The Concept of the Political, Political Romanticism, Political Theology, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy). In addition to these primary sources, we will read some critiques by his contemporaries (Kirchheimer, Fraenkel, Kelsen) and put his thinking into its historical context. In the second part of the course, we will turn our interest to the current renaissance of Schmitt in different fields of modern political theory such as democracy, pluralism, liberalism, international justice, and political power. On the reading list are books and articles by Habermas, Sartori, McCormick, Scheuerman, Dyzenhaus, Mouffe, Agamben, and Kalyvas.

This leads me to suspect that they have recently shifted strategies in their promotion of fascist thought. By removing the cloaks and veils, perhaps they are signalling that they are ready to lead an intellectual offensive to explicitly rehabilitate fascist politics. Cognition

If you can, please take a look at Physical economics, where I am being stalked by that Chip Berlet and Adam Carr underlying Slimvirgin. Cognition 03:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange with Nobs01

CfD

Your vote is need at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This originated with Mr. Cberlet at [1]. Thank you. nobs 18:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the debate on this is now closed, but having given some thought, I'll reply anyway.

You may count on my support for any effort to curtail the rampant POV pushing of Cberlet, well as his exploitation of Wikipedia for commercial purposes.

However, two wrongs don't make a right. I am skeptical of the way categories get used, often as yet another form of POV warfare, and I would be more inclined to go with "alleged Soviet spies" or something along those lines. In this case, Cberlet may be the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day. --HK 22:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Thanks again; for the record, I created all but about 36 of the 279 bio pages in the category. All my contributions were very carefully researched, and include corroborating evidence. If doubt existed, it was not included. Further, I intend to fully review the pages I didn't work on to judge whether or not they are categorized properly. This was just an attempt to smear the quality of my work personally, and challenge the sources without having any proper primary or secondary sources to do so.

As to the user in question, seriously you should read pgs. 114-131; it is profoundly disturbing. The Guardian section in particular, when one considers this purported human rights activist in light of these disclosures [2]. nobs 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration filed naming you

Please be advised that today I filed an arbitration case naming you. It can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Nobs01_and_others_acting_in_concert.--Cberlet 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence. You may make proposals and comment on proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Workshop. Fred Bauder 19:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights

I would like to request unprotection so your early response would be appreciated. [3] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights and contractarianism

Hi! I too believe it is untrue that animals cannot enter into social contract. However, this argument has been used by some critics of animal rights, e.g. Tibor Machan. Tom Regan has argued against contractarianism in many of his articles, for example, read The case for animal rights. Contractarianism is an important issue in the Animal rights debate. deeptrivia (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In fact, I had expected a whole section in this article dealing with the contractarianism issue. deeptrivia (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug free Wikipedians

We're about to be censored, and need all the help we can get. Please vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians! Cognition 19:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin power abuses

FYI - [4]

Priveleged experts

Sorry to bother you with more "acting in concert" BS, but please note the priveleged expert exemption has been made a new policy [5] prior to the ArbCom vote to finalize the precedent [6] without discussion on the policy talk page. nobs 20:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Quest for a Better ArbCom

Awnsers to "Another question'

The Bill or rights and Arbitration Comitee code of conduct both look like good ideas, I think that there just common sence. --Kylehamilton 13:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered questions =

Just letting you know that I've answered your questions on my ArbCom nomination page. Thanks for taking the interest and asking! :) --Golbez 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ACe questions

I've answered your question in the corresponding page. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask further. - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beast-man

LaRouche is right. Cheney is a psychopath who can't distinguish man from beast. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cheney_hunting_accident;_ylt=AhsHpYN8kYkvp2zCRPeJzDas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ-- Cognition 23:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Had you read through the discussion you would have realized (I hope) that there was no discussion about the article content- it was a screaming match, pure and simple. I asked them twice [7] [8] to talk about the article, not the contributors, the second time indicating that I would remove the section if they didn't. The shouting continued, and I removed it. That's not censorship- that's trying to make working on the article at least midly pleasant. I also find it interesting that you've (apparently) been watching the articles after the initial ArbCom case(s), and then complaining about them further—if that's not gaming the system, nothing is.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire section because it was a flamewar, not a discussion about the article- I removed posts from both Cberlet and Northmeister, who have opposing viewpoints, so I find the "removing opinions I disagree with" defense pretty shakey. And on the point about the ArbCom case, I mean to say that you clearly still have a vested interest in these articles, which is the exact opposite of what the ruling was intended to do.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little help here?

Y'all left me alone with a guy who seems to think it valid to include character criticism in a section regarding criticism of Perkins' book. Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Also, the same criticisms are being repeated when they could/should be summarized (and cited if readers want to look at all of them). It's bloating the section.

I have to leave for the weekend. Don't want it to go to hell while I'm gone......

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Gatekeeper (politics) page

Do you by any chance have a copied version of the original 'disappeared' page or know where to look at it in it's last form? Bov 22:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, sorry, I figured out where to look. Bov 22:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Duggan page

Hi I am the user formely known as IAMthatIAM and I noticed you took an interest in the previous dispute over that page. Thank You. Could you check out my new AfD and help me out if slimvirgin tries to break the rules again? --IAMwhatsIAM 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]