| Revision as of 19:54, 4 December 2006 view sourceScaredOfClowns (talk | contribs)3 edits Whitehouse using Misplaced Pages for Propoganda← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:22, 4 December 2006 view source Musical Linguist (talk | contribs)13,591 editsm Reverted edits by ScaredOfClowns (talk) to last version by Edgar181Next edit → | ||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
| :::Just for record… | :::Just for record… | ||
| :::Addition is quite clear I believe, imo the section is more then appropriate, if you would prefer a different one say so but I believe it should be brief and to the point. Have my apologies for such inappropriate reply, but your accusations of me reposting and disturbing the flow of thought in the moment in which I tried to summarize it and restore it did throw me of the track there… there is also this issue of repeating, since you keep repeating how I should state the case while case was constantly swimming in this little flow of thought we have here;). We had a few disagreements yesterday… let's leave them there? Lovelight 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)] 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | :::Addition is quite clear I believe, imo the section is more then appropriate, if you would prefer a different one say so but I believe it should be brief and to the point. Have my apologies for such inappropriate reply, but your accusations of me reposting and disturbing the flow of thought in the moment in which I tried to summarize it and restore it did throw me of the track there… there is also this issue of repeating, since you keep repeating how I should state the case while case was constantly swimming in this little flow of thought we have here;). We had a few disagreements yesterday… let's leave them there? Lovelight 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)] 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Whitehouse using Misplaced Pages for Propoganda (having you been following the suprression of this message) == | |||
| Whitehouse using Misplaced Pages for Propoganda (having you been following the suprression of this message). Basically an army of editors have been trying to get the word out about these confirmed Federal agents and have been surpressed over and over again. The Feds will not allow the message to appear for more than a minute anywhere it has been placed. I thought you shoul know. --] 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please copy this message and paste it to other talk pages you normally participate in.. Misplaced Pages's integrity is at stake. If this is deleted please revert in order to restore it. We're starting here on the less political pages to hopefully avoid detection before a significant number of editors are alerted to the problem.''' | |||
| Federal employees/contractors are now gaming Misplaced Pages's system to try to control the message on key articles and intimidate legitimate Misplaced Pages editors. Their ultimate goal is to make Misplaced Pages a proganda tool for the Bush Administration. | |||
| The possibility that this was happening was first raised . This is a snapshot of the discussion which will likely be archived soon. Also be sure to check the history, the archives and the archive-history to read further comments on the topic. Several of the suspected federal contractors participated in the discussion to try to redirect the conversation. | |||
| Later an announcement was made regarding this issue across all village pump categories, but it was quickly deleted. These duplicate messages posted to the and the Village Pump: , , , , and . | |||
| The discussion also leaked onto one of the key articles presided over by federal contractors, with calls for them to . The federal contractors maintain a near permanent protection on articles, claiming this is needed for vandalism reasons These claims are wholly unsupported and these articles do not face any more vandalism than any other article we legitimate editors deal with everyday. These federal contractors refuse to even allow a POV template to be placed on their protected pages as . | |||
| Incriminating posts were : , . | |||
| === Confirmed list of federal contractors === | |||
| We have managed to obtain a confirmed list of federal contractors, though there are likely many others: These US federal government representative regularly engage in policy and guideline violations; participate in endless disciplinary actions and dutifully preside over several articles to ensure they present what they call "the official view". The federal contractors also coordinate efforts in administrative actions to create the appearance of a quick-forming consensus. | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| There may be many more. These are merely the confirmed contractors. Examinations of their contributions will provide ample evidence of disruptive and intimidating behavior. However, some notable administrative actions include: | |||
| * | |||
| * . | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * ] | |||
| This is only a partial list of frivolous and arbitrary administrative actions taken by these federal contractors who have managed to raise themselves up to powerful positions in Misplaced Pages: in order to maintain a slanted POV for Whitehouse officials. . | |||
| === Policy and guideline violations === | |||
| These federal contractors routinely violate and show utter contempt for these Misplaced Pages policies: | |||
| * ]: gaining personally from maintaining a particular POV on Misplaced Pages | |||
| * ] (writing articles to meet no point-of-view): ensuring | |||
| * ] (words to avoid): using editorializing words to inject the Whitehouse point-of-view | |||
| * ]: using malicious and potentially libelous words to describe living persons | |||
| * ] (Assume Good Faith): accusing other editors and administrators in the most frivolous manner | |||
| * ] claiming ownership of articles) to maintain strict Whitehouse or what they call "official view". | |||
| === Satirical pieces === | |||
| A was posted about these contractors, but that too was quickly deleted in a very extended . While the tone of this piece is clearly meant to be funny, trollish and satyrical, the concerns are very real. We include it here to show that there is little fear of retribution from these inappropriate federal contractors. Not only will they not retaliate, but they are quite cowardly and acutely fear being discovered (as is demonstrated by the quick deletion of non-trollish commentary on them). | |||
| === Identifying tainted articles === | |||
| We had sought to identify articles tainted and suspected as tainted by Federal contractors. By including a new category <nowiki>]</nowiki> to indicate an article is confirmed or suspected of being a '''U'''nited '''S'''tates '''E''''xecutive '''B'''ranch '''A'''gents. '''C'''ontrolled '''A'''rticle. However, the federal contractors would not even allow the creation of this wikipedia category. | |||
| === Dangers to Misplaced Pages === | |||
| These editors and administrators have exhibited a virtual immunity to administrative actions due to their coordinated efforts within administrative measures. Not only do they maintain the POV and low standards on key articles throughout Misplaced Pages, they also make edits to policy and guideline pages to create ambiguity and also to degrade the high encyclopedic standards of Misplaced Pages. They continually use inane contradiction in article discussions, intimidate other editors and manipulate the administrative system to purge valuable editors and administrators. If this is allowed to continue. Misplaced Pages will be come a mere parrot of Whitehouse propaganda. Please help spread the word. | |||
| == Whitehouse using Misplaced Pages for Propoganda == | |||
| Check the Village Pump News history for just one example. I gotta go. --] 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:22, 4 December 2006
Hi and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for contributing! Did you know you can link to articles in Misplaced Pages by placing double square brackets around the name of the article you want to link to (])? And if you want the word to show up as one word, but link to an article with a different name, you can "pipe" the link ]. You can get other hints at Misplaced Pages:tutorial and Misplaced Pages:introduction. Again, welcome, and let me know on
Re: Starforce
Hi, Lovelight. Don't worry that your first steps into the world of Misplaced Pages have been difficult. From what I have seen from your contributions so far it is clear that you are a passionate, thoughtful person who is willing to put some effort into trying to create something good. In other words, you would be a great Wikipedian :P Anyway, I'm a little preoccupied at the moment with things unrelated to WP, but you can rest assured that I will be keeping a close eye on the StarForce article to ensure that there is no bias or unverified information that survives or creeps in the article. I hope you'll stick around and contribute more to our encyclopedia. There are over a million subjects to write about, so if you find that you run into conflicts there are surely other articles where your contributions will be more welcome. I noticed you said you were writing an article for a gaming magazine. In case you're interested, me and a few other Wikipedians run the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Computer and video games, where we would certainly appreciate your input in the discussion. Take care and hope to see you around! Cheers, jacoplane 23:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
LInkspam
Please stop adding linkspam to article talkpages as you have been doing repeatedly to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. It does nothing to help us make the article better. Thanks.--MONGO 07:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you're here to disrupt...start being productive and stop insulting others.--MONGO 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's the other way around Mongo, and you know it… --Lovelight
Your Myspace?
Hi Lovelight, is that your myspace URL on the 'user page' ?
- Nope, not my doing… That movie is particularly good tool, that's all. Have you seen this trailer? Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I read through your completely valid and important points at the 9/11 discussion page. I gotta say that Mongo is a fucking imbecile by the sounds of his text entries.. and to think people like him are admins here? *shudders* I quit contributing to wiki months ago after doing it for around 1 year. The arseholes who admin and pseudo-admin this page site are fucking legion and insufferable imo, cocksuckers like that brainwashed missing link get my fucking goat no end.
- Oh, but you shouldn’t have leaved, it is sad whenever quorum leaves forum:)… Stick around, arguments are arguments, logic is logical, Mongo and his drugz will bow to the facts… Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
These links may be old to you, but if not def visit plz.. very esp this 1st one which has a 1 hour documentary / lecture which led me to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. The ppl putting forward the evidence and theories are professors, civil engineers and M.I.T. physics graduates with decades of theoretical and practical experience in the laws of thermodynamics and physics and also in reality. (<--- you listening Mongo?)
http://911revisited.com <---- 1 hour film here, essential viewing bro!
best wishes bro, The Late Great Bill Hicks
Thanks brother…this sort of data will be referenced sooner then later… Lovelight 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This documentary is also essential viewing Lovelight.
"9/11 Mysteries" (watch this and learn about controlled demolitions) http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en
TLGBH
Hi L.L., I often see on these talk pages people saying things along the line of "its all conspiricy crackpots who question the official story.. where are cerdible doubters?" This first link lists a large number of credible patriots who openly question 9/11. (the second link is where I obtained the first link from) And feel free to delete anything I have posted on your page here, if it's getting to cluttered or if you are getting any hassle for any of my comments.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/southpark_911_episode_on_conspiracy.htm
regards, TLGBH
I thought these links may interest you LoveLight ;
US Army Announces Readiness for Total Military Takeover of America http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/us_army_announces_readiness_takeover_usa.htm
Keith Olbermann criticizes Bush
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7150467909517615896&q=keith+olbermann
Doomsday For The Internet As We Know It?
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/internet_doomsday_for_internet.htm
Also I was wondering why the information from the http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ link isn't mentioned or listed on the 9/11 page.. the link has quotes from members of the Republican party, US Army Generals, Ex CIA employees and many others who all openly, publically and vehemently disagree with the official 9/11 story. If their opinions on the tragedy aren't relevant to the 9/11 page then I dont know what is.
fbi
Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Your link title
Please see this note. I'm taking a wikibreak, so any follow-up will be by another admin. Please don't reply on my talk page. The article talk page is the suitable place for any response. You might like to read through the recent talk on WP:BLP. Tyrenius 03:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add potentially defamatory material, even to talk pages. Tom Harrison 15:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Guinnog 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI
have you seen this discussion at the village pump?
RFM
 | This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
 | Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/September_11%2C_2001_Attacks#Involved_parties my mistake on this. if you could inform the other involved parties (and fix mongo's) with the proper page, that would be appreciaed. I'm getting off
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Help us craft a real encylopedia article
HI Lovelight. I think the tactics the Feds are using are just to wear us down, frustrate us and get us to go away. It would be much more fruitful to spend some time editing the redraft article and return later when their guard may be down. And also when we've bult a strong concesnus among not Federal employees (I'm tole the wiki word for them is clowns) for the new version. --Cplot 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
an article of possible interest to you
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only imagine how are things there… in the trenches;)… I'll try to peek soon… brrr… Lovelight 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you give me your sources?
This involves the 9/11 article. I'd like some links to your sources for Jones, et al. so I can try to end the debate and solve the POV problems. You can either put them on September 11, 2001 attacks, under the section called WOT or on my talk page.--I need a vacation 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Certainly, but let us both relax for this weekend… I'm in heavy multitasking as it is, and I need a vacation as well… have a good one, weekend, that is…;) Lovelight 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence
I took a risky move and removed some of your comments from this page. I really didn't understand your argument, and I didn't understand why you included this letter, which made no sense. If this is a problem, I will immediatly restore those comments. The best evidence you have is the quotes from MONGO. Please let me know what you want me to do. i have not worked with you before, but I have seen your edits agains and again on the Sept 11 attack page, so I hope you are not offended. Travb (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I restored those edits: when Nuclear messsaged me. I would suggest rewritting your section. Travb (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it’s a problem. From my perspective that letter is quite an embarrassment (for me before anyone;), and it wasn’t easy to stick it there. However, I believe that it serves its purpose and that reasoning and intentions are made clear… If there is more need of clarification I'll add some of the answers I've got to that particular unblock request… they are even more embarrassing, but this time for whole wiki… I'd say that there is no need to go there, and I'd say that there was no need for MONGO to go there too… Apart from that, its pleasure to meet you. Lovelight 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect use of a POV-tag.
In this edit you added a POV-tag to a talk article. POV-tags are for main articles only. So now you know, and won't do it again, right? --Regebro 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly, and you won't misinterpret my intentions or disrupt the flow of discussions, it's not decent thing to do… so now that you know it you wont repeat it, right? Lovelight 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Don't be silly. I can not promise to not make mistakes. I never misinterpret something on purpose, which I'm sure you know. And I have not disrupted the flow of the discussions in any way. You however, by copying part of discussions for absolutely no reason, so that they appear twice, and by still refusing to indent properly, are constantly disrupting the discussions. However, I have no hope of you stopping that, so I won't ask you to. --Regebro 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just for record…
- Addition is quite clear I believe, imo the section is more then appropriate, if you would prefer a different one say so but I believe it should be brief and to the point. Have my apologies for such inappropriate reply, but your accusations of me reposting and disturbing the flow of thought in the moment in which I tried to summarize it and restore it did throw me of the track there… there is also this issue of repeating, since you keep repeating how I should state the case while case was constantly swimming in this little flow of thought we have here;). We had a few disagreements yesterday… let's leave them there? Lovelight 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lovelight 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)