User talk:Jun

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)

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]), their 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 whistblowers 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) hundres 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)