User talk:AgentTorange

Welcome to Wikispooks!

We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Robin (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Reminders

User_talk:AgentTorange

Port Arthur, Dunblane, Sandy Hook, Christchurch

I'll take notes here of things I'd typically put in the Talk pages of other wiki's, since wikispooks does not seem to have them on articles

Feel free to comment, criticize, though id prefer u didnt vandalise

- Juxtapositions b/t Dunblane school massacre and Sandy Hook should def be explored, as well as Port Arthur massacre, which occured the same year though was not a school shooting. Explanations for why New Zealand's shooting resulting in mass disarmament didn't occur until 20 years later should also be considered

-ex. Discrepancies in reports regarding the shooting skill of Port Arthur shooter, the range at which he shot his victims, and the strategic (between the eyes, no chance of survival) places he managed to hit them. Some say the shots were point blank, which would not be impressive or farfetched, others say considering circumstances, point blank range of most or many shots seems unlikely, meaning the shooter's marksmanship exceeded the skillset that would be expected of someone like him

- Similar discrepancies in case of Adam Lanza, though in his case we know at least he had a lot of experience shooting before hand

-Port Arthur Shooter seems almost ceerainly suffered from asperger's. Dunblane shooter definitely weird, not necessarily autistic.

-These events, with the exception of sandy hook, are rarely mentioned in US media. Which is odd considering, they'd serve as a good narrative in favor of disarmament, considering that lone wolf shootings since the respective events in Australia and Britain and the entire UK have been either non-existent, or close to it since

-How much these incidents were invoked in Britain (or UK as whole) and Australia in the aftermath of Sandy Hook would be interesting

- Parent's of victims of Dunblane shooting claim to have reached out to Sandy Hook Parents. Some parents of Dunblane Victims say they have helped Americans in their efforts to "change US gun laws (aka disarm americans)https://web.archive.org/web/20210311225221if_/https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14282766/thomas-hamilton-dunblane-shooter-killer/ <<<<way towards bottom for dunblane parents comments

    -what connection, if any, can be drawn between the Dunblane Parents' contacting Sandy Hook Parent's and the supposed droves of conspiracy theorists who allegedly harrassed Sandy Hook parents
     - Any information regarding the people who harassed sandy hook parents, restraining orders filed, arrests made for violation of those orders, idenitites of harrassers already in the public domain, any figures regarding number of harassers, when the harrassment began, how it progressed - where it was discussed, how the people who called the parents found the information (were the parents doxxed or did harrassers find information independently, where the harrassers congregated and came up with the idea to start harrassing. 

    - There has always been a glaring link missing in this narrative, considering, afaik, there is no audio/video of Alex Jones telling his fans to contact these parents. This means the plan was hatched elsewhere online, unless we are to believe these harrassers all acted independently, w/o influencing one another in any way.

    - when did media reports of phone calls begin, where did media's info of calls first come from, did frequency of calls and number of people calling increase after media coverage, or was there no significant change? How many people were actually calling? Who were they? Where did they congregate, what were their influences, where did they come from, what did they hope to gain from calling, what was their demeanor when they called?

     - I have to assume that that at least some harrassers were involved in the Q movement. What, if any,crossosver can be observed? what can be gleened from this

     - 4chan and 8chan strangely not attributed at all to these incidences, not anywhere ive seen at least. How? Why?

    - Did the Authors of "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook" instigate this on their website, memoryholeblog.org, were they ever associated at all with what happened, being that they were the original progenitors of the 'nobody died' narrative, and their leader, Wolfgang something, had compelling credentials. I'm pretty sure Wolfgang at least has since died. 

Halbig lives

Wolfgang Halbig is not only alive but it tuns out that before alex jones, Halbig and most his peers have all been convicted of crimes related to the harrassment of sandy hook parents, and not in civil cout, although I dont believe anyone has done much time other than Halbiig

Another figurehead, steve santili, or something like that, was also a member of the oathkeepers, and was invloved in the ammon bundy standoff, and later confirmed to be an FBI Informant (not an agent)

Most of this info comming from sandyhookfacts.com. The author clearly has a bias, but it is readily acknowledged and self-proclaimed. Soime of the early articles merely skeptical, but as the guy digs furthe into halbig, the aticles become much bolder in deameanor. It's like what frankreport.com was to the NXIVM scandal when that was going on, in a way. This guy, or his mates, basically chekced into a lot of the "Nobody died" arguments requiing info that most people are incapable of or dont know how to attain it..

- There's two important takeaways to the "nobody died" shit getting so outta control

1. 1. The 'nobody died' theory implies that while forces in our government may be willing to orchestate a fake school shooting to meet an agenda, they are not evil enough to orchestate or oversee the actual murder of innocent childen; which is patently false.
   2. It should be taken into consideration that

AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 12:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

1.

    - I've never seen any of the aformentioned discussed or explored anywhere. Wolfgang's involvement indeed seems to have been memory holed, though that may just be in effort not to draw more people towards his research and claims. What is the likelihood the memory hole blog people,including wolfgang, were just narciccists capitalising on a tragedy, what are the odds they sincerely believed nobody died at sandy hook, how convincing is their evidence, and if the concepts introduced as evidence are convincing, how much of it is presented out of context, with lies of omission, or simply untrue?

-what other mass shooting incidents in other countries have playe an inextricable role in the disarmament of those countries and/or others (Dunblane led to disarmament of entire UK, which is 4[?] countries)

- New zealand shooter almost certainly not aspergers or autistic

- For all shooters - were they medicated, or recently taken off any medication at time of shooting?

italic

bold

'bold & Italic'

<nowiki>[[Page link]|with different words]]</nowiki>

The only difference [[Use talk:AgentTorange|This should go to page you're on now]

---

Brainstorming

One way i like to brainstorm is to think of answerable questions i have about a topic. and write them free-assocation kinda.

Fee free to try it here, I'd love to see what you come up with:

Talk pages

Hello there,

Small note, if would be more effective if you'd tag someone when you use talk pages, as we don't automatically answer it like it's an public Facebook channel. We actually won't if we're not tagged as we're understaffed. Tagging is beginning the post with "!User:AgentTorange!" without the exclamation marks ofc. Therefore it maybe also would be better if you'd use your registered user name to sign off your posts instead of "my key" "sup d". Maybe I know who you are, but others don't. It's just a suggestion, think about it.

2. You also forgot on two talk pages to sign off using the 4 "~". In case someone wants to brainstorm with you, they won't know who you are. Please don't forget to do that.

3. Please use your own page for "secret pages", we are struggling to meet server costs, and adding secret pages with little known function doesn't help that. If you want to test all the templates or codes, would you be willing to your own user page or use template:test? Jun (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Sorry, all points noted. Not trying to be a douche. cant make any promises on the ~s, but i'll try. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 13:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC) No need to say sorry! Btw, brainstorming or sharing interesting things you find here on reddit would be a good start while you're new here. IF you want to, you could use our Wikispooks account https://www.reddit.com/user/WikispooksOfficial/, but you can also use an own acc if you want. Think about it. Jun (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC) [

Reddit

Saw your new acc. Heads up, we don't use on our subreddits on Reddit (yet). We just browse political subreddits (mostly https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/). Be aware that making your own account like you did, you can't post for two months on that sub. You can on https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/ Jun (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC) ah shit i thouht u were sayin i could like crowd source on the wikispooks subreddit. that's ok though, i cant believe none of those fucking redditors took /u/agenttorange yet, so im glad I secured that at least AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 23:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Style Guide

User talk:AgentTorange. Your new inputs are fine, thx for those. Would you willing to read the Style guide and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles? Don't worry about the refs or templates (and I sometimes get helped as well), but at this point we have to edit a lot of spelling, grammar errors, and the lack of punctation marks. Great tip: use this on Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/languagetool/ or this one Chrome https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/grammar-spell-checker-%E2%80%94-l/oldceeleldhonbafppcapldpdifcinji as a start. We really try to avoid multiple editors (like with Crispin Glover having to ask on talk pages what the source of your imput is (it can't be a ref with just more explaining from the editor cuz that will get us sued or worse, we need a website before you post the entry). Good example of a new good entry is Peter Singer. Just like that, it should read like an article from your local news station or your college library.

Any questions, feel free to ask. Jun (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

User_talk:Jun <<<just remembered you showed me how to do that. I read he style guide. It was awesome. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 07:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Great! Anyway, this was your input on "https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Special:Undelete/Outrage_porn/Recreational_outrage" where I wanted to point out your grammar on;

Christine Sacco: Firsy widely reported victim of recreational outrge on twitterShe tweeted "hope I dont get AIDS" before getting on a flight to somewhere in Africa, then arrives in Africa 12+ hours later to find that the tweet has lost her job and in general upended her life

^ Fame does not entail noteability here because Recreational Outrage as a problem should be gauged by how often and how badly it is effecting regular people. Where famous people are concerned, it is typically Cancel culture, which recreational outrage can be a catalyst of, but only noteably in unique situations; like if a mob permanently cancelled a celebrity by beating that celebrity to death (it would have to be a mob though, not a lone wolf). i can't think of any specific examples, but aside from mob justice, the only other noteable examples about a celeb would be like if Recreational outrage caused something to happen to a celebirty, but the fact that they are a celebrity played little to no part in whatever happened, or the people who did the thing that happened to the celebrity didn't know the person was a celebrity when they did it. </ref>

And the Crispin Glover page, yeah. I mean you where helping greatly with your input, just keep it short and readable. People that have entries google themselves, and we have over 1,2million viewers each year and 35000 pages to scan for sources. What a talk page should be is User Terje asks "what is the source" in a few sentences. Someone should answer: "Can" or "can't find it" in a few sentences with sourcing. You did that. After User Sunvalley also said I can't find anything, it would better if we then delete the accusations from the page or place this> (like that Style guide mentions), and mention you either deleted the sentence or added "" on the talk page. The additional research under "links" was not needed. That's the point. No harm done at all, just a tip. Jun (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

User_talk:Jun I see what u r saying about the sacco article now. On crispin's talk page, when i saw those links, i thought sunvalley had posted them as proof the letter was real, and did not notice where sunvalley said he couldnt find anything. So, instead of just saying the globe and mail article "looks wrong to me" without adding a explanation, I was just trying to avoid a protracted argument about whether or not the article was good enough proof. My opinion of sunvalley's acumen might have been subconsciously effected had you not pointed this out though, so I'm glad you did. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Quotes

This helps you how to place quotes; https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Quotation Jun (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

THANK U AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

SSRIs

And great input on the SSRI pages. I forgot that CBT section. Formatting was on point as well. Keep it up. Jun (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, i pulled those links off a post on dread. It's the only intelligent thing i've ever seen there AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

test

--What is your name?

- What is you quest?

-What is 

- your favorite color?

  --What is 

-- the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

space, then hyphen. same thing to do code blocks with nowiki, space then nowiki

AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 20:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Test quote

“The problem this quotation method is that it seems like its meant”
some guy (1864) 

{{SMWQ
|align=right
|text=The problem this quotation method is that it seems like its meant 
|subjects=quotes, testing, quote, smwq
|image=what if the image doesn't exist.jpg
|image_width=512px
|format=text
|source_name=[[wikispooks]]
|source_URL=https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Quotation
|authors=some guy
|date=1864
}}

just wanna see what the difference is between nowiki with a space in front of it and nowiki with no space in frotn of it and the same thing for pre in the same ordrer. posted in that order

{{SMWQ |align=right |text=The problem this quotation method is that it seems like its meant |subjects=quotes, testing, quote, smwq |image=what if the image doesn't exist.jpg |image_width=512px |format=text |source_name=[[wikispooks]] |source_URL=https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Quotation |authors=some guy |date=1864 }}

{{SMWQ
|align=right
|text=The problem this quotation method is that it seems like its meant 
|subjects=quotes, testing, quote, smwq
|image=what if the image doesn't exist.jpg
|image_width=512px
|format=text
|source_name=[[wikispooks]]
|source_URL=https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Quotation
|authors=some guy
|date=1864
}}

{{SMWQ
|align=right
|text=The problem this quotation method is that it seems like its meant 
|subjects=quotes, testing, quote, smwq
|image=what if the image doesn't exist.jpg
|image_width=512px
|format=text
|source_name=[[wikispooks]]
|source_URL=https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Quotation
|authors=some guy
|date=1864
}}

there is a new line betweeen the markup and the template text in each test case here. The result is they are all the same with the exception of nowiki with no space in front of it, which, I don't even understand what it did to the text there, or what situation you would want that to happen in

Money Laundering document

Either upload using https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Special:Upload if you want to include it on a another entry. Use Template:Document if its a document or Template:Publication if it's more a book or film or entertainment clip. Wikispooks has no notability rule btw, meaning; we accept sources from everywhere, but, avoid copying terms or language that we described as polarizing perspectives or enemy images in the style guide, so maybe try to find another source for the guide, but feel ok to post it anyway. Other editors will ask you questions soon enough if it's "off".

This is how a document should look when uploaded and given an template; https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Maldives_Revisited. When editing remember you can use template:test or "show preview" when editing. Jun (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages

Regarding what to do on talk pages. Nobody deletes conversations as we back up everything to stay transparent. So deleting doesn't have any effect, unlike on wikipedia. So, it's not a rule, but I'd say you be wasting your own time. Jun (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

i just felt like i was starting to dominate the bottom of your talk page a little is all maybe "archive" would have been a better choice of... word. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 03:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're not dominating it, questions are simple, our discussions like on https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine are far more intense (reading sources, precedents, etc etc) are far more intense, don't worry. During the holidays I'll probably be off for 3 full weeks. So, I'm just trying to "fast-track" your questions before I just turn off my phone on vacation. The other admins probably may become increasingly frustrated with you not tagging people on talk pages (which is basically talking to yourself) or posting more on talk pages than on entries without reading the style guide or https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Help:Contents :) Feel free to ask as many questions as you want 'till then. Jun (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

bah, i'll get it eventually :) - AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 04:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Media logs

Just like on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/, we do that as a form of transparency, also for our legal challenges. Quite strange you'd be against that, we're not a whistleblowers site or anything, and I'd think you looked on wikipedia and saw that we use the software, so you'd had to know in advance the site logs your login data. Not that anyone has ever got into trouble, as you're one of the very few using a VPN/Tor. So I won't do that. IF you still would want to;, go to Robin's talk page, and ask him. Jun (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Formatting

Normally, we can just add punctation and links and such. But sourcing, internal linking and grammar is really something you should do user:AgentTorange. Furthermore, I've already asked you once to add this: if you needed help in finding or adding sources to what your wrote, or should you find sources first and edit maybe less articles per week. Consider this a friendly but serious request to please not do this again. Jun (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)]

This is what I removed;

"When the Pfizer injection first started hitting arms in the USA, for instance, politicians proudly took to the pulpit to tell those who had been good citizens and gotten jabbed that could now go to the store, and in some states even without wearing a mask. Only later was it revealed that the vaccine took weeks to go into full effect and that it was not only pointless, but reckless, to have anyone curtail health measures they were taking before they had received a second jab (assuming they ever "needed" a jab at all). Pfizer was oddly silent as this bad advice was given, probably knowing that the vaccine mixed with natural immunity was the best defense against coronavirus (in terms of defending agianst contracting coronsa, other health issues notwithstanding) hoping that vaxxed people would go out, get the virus thinking they were immune, acquire natural immunity, then by the time they'd received the second jab, if they didn't contract another case of corona, they could say it was because of the vaccine, or if they got the virus again anyway, suddenly it would start being absurdly claimed that "no vaccines were ever meant to stop people from contracting viruses'" but that those who were vaccinated would surely be less sick than those who wrere not. This claim was never supported by viral load measures, and was therefore completely unverifiable yet repatedly multiple times daily for months by news outlets worldwide, while anyone questioning even that notion on any major social media platform would be modded or shadowmodded, to "protect people from misinformation.' In the case of vaccinated people getting less sick from the virus, the "misinformation" people were being protected from was the refutation of a completely unverifiable claim. This censorship being handed down by companies many if not most of the board members of which owned massive amounts of stock in the very pharmaceutical companies who manufactured the drugs they were applying censorship to protect the reputation of, for your health and safety"

Ok Jun that is literally the only thing ive written on here that i didnt sourcre, and the only reason i didnt put it in the talk page instead is cuz u told me to stop using the talk pages so much, and one of the special pages you linked me too said adding content to articles was the most important thing to do here, isntead of mulling in the talk pages or worryign too much about whether or not its perfect, so I figured I could just source it later, or someone else could source it, or add a {{cmm}} if it was that big of an issue, its not like what i wrote isnt accurate anyway, that's exactly how that happned, so here let me help with the formatting

"When the Pfizer injection first started hitting arms in the USA, for instance, politicians proudly took to the pulpit to tell those who had been good citizens and gotten jabbed that could now go to the store, and in some states even without wearing a mask. Only later was it revealed that the vaccine took weeks to go into full effect and that it was not only pointless, but reckless, to have anyone curtail health measures they were taking before they had received a second jab (assuming they ever  "needed" a jab at all).

Pfizer was oddly silent as this bad advice was given, probably knowing that the vaccine mixed with natural immunity was the best defense against coronavirus (in terms of defending agianst contracting coronsa, other health issues notwithstanding) hoping that vaxxed people would go out, get the virus thinking they were immune,  acquire natural immunity, then by the time they'd received the second jab, if they didn't contract another case of corona, they could say it was because of the vaccine, or if they got the virus again anyway, suddenly it would start being absurdly claimed that "no vaccines were ever meant to stop people from contracting viruses'" but that those who were vaccinated would surely be less sick than those who wrere not.

This claim was never supported by viral load measures, and was therefore completely unverifiable yet repatedly multiple times daily for months by news outlets worldwide, while anyone questioning even that notion on any major social media platform would be modded or shadowmodded, to "protect people from misinformation.' In the case of vaccinated people getting less sick from the virus, the "misinformation" people were being protected from was the refutation of a completely unverifiable claim. This censorship being handed down by companies many if not most of the board members of which  owned massive amounts of stock in the very pharmaceutical companies who manufactured the drugs they were applying censorship to protect the reputation of, for your health and safety."

There you go problem solved. Seriously it's like when a guy is on his knees with his hands on his head and one cop is going "LAY ON UR STOMACH" and the other cop is yelling "DONT MOVE A MUSCLE," except you are both cops. The whole point of a wiki is that its publicly editable and your coming on here to give me shit every time i make a tiny mistake. No wonder the userbase is so small, the turnover here must be unreal cause no one can follow your impossible contradicting rules. SORRY I'M NOT A PERFECT TYPER. SORRY I FORGOT TO ADD A SPACE BETWEEN TWO PARAGRAPHS, WHAT BLASPHEMY WILL I COMMIT NEXT!? go away. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 03:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

all you had to tell me was the formatting was bad. I'm not gonna scolded on the internet by some powertripping admin I'll never meet irl, especially not when I'm doing this for free and my intentions are good. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 03:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Formatting 2;

"There you go problem solved"

So why didn't you add a before pressing "save changes" like I friendly asked?

Of course jumping and adding to an article is the way to go here, but there has to be some standard that I've given to you through the style guide. :-) If you forgot to add your sources to an academic paper once, your university would've banned or suspended you anyway. "Oh, it was just once you committed plagiarism, ah well, carry on", doesn't work like that. WS is not that strict, but I'd say try to give the best impression of yourself as a new editor and aim for that bar. Please keep in mind readers need those sources or hyperlinks to know if it's indeed accurate what you just typed for them. We're not Fox News, we can't just talk from authority.

Anyway, the friendly scolding was because I'm not the only admin (and editor) complaining about several of your additions. So more people agree, and some suggested harder sanctions on your abilities to edit, to put it lightly, so I'm actually your friend still. That "the Jews did 9-11"(https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=The_Jews_Did_9/11&action=edit&redlink=1redirect) was not professional as well. I think you can agree as your summary of that edit was "I thought it was funny, please don't ban me". Again, the main point of focusing on your edits is to protect us from lawsuits and inquiries. This is why I've been sort of following you around on the site.

About the 831 registered editors; as you can see, most editors are here for half to a full decade, and we don't have a high turnover as we let very few people in (Corbett's video featuring us about Elon Musk has a comment section where people complain about that). I hope you will contribute to more in the future using our style guide and looking at other articles. You're still free do to so within given guidelines. As I've mentioned earlier, if you do keep this standard of editing, try "less articles" per week, as the admins on the site will keep following you, and editors will keep complaining to us admins to do smth about it. If there are any more questions or remarks, feel free to type them. Everything gets logged and saved, as you know. Jun (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Image deletion

I have just deleted an image you posted about 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which I don't consider a suitable subject for humour. -- Robin (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)