User talk:Urban

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. Peter P (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (IST)

Hi, happy to help. Is there a sandbox where I can try out things? I want to create a page in the category Globalization to introduce the research of James B. Glattfelder. Urban (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2014 (IST)

That brightened my day! I have a 3 year old grandaughter who is into "Charlie and Lola" - current favourite episode "Goodie-the-Good". She toddles around the house chirping "Happy-to-help" at everything :-)).
Anyway: here's a local sandbox. Just overwrite whatever is in there. It can always be retrieved if needed by last user. --Peter P (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2014 (IST)

The PLOS Study

This would be best done as a regular page; Template:Concept is probably the most appropriate existing one. I suggest retaining the existing title of The Network of Global Corporate Control with credit, attribution and copious referencing to the Plos Study itself. Template:Document is intended for the verbatim reproduction of third-party articles, reports, studies etc., and its parameters are for provenance, attribution and comment on relevance to the Wikispooks project. Having said that, the full study is also clearly a candidate for verbatim reproduction here, although wikifying it and doing it full justice would be quite a task. If you feel up to that, then use Form:Document, with the same title. Both the article and Document can co-exist with the same title because Documents sit in a separate namespace with the prefix "Document". Hope that helps. --Peter P (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2014 (IST)

Well, thanks. I wanted to upload a pdf version of the published paper - and saw that it's quite a challange to fulfill the requirements of Form:Document. There is also a very good video presentation of the paper and I thought of embedding it. I'll try the path you suggest and move to more complicated editing later.--Urban (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2014 (IST)

I've uploaded the pdf and used Form:Document to add some basic information. Feel free to add to/edit it. Also, the existing Sandbox outline can either be included in the provenance sections (ie Comment, Author Comment, Note) sections or used as the basis of stand-alone article describing the paper in detail. I agree, there is some eye-popping info in it. --Peter P (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2014 (IST)

Late reply

In case you missed it, I have replied to your Document talk:The So-Called Evidence Is a Farce query. Sorry about the delay.

In addition to the watchlist and RSS facilities, you may find the RTRC tool useful in spotting changes you are interested in. Just use the defaults to begin with though a 30+seconds refresh time is better for server load --Peter P (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2014 (IST)

Constitutes

I trimmed some of your additions to the |constitutes parameter. The test I use to tell what applies here is "is" - if it is possible to say that "X is Y", then adding Y to the constitutes parameter is fair enough. So for example, while false flag attacks may play a part in a strategy of tension, to equate the two in this way is not quite right. I'm about to try and write a policy to try to explain why, which I hope should make my thinking more clearly. -- Robin (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Good work on the Gates cabal. I've made a few changes to the "Pharma Lobby" page, which is now at Big pharma/Lobby, since this is a logical subpage of Big pharma. Note the test above: Is it possible to say that "X is Y". So I wouldn't say that Bill Gates is [the] Pharma Lobby, though he is [a] Pharma lobbyist. Another idea wuld be to use for members of a group. -- Robin (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The question I asked myself: How can a network of people, organizations and events be drawn? I.e Listed on a page? I understand your point. To checkout how SMW works I tried to pull together a few pages; and it worked, see list of 'Examples' [1]

I read the documentation of template constitutes and so I (ab)used that for a tag. And I am aware things can get messy quickly that way. It would be important to keep track of tags, not overuse them and make them specific and unique.

I am searching for a cross linking mechanism which is not bound by a semantic meaning. The 'members' solution is a bit ugly. Maybe a new |connectedto parameter would do? From a semantic POV the link is action taken or goal promoted. Incredible power lies in the hidden networks and the capabilities of SMW to display these structures would be ok - if used in a more flexible way. -- Urban

Ah the rigours of SMW! The S in SMW is "semantic"; adding meaning should help rather hinder both analysis and presentation of the data! Let me know if you have suggestions on how to tidy the members list. The way what you describe is usually done is with categories and with a "See also" section. Both of these are deprecated, because they are less functional than SMW, and as such a distraction from thinking clearly about the meaning. The current state of Big_pharma/Lobby is pretty similar to what you created, but the "Examples" section is still a bit of a jumble in my eyes; I've just tweaked two of those events to alternative (and I would say, more precise) alternatives to |constitutes. What do you think? -- Robin (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

First, I am happy that a random page edit seems to trigger a SMW update. What I try to comprehend is, how over 10-40 years an infrastructure is now in place that informally executes WHO directives -- including vaccination, quarantine, testing, law making, declaration of emergencies, etc. It is like the "red button" in the cold war. And it is being pushed. It works on any regime, be it communist or capitalist. The unsoluable problem is, that connections in this pharma-biotech-military complex are sometimes foggy. Right now we have separation between people (lobbyist) and organizations (lobby) and that's ok. I.e the Rockefeller foundation is part of this complex, but not so much pharma related. The goal is IMHO CoG and the strategies (kind of 'threats') vary. So - the same people who push a virus agenda today may switch to something else tomorrow (when people realize the con game). And what we perceive as real threats my be 'military exercises' to the them. Mapping out pharma lobby is important, but IMO the intention behind the actions is the driving factor, what someone WANTS and DOES, not what it IS. I think SMW could capture that. It's also a semantic meaning, but not easily 'provable'.

BTW, I only see a single event listed in Big_pharma/Lobby - Event 201. I wouldn't use Perpetrators=Big_pharma/Lobby. I would map it out like constitutes: drills/pandemics, drills/terrorist, etc. Big Pharma and even WHO are only actors in disaster planning. The preparation is more harmful than the actual disaster when it happens, in other words. -- Urban 2 November 2024

Big_pharma/Lobby should get another section soon, as I fixed a gap in Template:SMWDocs by adding Template:SponsoredEvents‎‎. Meanwhile, "Terror drill", to follow your suggestion, which seems like a good one to me, could be moved to "Terrorism/Drill" (or possibly "Drill/Terrorism"). There is no hard and fast rule to decide how best to split it, but replacing "/" with "of (the)" and reversing the order usually gives a clue. i.e. JFK/Assassination/Foreknowledge = Foreknowledge of the Assassination of JFK. It seems to me to be more a "drill of terrorism" than "terrorism of drill", so that would point to "Terrorism/Drill", similarly "Pandemic/Drill", maybe also "War/Drill". Which other ones do you think might be useful? Another name such as "exercise" might be an improvement over "drill".

A lot of SMW experience has underlined just how much is possible with a small number of primitives, though I agree on the importance of intentions - although they are difficult to pin down, of course. I think this could be test case -- after some work on new page names and sub-page names, it might seem obvious which new relationship(s) (i.e. property) might help tie things together well. The page "Category_talk:Mooted_Properties" is currently empty, but would be a logical place to continue this discussion. -- Robin (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S Note that {{date}} just puts today's date, rather than recording the date you entered it, so "~~~~" is the standard way to sign off.

I'd want to capture "simulation (prediction) and exercise" together, as is implied in military exercises. I.e. exercise and simulation (of) pandemics (as part of) disaster planning would match event 201, and several "what-if"-studies based on "computer models".

Lock Step plans for a mix of disasters. Others: war (China, Russia, etc)), hacker, nuclear, hurricane, drought (climate), civil war, housing, food, immigrant. -- Urban (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you think about Event 201 as a "Pandemic/Exercise" or "Pandemic/Planning" or even "Pandemic/Planning exercise"?... I think I generally prefer the former, because "exercise" is helpfully ambiguous. This would suggest others such as "War/Exercise", "Civil unrest/Exercise". Possibly we could have "Simulation" as an alternative, both of which constitute "planning"? -- Robin (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What about disaster/pandemic/preparation ? Also ambiguous about the intent. Urban (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's try "Preparation" and see where that takes us. -- Robin (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)