User talk:Jun

Work schedule

Wiikileaks Cables - halfway done. Site update - automation ?

Gaby van den Berg

Another impressive page there. Tx --Peter (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Jun. Jun (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Own page?

I don't know the event, but sure, try a new page. For an event, I use this as a starting template:

{{event
|wikipedia=
|start=
|end=
|locations=
|URL=
|constitutes=
}}''''''
{{SMWDocs}}
==References==
{{Reflist}}
{{Stub}}

-- Robin (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Shorthand for links

Here is a timesaver for links. I've seen you use:

• B - ([[A|B]]) Looks like B, links to A

And also the following, which is not recommended:

• A - ([[A|A]]) Looks like A, links to A

The reason is that there is a simpler alternative:

• A - ([[A]]) Looks like A, links to A

-- Robin (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Jun (talk) Thanks. Jun.

Your Question

Hi Jun. Regarding your question about the new "NSDAP Germany" page ... I am not sure what will happen there in terms of forthcoming edits (if you look back at user accounts that have been opened here in the past ..). In the end and in general, you can take whatever you want from a page that you want to delete, put it to the page that remains, and do a redirect from the former to the later (like this 9/11 page redirecting to 9-11). I think as a benefit search engines can then find two options via the URL. -- Sunvalley (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

-- Greetings! Thanks for clarifying, I will try to sort such pages out in the future. Jun (talk) Update: Hmm, it worked. Nice. Danke Sunvalley. Jun (talk)

Signing talk pages

Keep up your good work, Jun. Please sign your contributions to Talk pages, so we know who said what when. I use "-- ~~~~" which looks like this:- -- Robin (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, I keep forgetting it from time to time. Even when requesting it from new users as well. I will do my best to not forget it. Jun (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

SMWDocs clarification

I see you've been active inserting an SMWDocSection. I'm not so clear on why. Are you looking for and failing to find related quotations?

[[Category:Semantic Templates]]
</noinclude><includeonly>{{SMWDocSection
|expression= [[Has objectClass::Quotation]][[Is about::{{US/Constitution}}]][[Has superobject::!{{US/Constitution}}]]
|caption_singular=Related Quotation
|caption_plural=Related Quotations
|mainlabel=Page
|properties=Has text/Has author/Has publicationDate
|headers=Quote/Author/Date
}}</includeonly>

The top line of this adds the page to Category:Semantic Templates, which is only suitable for semantic templates, not normal pages. The contents of the don't change the appearance of the page (see here for an explanation).

The intention of Template:SMWDocs is to be the one size fits all semantic template, so it should aready include all the SMWDocSection templates already. If pages don't show Related Quotations (or any such), it's probably because the SMW magic takes a while to work. Try a minor edit to page, since this often causes SMW to prioritise this page and update its rendering. -- Robin (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to check if it was still working after waiting for a day. I'll revert everything tonight --Jun (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Youtube re-upload

Bilderberg (Membership) -> deleted -> source -- Sunvalley (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. Added a back-up link from another user on YT while I'm getting a burner phone to be allowed to make longer videos on YT. Expecteded upload scheduled for the end of June. --Jun (talk)

This would be nice to have on YT in full, and this (but the later will get the channel into focus rather fast - I think, so I leave that up to you). THX -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Check. Give me a couple weeks. Jun (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)--

Hi, could you try to get this and upload to WS channel. Thanks. -- Sunvalley (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm on it. --Jun (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There is another WS Youtube channel did you see that? Not sure if that was discussed here, hence my question link (could be Peter given the topic in the single video that is there). I wanted to ask if you can again do a single video transfer to our channel this - that is Federaljacktube, he was known as Popeye (also Federal Jack), had a lot more channels with the same name and numbering, wonder that his one is still there, he went off-grid I think the last time I checked, and he was friends with A and M Dykes. He had all his stuff on an FTP at one point but I'm sure that is gone. Anyway, can you do this single video transfer again? Is totally curious how the Iraqi speaking in the video keeps so calm while all that is going on around him, also key things mentioned. Thanks! -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's Peter', I'll just leave it alone. I'm on the video, I'll have it on Monday. --Jun (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Jun, Any chance you could put this video up on youtube, for embedding in October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict? https://t.me/propandco/27 Terje (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Work(moved from User page)

Currently on vacation/hiatus, thank you Boris Johnson (i know boo him right, right, right). Still on extended vacation trying to spend all my vacation days until forced vaticinations become a reality. PS: Still no vaccinations! But still more vacation to come. --Jun (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Robin sent an email to Wikispooks editors a few weeks ago about some of the problems with the vaccination. Don't forget coerced injections, or even pressure to take medical treatments, are still illegal, both according to most national law and in human rights law and treaties. Telegram channel Robin Monotti Grazadei https://t.me/robinmg from time to time links to quality legal resources. All the best. Terje (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)---

How you're doing, thx for the heads up as I'm really having trouble disciplining myself as the COVID-pass will be mandatory next week here. Looks like I'll have to test everyday to just enter a mickey d's. I'll check that Telegram channel. If you have some other sources, feel free to e-mail me.. as I can't find Robin's message in my folders. Jun (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)--

New Round

Hi. You're closer to that info, so I just ask here. WE in this interview (~ 15:45 m) he says that "in September it is already leaked from the Flemish parliament, or from the Flemish Ministry of Health that the Covid narrative is restarted ...". Do you know what he means? Thanks for any support on the matter! -- Sunvalley (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, hope you're doing ok. WE refers to Belgium federal health minister Frank Vandenbroucke, who mentioned in a parliamentary commission that the Covid Safe Ticket should be permanently placed in law to permanently be able to add testing for entrance or even mandatory vaccination (which half of the federal government voiced support for and which the law didn't have), as it has been legally deactivated nationwide now. The law for CST is still active, so it can be reactivated with new infection rates, which makes this statement extremely on the err side of caution. Why WE names September as timing is because the inter-federal spokespersons of the Belgian Crisis Center for Health Emmanuel André & Steven Van Gucht named September a future "critical phase", and already announced plans for a booster campaign in that period. --Jun (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Belgium has no State of emergency by constitution and gives parliament no legal basis to temporarily remove them. Still, the Belgium government first ruled with their own made-up state of emergency law from 2020 to 2021 without any say from parliament, which was ruled unconstitutional by federal and the Constitutional Court, therefore effectively overruling the many layers of normally fragmented and never-being-able-to-agree Belgian federal, state, community and local governments. I think WE argues if even the Belgian parliament can agree, then maybe something is still in the works for next winter, either just a (continuation of the) permanent seize of power from (DS-backed) governments, of some new "scary" variant. --Jun (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not get an answer, with such details and from a person who really knows the stuff, on such short notice anywhere else. So really, really thank you very much for this. (!) -- Sunvalley (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Main Page

I've just made you an administrator, in recognition of your great contributions to this site, and in the hope that you'll be able to improve traffic with improvements to the Main Page. I also point you also to Test:Test, as a good place to experiment with modified main page designs. Let me know if you'd like help with SMW. I was planning to eliminate from the coverpage any links to pages lacking unique distinctive images, but I got lost in a sea of square brackets (MW is pretty ungainly in this respect) and shied away from it last time I tried. -- Robin (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll see what I can do and let you know when I'm stuck. --Jun (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

reddit

Hey i made a new reddit account /u/agenttorange. thx for telling me about wikispooks sub. AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Saw your message

Hey i saw your message not sure if im supposed to reply here or there, i replied there but also just remembered the czechloslovokia thing i put on crispin's talk page andthink that's what you were talking about when u mentioned getting sued. I'll try to more clearly convey uncertainty if something like that comes up again

im still confused about where i messed up grammar and spellng other than on talk pages, but i will read the style guide regardless AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 03:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

blockquotes

hey, how do you usually do blockquotes? I'm using <blockquote></blockquote> but its showing up with a white background, i can barely tell its a blockquote without the gray background AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 07:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Money Laundering document

hey I've got this money laundering guide I got off archive.org. It was written by a white nationalist group in the 90s, but its not like, there's one pro-segregation comment towards the beginning but no n-bombs or anything, Is there any appropriate place here to upload that?

Also, when I leave a message in someone's talk page, and we have finsihsed the conversation, is it customary for me to delete that conversation from the other person's talk page, to signal i'm done with the conversation, or do I let the other person remove it whenever they're ready, cuz it's their talk page?

login logs

User_talk:Jun Hey, idk if this is possible but if there's any way you could hide my login history from public view, I'd really appreciate. As long as my edit history remains in tact, I don't think this could be rationally construed as an opaque thing to do. It would mean alot.

You guys really should to update your pgp key btw.  An expired key is more or less useless (for most people at least).  You can either update  that one or make a new one and sign it using the expired key (signing a message with an expired key is much simpler than encrypting a message with one)

Idk if User_talk:Robin has given anyone else the private key, but i'd be happy to walk someone through the steps of updating it if interested. Or if the private key is lost then maybe just make a new key and hope no one notices. It is essentially pointless to list an expired key though, and wikispooks' key is displayed rather prominently. Its been expired 6 years now. No offense, but that's kind of ridiculous... AgentTorange (talk) {my key} 18:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources

I see you added VICE NEWS videos in several times lately. I take issue with those. I checked three vids, there might be more. The videos are all about ongoing things, so not history .. but when the reporting is about current political matters, VICE NEWS is manipulative. The one I think is the most real is with the raping Wagner soldiers in Africa, that could be true in the sense they present it. But are there no other sources than VICE?

In general, they are only good when you need info about drugs and hardcore degeneracy like this: [1] [2]. Geopolitical stuff may be ok when it is of little consequence to the empire. There is just one video report (15 min or so), where they sent Suroosh Alvi to Iran to check on their then ongoing drug epidemic, which was a current issue at the time, about geopolitics and was somewhat critical of US empire (they let an Iranian official say a few words which carried his meaning). Behind paywall ever since this I think.

The next video is that with kidnapped children by Russia. VICE has made the two or three camera thing, with changing the soundbite together with changing the camera angle, an art. The official that they interview, you could think that the seconds that you see are continuously ongoing conversation when they are possibly not, this may all be cut together to let that person be in the worst light. Case in point: That interview between Simon Ostrovsky and Texas from the Russian Roulette series. Texas says (paraphr.) something about Ukr Nazis "and you know that they are there man", and then the interview goes to another angle, but it is a hard cut and part of the conversation is missing ~02:45. Also what is that question towards the RU official being a war criminal? That is meant to set the tone, make her uncomfortable, a person that surely had that not much media (esp American media) exposure and thus does know what is coming, nice. +Mind you there was a Ukr official that spoke of thousands of rapes by Russian soldiers before she had to leave, these numbers may not add up. People should be evacuated in such situations (from war zones) I think we can agree, third country ok .. is not happening by Russia, but the whole demeanor in which this is is presented, US interest is projected through and through imo.

Last vid is "Out of Control: Ukraine's Rogue Militias". Like they talk, you wanna have a beer with these guys, hear some adventure stories, the reporter being in awe, smile all the time (could stand only half of it actually). There are other videos that were on YT as well. One in which they broke in into a house of one guy that was too close to the Rebels/Russians. They fixate his wife on the bed and get him into a forced posture, they put a saw wire around his neck and take his head off, the women screaming in the moment of his death. I probably won't find that again, have looked but no success. The reality of these types in contrast to what you get presented in VICE NEWS videos, I think it is a little offensive, to present one thing as another. What do you think about that?

So sources. I have copy pasted three things from our pages that I wanna cite here.

• "Unlike corporate media such as Wikipedia, this site does not have a "by domain" policy of deeming information either reliable or unreliable. Instead, evidence should be addressed on its merits."
• "all sources are potentially useful, so automatic assumption of good or bad faith is unhelpful."
• "Wikispooks is not a venue for extensive discussion of official narratives, which already have no shortage of airtime on big media."

VICE, almost per-se, is official narrative, and you are not citing a specific things from these vids, you cite them in whole as information source. I don't think that is a good thing.

And in addition, this may apply for "The Infographics Show" to some extent as well, which you also used recently, which appears to be the same guys as "in a nutshell" / "kurzgesagt", who are taking money for their videos, as they did from the Bill Gates foundation in their series on overpopulation. ? --Sunvalley (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Response

User:Sunvalley

There are a dozen of sources other than Vice. But as for as my research went, the accusations Vice made, are repeated by other outlets, as well as local[3]. Second, I agree that Vice often obfuscates political stories, at least slightly. But; Wikispooks has a simple policy about reliability of sources: - all sources are potentially useful, so automatic assumption of good or bad faith is unhelpful. So I've had this discussion with the admins as well that we need to keep reminding people that ccm may sometimes have useful videos for this site. Saying otherwise is a polarising perspective and violates the editorial policy. I will try very hard to remind everyone to please try to heed the editorial policy. So I see no harm in adding that particular outlet for this video or the others. Immediately adding videos or texts using authors only most experienced WS readers know goes against the Style guide on clarity to assume that the reader has visited (or will visit) any particular references. Pwiki shows that the most popular redirect on the Special Military Operation was the latin term "Casus Belli". Please be willing to keep that in mind. We always need to explain technical terms before you use them, linking to a full article elsewhere if available. Explaining the ON in simple terms (to keep the reader in mind, also the ones just looking us op on chrome or Safari mobile in their lunch break) is part of it, even with a simplified ON video from Vice. TLDR: This is my short answer.

About the abducting; I actually wanted to add it much earlier, but decided to wait as there were no independent videos from Russia, so I agree the position the page took looked skewed. Now that the Russian government and children’s commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova admits taking the children but tries presenting their explanation (again from Vice, but hey, they were the only one actually interviewing her one on one [4]), there is evidence to the story, and Vice is the only 1 on 1, so this particular video is relevant, so therefore I can even add another Vice Vid. In fact, I'm actually gonna add that Vice interview as well to the DPI page. I agree the US Interest is projected, well, every page needs a short ON (and videos with the ON help shortening it AND improve the bounce ratios and viewership per main core discussion and Pwiki stats), I have much more problems as I've noted earlier in the main core discussion with people starting stubs with one coast to coast AM blogger that found a ring light and starts going off for 15 minutes with no sourcing at all (remember ISGP Conversative CIA and Coast to Coast AM pages). Those actually often only can be quoted here, per style guide. That said, adding Belova's interview will explain all sides. I'd have to open Premiere Pro to check if the video was messed with, but the children are viewable in databases, and the Russian government actually gave Vice permission for this video. Regarding the US skewed point of view for the interviewee: these kids and their guardians are traumatised, ofc they will be startled by war conversations. So Vice, still good for these two videos.

PS - For example let's discuss one point: I.E: "People should be evacuated in such situations (from war zones) I think we can agree, third country ok .. is not happening by Russia, but the whole demeanor in which this is is presented, US interest is projected through and through imo."

I disagree, should've never been war there in the first place, and those parents should've moved east of westwards a long time ago. And "No Party to the conflict shall arrange for the evacuation of children, other than its own nationals, to a foreign country except for a temporary evacuation where compelling reasons of the health or medical treatment of the children or, except in occupied territory, their safety, so require. Where the parents or legal guardians can be found, their written consent to such evacuation is required[5]." So, this would be abduction. How neutral internaiotnal law is, I'd leave for debate, but if can be proved that parents per case did not agree in writing, it's abduction per Geneva law. Belova admits they evacuated the children. So that the children moved at least, is admitted. So, for example, I'd dismiss this part of your argument on a talk page.

Third.... "Instead, evidence should be addressed on its merits", this goes both ways. Vice can report accurate, just like RT, AL Jazeera, CNA, Infowars or independents truthseekers can. The talk pages is where we should be discussing factual lies about articles. Just like with what promised about Nato Expansion; everybody IIRC right had a piece, and we concluded, Gorbi said no, Lozo said Gorbi first of all was right, technically right of the elbe was USSR, so they never thought that would dissolve and verbal promises can't be taken seriously. That is the hallmark of a proper WS talk page. If you view a video is not adding to the page, discuss it on the talk page of that entry.

At last: about The IFG-Show; same as Vice - not everyone that takes money from Bill Gates is evil or bad. So, BG sponsored their overpopulation; add that to the caption, or just don't add that particular video. Are we supposed to not add the video from CNN that recorded the E-4B, just because CNN is controlled and spews out limited hangouts and nonsense most of the time for a particular liberal part of the special interests that sponsors and/or control them? No. We have to keep looking objectively at every video that is made by them, cross-check them, and try to see if it has some evidence of the things claimed. Even a broken (and made by Soros) clock is right twice a day. The Infographics video about Operation Northwoods was accurate enough about what the plan was. The tie-in to the JFK assassination or Interpen or Operation 40, 9-11 or who exactly ordered and let the BoP-invasion go awry does not have to made in a Basic ON-video about Operation Northwoods.

On a personal note; I've also started adding these videos because of the discussion (well, only Robin reacted months later) in the main core off-site group. That went nowhere, meanwhile, to place it clandestinely here, we can't keep funding the site and running the site like it's going now, with the non-reffing, vandalism, non-sourcing, adding on important pages for years, not using videos, gifs or more "modern" templates, adding non-existent cons or just adding stubs while poor Terje tries to kill them, the refusal to use social media, it costs "the people that keep the site up" financially a lot of their financial and mental health. Ask yourself why ISGP has dozens of academics and whistleblowers while being de-ranked for 90% and we have only 6 active editors while having 800k more viewers a year. Just the revert back to the old main page after some complaints while no one came with their own plan for re-designing the MP, according to Pwiki ( and Terje) costs hundreds of views per week for the past 2 years. Please rest assured that all videos (most of the ones you mentioned today I've actually have used on the main page or social media accounts before, with increased engagement), the captions (those are just the refs - which are mandatory by policy, which people refuse to add, even after the two lawsuits we were faced this year) - checking the sources, giving multiple or relevant (not neutral) viewpoints, do still adhere to the Wikispooks policy. Feel free to clarify your points if I did not answer a point, I did try to trim my response. Jun (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Response

How about an exhaustive reply, thank you for that.

my tldr: on rewatching I reverse on the Lvova-Belova video, rest same, asking politely to please remove vid from the Ukr Death Squad page + I have one more ccm/ON video to whine about

We do have the talk pages for discussions, I remember it, but I choose to write here as a first step -> the summary intake of those three VICE NEWS videos, together with "The Infographics Show", which seems to give the ON take on any/most matters, tipped the balance to raise the issue here. In addition, the Sky News "Ukraine War: Why Putin fears NATO expansion" (Russia/Encirclement page) is pretty much a no go under concerns, that was to be placed as ON?

Your reply is a bit all over the place, I will try to keep an eye on the original issue, your answer and also address what you raised in addition.

"I've had this discussion with the admins as well that we need to keep reminding people that ccm may sometimes have useful videos for this site. Saying otherwise is a polarising perspective and violates the editorial policy."

What I get from that is that one can not even raise the issue since it "violates editorial policy" (not sure if this applies here).

"I agree that Vice often obfuscates political stories, at least slightly."

VICE NEWS is clearly a tool of US empire when it comes to their reporting on Ukraine (and other places), most misplaced is the video on the Ukr death squads page, the direct question you did not reply to. I ask for the removal of the Video from there. VICE could have asked around for missing persons and the like, for all terror that was going on at the time, but they did not. The whole VICE Russian Roulette in Ukraine series from 2014 is one big white wash/framing operation.

The comparison to the CNN E4B video and the like is wrong, what VICE does is not just news items, they narrate a story favorably to US interest when required.

The Lvova-Belova video, I have re-watched it now, I reverse my view on possible malicious editing on behalf of VICE NEWS - which of course they do, but seems to me (now) that they're not doing in this vid. So your summary that the video explains all sides well enough is justified + it is a direct interview and (as you say) the only one. I also do not have the impression anymore that Belova did come totally unprepared, the question about being a war criminal is still misplaced and typical for hostile interviews, but whatever .. fair enough.

Below the video your write: "children’s commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova denies illegally deporting or brainwashing thousands of Ukrainian children." which is part of the message Vice wants to transport to the viewer. In the video she says that the kids were evacuated from immediate threat, which the law that they talk about and that you cite apparently does allow for (but then these kids should go to a third country which the Russians don't bother to do).

What is the DPI page? Depopulation?

On re-watching the Wagner raping/killing civilians in Central Africa video, it is hard to argue one way or the other. I will say this: The French pioneered counterinsurgency tactics, the British and Americans loved it and now the Russians having a PMC(s) on their own are offering it as a service too, the training. On balance VICE has reported on American drone strikes in Somalia for example, but you never can be sure what VICE plays up, and what it plays down, American drone strikes are a massive terror campaign. With all the US does around the world, VICE could probably fill half a day, every day (just a rough estimate) .. but they don't. I strongly suspect especially there, on that continent, they (Americans) can cause a news blackout on similar crimes by their troops, but no citation for that. Point is, with the American empire as we know it, there comes VICE to report on the crimes of Russia .. as I said, probably not wrong, but VICE generally is problematic, there are some African news stations on YT as well, nothing else in terms of reporting on the matter?

Info graphics show "Sinister History the Vatican won't talk about" - there is a good number of possibly excellent documentaries on the topic. These animated, short mainstream pieces, likely, do not do justice on *any* given topic and are always leaving relevant parts out, sneaking this, that and the other in .. therefore they are not *that* advisable, not even during lunch break imo.

People come here to find info that is otherwise hard to reach on short notice and the conspiracy angle on any given topic. Mainstream stuff like VICE and this Info Show you can easily find on your own, as a matter of fact, stuff like that will probably always commandeer the upper corner of the searches.

Summary: Mainstream sources can be used (I do know that) but given that there are also (sometimes very good) alternatives and given that you have thrown them in (mainstream sources) a bit lately, I do remind you of the original point: This is not the place extensive discussions of the official narrative. You say you have used these in the video section already, but that never was that interesting to me, the text of wiki articles is.

The other stuff (last paragraph):

we can't keep funding the site and running the site like it's going now, with the non-reffing, vandalism, non-sourcing, adding [citation needed] on important pages for years, not using videos, gifs or more "modern" templates, adding non-existent cons or just adding stubs while poor Terje tries to kill them, the refusal to use social media

Is this is all/mostly about me? You pointed me to no social media usage + , missing |const and "no refs" lately .. but also vandalism, how so? Forcing work on Terje by creating stubs?

Whatever is done imo, Wikispooks probably will remain as is, rate of additional quality editors that join will remain same. Views could increase by less suppression in searches and big social media (do not know how much, severe that is taking place, the social media), but even then, how much more viewership? It may have it's limits here. Possibly we can get enough reach to get additional sponsors to finally cover the hosting costs + some tech support, which would be good. On my part, towards what was proposed in chat (I deleted the old installation and have no archive so go from memory) "do what is clever", "let users decide" "engage!" - finally I say no, not on my end, sorry, I just add stuff that is relevant. When/if that changes I will get back. Finances I would like to discuss in chat, if I ever be added there again, had same trouble with S. and my PC + let me add this: It is not like covert "Stasi stuff" is not happening in Europe in 2023, or does not have some basis in reality at all .. so everybody can be/is taxed for being here, if only by increased IT surveillance, IT equipment NSA/GCHQ fuckery.

One more question: You have now, with some weight explained to me why these videos are exactly the right thing. You have been very detailed in your explanation/rationale. I can not help but think that you have been very conscious in your edits lately. What then about the initial version of the Wagner group that you created?

"The Intercept reported in 2020 that Eric Prince and Academi actively offered assassinations to be executed from Wagner on behalf of the American PMC.[3] "

That is just not there, not in the article given, or just very tricky to read, still wrong on the surface .. but when otherwise being highly exact in laying out the rules with what belongs where and how and under which circumstances, why write what appears to be fiction in other places? The crossover from Wagner being a hit-squad to far-west is also having no basis, at least not that you showed anything, you just said Wagner is a hit squad, and far-west is too (while the far-west article at the time only copied the list of possible/likely assassinations from JvR when general info was still missing and is scarce at any rate, all goes back to a few articles by Peter Dale Scott it appears) - is correcting that "vandalism"?

As for NATO expansion, promises, binding effects of negotiations, etc, that better does continue on the relevant pages. -- Sunvalley (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Response

User:Sunvalley

What I get from that is that one can not even raise the issue since it "violates editorial policy"

No, you can. It means an editor can always consider adding a "vice" article, and forbidding or refusing to consider an article because of the source goes against the editorial policy. Meaning, officially per editorial policy, our main and good editors like you, shouldn't be doing that, but I can't forbid anyone from doing it. If you refuse to consider Vice, fine, I won't. Doesn't mean I'll add Vice to everything, again, vid to vid basis. There are even outlets worse than Vice with the occasional good video. And yes, even now that Soros has a share in Vice since the buy-out. So, the policy says no "it's Vice, booooo" but "Vice, cut the audio, or there is no other independent outlet repeating this, or they didn't interview anyone of whom they accused, or they used plastic words in the article, maybe we should crop it or find another source". Adding Robin's reaction to me: "There is important info in more or less every source, I hope we clarified that somewhere". So this, from now on, is my answer to all "Vice or place outlet here is problematic arguments from now on" without discussing the video's contents as the editorial policy (and Robin) are quite clear on this one.

...VICE could have asked around for missing persons and the like...

This I agree with. Although I still think it still has maybe some small info to show as nobody (warm-heartedly we'll say) filmed them before the war except a few outlets, I removed it.

The comparison to the CNN E4B video and the like is wrong, what VICE does is not just news items, they narrate a story favorably to US interest when required.

Everyone narrates a story favourably for their own interest. Why you think sociology is popular in colleges (including mine)? Even altruism is debated as coming from psycho-ego-logical standpoints. That's a controversial part of human nature. From Thorndike's law of effect to Sigmund Freud and Herbert Spences. It's up to you to find if the actual content in the video is false.

What is DPI

The 2022 Invasion/Deep political impact page.

"Wagner is Africa raping Vice clips. Question: Is there no other Vice vid?"

Not from an independent force that is actually interviewing them. You have the Le Monde, then there's Voice of Africa (owned and accused of being a shady CIA front on top of being corporate media). Wagner is effectively a third rail topic in Mali because Mali has one de facto TV network transmitter; ORTM (all YT African news channels are funded by or France public or corporate TV, or the US non profit NGOs), ORTM occupies a quasi-monopolistic position as the only national transmitter and Mali is in a civil war, no African journalist has recently interviewed people and escape all these local misfits of jihadists, government units, and mercenaries from the US/Russia with Ecowas accusing Mali military of attacking their armies just to steal equipment. Also because most rape victims flee Mali or get killed right after (allegedly, but still) So I looked at precedents; HMR, EcoWas, DW and Arte, Actu de Cameroon reporting on Wagner in Africa. Closest I could get to rape interviews in Mali is one by Les Haut-Parleurs, but that's about 2012, and VoA is a sponsor of the network (even though it's local). There just isn't anyone in Mali willing to not toe the government line in a country torn apart by civil war, Africa24 on YT is the closest. But, no interview. Still, HMR, DW, and Arte in that order were deemed more willing like Interpol to not follow ONs even though chances are Vice their fixer[6] is prob US intelligence(-aligned), I deemed the vid valuable enough for now.

It IS hard to argue one way or the other, that's what WS is for, present multiple (not all) points about the subject of the page, so perhaps we'll never now but, remember; adding sources from all sources is permitted, so this was the best I could do.

Is this is all/mostly about me? You pointed me to no social media usage + [citation needed], missing

Not at all, apologies if you thought that. I meant everyone, including myself, as I cited the main core discussion (and I mentioned my lack there of being able to use social media as well). Ironically enough, I think my only argument I'd have with your content, would be the sometimes dismissing corporate outlets outright. Vandalism was about two "certain new editor's" that you also reported.

Info graphics show "Sinister History the Vatican won't talk about" - there is a good number of possibly excellent documentaries on the topic. These animated, short mainstream pieces, likely, do not do justice on *any* given topic and are always leaving relevant parts out, sneaking this, that and the other in .. therefore they are not *that* advisable, not even during lunch break imo.

Pwiki Data and Social media data says otherwise. Still haven't heard what was inaccurate per time-stamp about that video. I'll give an example: the Epstein tape with Trump at a party does not mention; Trump being listed in his contact list; being listed in a gang rape lawsuit with Epstein; using the same banker; Trump being listed in the Lolita Express. The clip even goes "we're not accusing Trump of anything". Now, is it a bad clip because it doesn't link all deep political ties together with all details? No. Because it has value to the page; it is one of the only videos on tape, where Epstein is at a party with teens, with a member of the Lolita Express Passenger lists. Not every video has to be like Corbett's 9-11 video's (that would be a great world btw :)).

Whatever is done imo, Wikispooks probably will remain as is, rate of additional quality editors that join will remain same.

Apart from that being not true in the past... and setting us up for even more potentially fatal litigation cause of the lack of funding or "proper workloads", which I'm gonna hint for the last time - almost ended up in leadership killing the site off 1 year ago...

It may have it's limits here

We are projecting 300k minimum in viewership to lose this year on year to year basis. Funding donations dropped with 10$ per month (and even more than $400 in total from our better days). Viewership simultaneously dropped with less of these short animated and short not-to-heavy introductions to topics on the main page redesign. Didn't you notice the Patreon banner going up.. again, that was also in part because I reported this in the main core discussion. Mind you the site "leadership" being really against asking for money to begin with.

Possibly we can get enough reach to get additional sponsors to finally cover the hosting costs + some tech support, which would be good.

Now I'm into publicly discussing our admin discussions but here it goes for one time; We can't. I argued for that and to pay some of us so that we i.e detach some of our editing. Costs too much. Leadership barely has any internet at speed. Most of us are working full time, and we keep funding the site from our own pay-checks as Patreon doesn't cut it. Remember the founder of this site was a businessman, he had significant amounts of money to fund the site. Remember Corbett in his Elon Musk video of our page? That video began with "a lot of people want a conspiracy site, and they start, but it almost never goes well for a long time). This problem is more urgent than you think.

There is a good number of possibly excellent documentaries on the topic.

Would you please be willing to add them..? I've spent 2 days translating the only 1 of 2 Gladio Dutch TV Docs, while working full time, I can't watch all these other docs and add them by myself. This would be more productive, than us discussing Vice. :)

On my part, towards what was proposed in chat (I deleted the old installation and have no archive so go from memory) "do what is clever", "let users decide" "engage!" - finally I say no, not on my end, sorry, I just add stuff that is relevant. When/if that changes I will get back. Finances I would like to discuss in chat, if I ever be added there again, had same trouble with S. and my PC + let me add this: It is not like covert "Stasi stuff" is not happening in Europe in 2023, or does not have some basis in reality at all .. so everybody can be/is taxed for being here, if only by increased IT surveillance, IT equipment NSA/GCHQ fuckery.

Would you be willing to "trust" the process of me/us trying to increase funds and viewership to the site then, as this just screams like the best helmsmen stand on shore. I'm the child of a mercenary. I've had 40 years cumulativly demanded against me by a court for stuff the secret service paid me a visit for. You don't see me quitting the site, now do you? As I did during the Twyman black-out, I'd advise you to just come back into main core discussion as we can't keep airing Wikispooks internal plans out here and try to help us at least keep the site have 900k per year.

What then about the initial version of the Wagner group that you created?

Apart from the title being "Erik Prince Offered Lethal Services to Sanctioned Russian Mercenary Firm Wagner", the article states that after reading the communication between Prince and Wagner, and an independent liaison of some sorts to Prince they summarised it as; "After Wagner lost more than a dozen fighters in Mozambique, Prince sent a proposal to the Russian firm offering to supply a ground force as well as aviation-based surveillance, according to documents viewed by The Intercept and a person familiar with Prince’s proposal." Which, fits the bill. I didn't re-add that wording from the lede back, because it's not explicitly stated beyond the lede, so it's not as if anybody is "limiting" the hangout of this info "hanging out" so the speak in WS terms.

Wagner being a hit-squad to far-west is also having no basis, at least not that you showed anything, you just said Wagner is a hit squad, and far-west is too (while the far-west article at the time only copied the list of possible/likely assassinations from JvR when general info was still missing and is scarce at any rate, all goes back to a few articles by Peter Dale Scott it appears) - is correcting that "vandalism"?

No. [7], this is some parts was vandalism. I never said Wagner was a hit squad to far west? Please show me where I said that. Third; this article from Joel [8] appears to indicate Far West to be, indeed, a very successful, if not the most successful PMC from Russia. Joel is rewriting his Russia Deep state (or Russia Superclass, he ignored us mostly, so no recent news on that) article as we speak, so he wiped the original, maybe that will enlighten us more.

If you have any more responses, or really want citations of everything (as I try to not add them in first instant to help the hosting-burden), would you be willing to let me know? I've enjoyed this talk and won't hesitate to keep it going if you want to, although I sincerely don't see the need. :) Jun (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure and thanks, let's continue on the talk pages. -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Telegram

Jun, While I remember it: Can you change the Telegram link on the front page to channel https://t.me/Wikispooks1 The last channel got banned for an alleged copyright infringement a few weeks ago, which I suspect was spurious. I have tried to restore it, but am unable to do anything about it - no good customer service at Telegram, no replies at all.Terje (talk)

Done. Jun, Administrator. (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA

Hi Jun, UNWARY is NOT the abbreviation of UNRWA (https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=UNRWA&diff=275661&oldid=275655).Patrick Haseldine (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I did not add that, that was the MaintainanceBot designed by Robin/Peter. I'm haven't deleted that as, while the bot IS disabled, we're supposed to turn him "on" again in the near future (per my wish when I get time to program him myself). I'm trying to automate or get the bot the work to some of our most popular sites, I'll block my own automation efforts for that page, thx a lot for the heads up!

Proof; see https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=UNRWA&type=revision&diff=149608&oldid=149607 Jun, Administrator. (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Mash

Hi Jun, The Daily Mash is a news site not a NEW site. It was cited by User:Peter and User:Robin in 2014 Document:The Dominant Grand Narrative Of Our Time as follows:

For those with a black sense of humour, it was all summed up by the headline of a satirical piece in The Daily Mash: 'Britain could miss out on crazy, pointless war with China, says important American'.

Could you therefore kindly UNDELETE my Document:Labour drops plans to stand at next general election.

As you should be well aware, satire is abhorrent to the deep state.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)