User talk:Neutralizer

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Revision as of 21:22, 11 December 2005 by Bawolff (talk | contribs) (In regards to your email)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutral point of view and Consensus

These concepts are often mistakenly misrepresented here on Wikinews. I encourage everyone to actually read the definitions. I have noticed some aspects which some,apparently, have overlooked and redden them below;

"Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject.

Specifying exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position is difficult. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own are also reasonable. But Wikimedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to the neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities

Suggestion to put "running list" here on my user space

If you wish to keep a running list of perceived administrator excesses, omission, or malicious actions [1], please do so in your own user space. The water cooler is not the place for such lists -- and it will be archived at some point. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The archived conversations are accessible, yes, but one generally doesn't continue adding to an archive. Additionally, if you have a specific objection or problem with an article, the best place for comments is on the article's talk page. The best page for personal lists is in the user space. Please consider moving/continuing your list in your own user space. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I still feel it is appropriate for water cooler discussion and breaks no wiki-rules in that regard. Neutralizer 15:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I would have created a seperate page and formatted it to "look pretty", but suit yourself. Again, thanks...--Chiacomo (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Running List

[2] is the running list Chiacomo referred to above of efforts to delay,sanitize( titles + content ) and prevent publishing of stories which the current U.S./UK/Aussie government administrations would likely want to see delayed,sanitized or go un-published;

For the record (and for what it's worth) - I, MrMiscellanious, have never been employed by any government in any way, shape or form. --Mrmiscellanious 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
mute point above. doesn't really matter "why". Also, have to say, reminds me a bit of "I never had sex with that woman!"- William Jefferson Clinton.:) Neutralizer 13:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
lol iv never been a chef but i still cook. great list of ingredients by the way--Whywhywhy 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Spurious Blocks

4 in the past 6 weeks by the same admin.

___________________________________ --from Block Log[47](which has no "history" tab)

01:16, 6 November 2005 Eloquence unblocked User:Neutralizer (6 months block excessive, change blocking policy first, do not make policy through excessive actions)

21:11, 5 November 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 6 months (Consistently disruptive user, POVioring in articles, project pages, talk pages.)

14:33, 23 October 2005 Amgine unblocked User:Neutralizer (Incorrectly blocked by me.)

07:26, 23 October 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 3 days (3RR violation -

01:07, 7 October 2005 Amgine unblocked User:Neutralizer (Lack of basis to block beyond disruption)

00:13, 7 October 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 3 days (Repeated publication to lead articles of disputed, unpublished article. Main page vandalism.)

20:55, 3 October 2005 Eloquence unblocked User:Neutralizer (inappropriate block; no personal attack which places other users in danger)

00:34, 3 October 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 3 days (Repeated personal attacks on Wikinews:Administrators after warning on user's talk page.)


one example;

Neutralizer, I've blocked you for 72 hours for 3RR violation on South Thailand insurgents blamed for five bombs. This a particularly egregious series of reverts indicating bad faith editing on your part because the term "insurgents" specifically indicates people fighting against a government without implying positive or negative value judgements. The evidence of your 4 reverts within 24 hours may be see at:

- Amgine / talk 07:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutralizer, I've removed the 72 hour block. I counted four changes to the same text, but only 3 of these were reverts. I still consider the edits to be in bad faith (see Wikinews:Etiquette), but do not feel the specific case would warrant more than a 24 hour block. - Amgine / talk 14:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment; the block was removed only after the Bellman told Amgine he was going to remove it [48]. I had alerted Amgine much earlier that the block was not justified.

Your approach to Wikinews, in my opinion, is focused on articles. This is a common approach, but probably not the most valuable. I suggest you reconsider that Wikinews is not about articles, but about developing and maintaining an online community; the articles are secondary. - Amgine / talk 14:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment; the last sentence above is something all of wikinews should be concerned about; (especially coming from an admin. with blocking power who does not have a wikinews discussion page and whose wikinews user page says "I quit")...unless we think it's ok for our admins to want this project to be a chat club 1st. and a news platform second. Neutralizer 13:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Bird Flu info box

I've only had one or two minor disagreements with you over article content, but I suspect your own political preferences are colouring what you think of as neutral point of view. I.e. you're not as aware of your own inherent bias as you could be. Try bringing in new stories instead of doing edits to stories that are likely to be controversial. Or do things like get more to grips with wikinews "features". One thing I noticed in the past couple of days is we have numerous Avian Flu stories, but no infobox or category for them. If you look at the ones I did for South Thailand insurgency, you could copy and edit the code and just add in a graphic - perhaps there's something on WP's Avian Flu or H5N1 articles that could be useful? Brianmc 13:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
One mistake, you've put "category=Avian Flu infobox", change that to "category=Avian Flu" and add that category to flu articles. They'll start to appear in the infobox, which is set to limit to the last five. You'll then need to create the new page for the category, just edit it and copy the template from a minimal one elsewhere. Also, add the category Health to both the infobox and the new Avian Flu category, then Avian flu will be listed as a sub-topic of the Health category and any story with the infobox will automagically have category Health.
For the Wikipedia bit, you've actually listed Wikinews links to stories. What should go there are w: links to things like the Wikipedia article on Avian Flu, and the H5N1 virus. (The articles will appear in the top bit).
When you're happy the infobox is listing articles add the double curly bracket enclosed Avian Flu infobox to an article and see the result (You'll have to rename from Bird/Avian Flu to Avian Flu infobox.).
Hope this helps! Brianmc 14:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I love the template... --Chiacomo (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Me too, good job man. --Wolfrider 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll try and think of a better way to explain the category bit... You should just need to add the category to an article. It will then appear as a red link which will take you to editing a new Category: page. Edit another category page - like the South Thailand insurgency one - and copy the code to make the page list stories. Brianmc 15:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I just added Category:Avian Flu to the tamilflu article, you'll now magically have an article in your infobox. Check the article diff to see how that worked. You're really close to having this working, keep at it - sorry there's no good guide on WN, I'm learning by experimenting with other folk's code and have had a few problems. :)
Point to raise... Do you now see why I said don't link directly to articles in the infobox? I'm sorry I can't explain how the wikicode is working better, but as a software guy it makes sense to me very quickly. Brianmc 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Your efforts are not going unnoticed. :) I just saw someone add Category:Avian Flu to a slew of articles. Brianmc 21:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't resist cropping out the out-of-place links to articles, but someone else looks to have done a really nice and informative set of links in the lower half of the box. Couldn't find a recent article to put the infobox on, but if I spot a developing story on the topic I'll put it there and let you know. Brianmc 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If this doesn't get edited out, European Union to issue new bird flu warning should have the infobox. The actual article isn't listed as it is still in develop. Brianmc 22:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to say good work on the infobox. I made a couple minnor changes and added Category:Avian Flu to a bunch of articles. Looks nice. If you find any archived articles needing a category tell me and i'll put it on them. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 22:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I do wonder if you (Neutralizer) now need to be "careful" with how you report on the Bird Flu? You know, steer away from pesky things like facts? There is a lot of evidence to show that the Bush administration has dragged its feet on the Avian flu menace and continues to do so to this day at America's peril. There is also the creepy fact that Donald Rumsfeld's company stands to profit from the bird flu just as some Bush admin related companies have profited from ignoring 911 and hurricane Katrina warnings (Halliburton used in Iraq & Katrina cleanup, etc.). I wonder if you'll be able to tell the truth/facts about this or if you'll be squashed from telling the truth in the name of "NPOV"? It will be interesting to see if this article pans out with facts or right-wing POV enforced omissions. Rumsfeld bird flu story: related: Rumsfeld with company that basically allowed N. Korea to possess dirty weapons: --- To find more bird flu info: check out the World Health Org (WHO) and medical experts all over the United States (and the world, for that matter) that have long been announcing dire, public warnings about it. Look at how long ago legitimate experts have been raising alarming warnings AND how long it's taken before Bush has even mentioned the threat (much less start to do anything about it). This delay is cause for great concern (especially considering the Bush admin track record in this regard) and there is no reason to give ANY American president "a pass" on this. To do so is a disservice to America and truth in journalism. For the sake of NPOV, you should of course find out what excuses the Bush admin is giving for this very late, slow reaction to this dire threat to the United States. But, to outright omit these facts does NOTHING for a NPOV and only walks a political right-wing lie/line. I hope you do the right thing and report on the facts (i.e., major health org. initial warning timeframes juxtaposed with Bush admin reaction timeframe). This should be done in a free country no matter who is in the White House. Let's see if we are still in a free country... with a free press... with a free wikinews that TRULY can handle a NPOV. 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I responded to this patriot on his talk page. Neutralizer 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Avian Flu Sources

Please see the post above from Brianmc 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

ok; I'm starting to put together weekly feature stories on birdflu with publishing deadlines of 10am est Sundays. I am keeping the raw data and drafts here and at [49] feel free to create or destroy the drafts.

Suggestion for putting a {{flag}} on the water cooler

Apologies for communicating with you outside the mediation...But if you'd like to keep your list on the talk page, and so long as the community doesn't mind, you might consider adding a the {{flag}} to the list. It should then be listed in the top list of community links on the water cooler. - Amgine 05:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Many thanx for your copyediting of"US use of phosphor in Iraq might be a warcrime". My english is far from perfect...International 06:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Amgine Rejects Mediator's Suggestions ; Neutralizer Accepts Them

For any who are interested in reading; [50] Neutralizer 04:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

nuremberg and bush/nazi connections and krupp

hi neutralizer, one of the questions in wikinews is "what is news?" and to what extent can we cite events without context and to what extent is it relevant that some powerful person makes some statement. i tend to agree that the paragraph you put about krupp is probably not quite right for wikinews - it's a lot of background (context) - i think it's reasonable that any context is relatively concise and that the reader goes to wikipedia for the main context. i don't know if i'll have time to prepare something on this in a way which is NPOV and is consistent with the principles of what wikinews is. IMHO the Chomsky citation is justified because Chomsky is (according to WP (wikipedia)) the 8th most cited author ever.

The Krupp/Prescott Bush/Hitler connection is more difficult, unless some known personality makes a statement about this. Much as you and i may feel that this is highly relevant context, wikinews is not intended to be neutral, it is only intended to be NPOV. There is a big difference between neutral and NPOV. If there was a claim that Prescott Bush should have been tried in Nuremberg, as a financer of the Nazi regime, then that would give some justification. But i'm not an expert on this - i don't know anyone has claimed that Prescott Bush should have been tried.

Please do not get too frustrated in consensus-type negotiation over content in wikipedia and wikinews: by definition, although the community is dominated by people willing to accept rational, sourced statements, it is also, by definition, dominated by those people with the best internet access, comfortable with the web and good enough with writing skills and, rather boringly, but importantly, typing skills. And it makes no claim to be directly rooted in local communities dealing with real human rights problems - the base is very much virtual.

It is unclear whether wikinews will evolve in the direction of becoming participative, independent media (as in indymedia) - i certainly see no harm in trying, but it's an intrinsically difficult problem, since the starting assumptions of the community are those derived from the dominant propaganda system. And i have to (partially) agree with the comments above about community: articles are written by a network of people - a community. It's a much less hierarchical community than in any authoritarian medium (traditional newspapers), but it's still a community.

One of the things that shows the limits of the wikimedia community is the fact that a blatantly false statement remains on the front page of Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This is a false statement: 90% of us have no internet access and therefore cannot edit the wikipedia.

i've heard some attempts to justify the false statement such as but if you're reading the page, then you can edit it or anyone in the world can potentially go to an internet connected computer and edit the wikipedia or it will be true in the future when people have more internet access or it's like saying that anyone can visit Trafalgar Square in London, but none of these are valid counterarguments. i've mentioned this a few times - wikinews makes a correct statement - Wikinews, the free news source you can write! - this is correct, at least in the electronic version, though it would not quite be true in printed versions.

Anyway, if you take the time to do things carefully, people in the wikipedia community will accept them - even if it can be slow and frustrating at times. :) Boud 20:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Some words of advice

I am writing under the assumption (cf. "Assume good faith") that you are interested in making a positive contribution to Wikinews in terms of article content.

You have been blocked for a month. I have stated to you that I support this block. I do not consider deadminship fights a constructive use of anyone's time on Wikinews. If we successfully form the ArbCom, you could try going through that process, once. But RFDA is specifically for abuse of admin privileges such as deletion or blocking. Any use of the page for other complaints is disruptive.

You now have a month to think about what you want to do on Wikinews, if anything. Do you want to "expose" other users and their biases? This is likely to lead to further escalation, further disruption, and an extension of your block. Or are you interested in writing good, neutral articles on pertinent political topics?

If it is the latter, then why not prepare articles on this page and ask others to edit and publish them? Create an "Articles in progress" section on your talk page and start working. Try to avoid loaded language where an accusation is already part of the headline. Let the facts speak for themselves.

If you spend this month working on articles, rather than constantly accusing other users of wrongdoing, I'm certain the block will be lifted and remain lifted while you engage in such constructive behavior.

There is no grand political conspiracy on Wikinews one way or another. Ideological alliances tend to be a fickle thing in wikis where people constantly argue over completely different issues, and will disagree with each other sooner rather than later. There are what could be called "community alliances", people who support each other because they respect each other as members of a community, regardless of whether they disagree. I think such alliances are a bad idea, as they tend to lead to little exclusive clubs and cabals, and mutual reinforcement of bad decisions. But these are not political alliances.

You don't have to become friends with everyone here. But unless you can point out clear and serious violations of policy, I suggest trying to work with them, constructively. It is in the nature of this project that people of very different ideologies must be abe to collaborate. Otherwise the NPOV cannot be sustained. So, please, make an effort to cooperate, rather than fighting other users.

I have argued in the past against long term blocks of your account, partly because I think the process used was unacceptable, and partly because I think you have an honest urge to contribute to Wikinews, and I'd like you to focus on that. My opposition to these blocks doesn't mean that I think your behavior was unproblematic. If you will now use this talk page as nothing more but an attack platform against others, I will have no qualms supporting an extended block against you should the issue come up again. --Eloquence 01:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Thanks. Neutralizer 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My Own POV

I am struck with the clarity of Eloquence's comments above. I wish to say I agree with him that on wikinews there is "no grand political conspiracy..these are not political alliances". I just think I'll take a moment to explain my own POV for clarification purposes. What I do believe is that we are all brainwashed (not only by governments but also by our exposure to domestic media messages and cultural conformity) in varying degrees about varying things...and it's the brainwashing that I hate...whether it be the type that lures youngsters into smoking something that brings cancer into their lungs or the type that brings bombs into people's homes. I believe that open and free out of the box thinking always leads to friendliness and warm feelings toward others, simply because that's the only path that brings any peace of mind.
Apparantly 80% of Pakistanis think bin Laden is a great guy.....they are mostly brainwashed into that view; and if we had a "Pakistan Wikinews" there would likely be well intentioned contributors there who would try to mitigate articles about innocent civilian deaths and other misdeeds caused by bin Laden's efforts as they would likely feel he is a man of good intentions and that our western leaders are the evil ones. Here on wikinews en. we have contributors and an audience that has been largely brainwashed into believing that however clumsy our western leaders are, they are men of good intentions and, certainly, the killing of civilians by our bombs does not pose the same degree of evil as the killing of civilians in New York office towers...because we don't target civilians.
I wonder if any of us had 4 dead children and 2 were killed by a 500 lb. coalition bomb that targeted and also killed an al queda leader in the next apartment...and 2 were killed by an al-queda suicide bomber while they were at a wedding...I wonder who of us would differentiate in the degree of anger we felt at the sources of the deaths of our children...or our brothers..or our sisters..or our parents?? Thus far, our side(the side of "good") has killed more civilians than al-queda has; even including the victims of 9/11.[51][52]
I am really angry that my country, the United States of America, has been hijacked to the point where a recent CNN poll showed that 97% of americans do not believe that congress is representing their interests (negating"for the people"); to the point where there are now 8 full time lobbiests for every member of congress; to the point where 2 political parties have changed the rules so that only the rich need apply(negating"of the people") and they can simply stay in power(negating "by the people") and our choice as voters is tweedle dee or tweedle dum. I am angry about the systematic dumbing down of the voters by starving public education; the most powerful people in america have successfully manufactured a society of indebted shoppers with no more social conscience or political presence than a mole. In 1948 the illiteracy rate in america was 3%; today it's 18%. We are becoming Brazil and India..a small filthy rich elite class being served by the other 90% who can't afford to get their children's teeth fixed or a prescription drug they need or even to see a doctor once per year...our middle class is evaporating. Small town kids from poor families go off to fight, often because then their crappy university education will be paid for, while our President's 5 nephews, 2 daughters and 3 nieces who are all in the prime military age bracket stay home and out of uniform. Out of 533 members of congress, how many have a family member in uniform ? 3 How many in Iraq ? 0. The ultimate classism; sending the poor to die for the rich.
What's all this have to do with wikinews? We are living in the middle of the fastest and most profound deterioration of civil rights and civilized behavior in history; because in case anyone hasn't noticed; the whole planet is becoming americanized and our values will be every country's values; fraud,classism,hypocrisy,threats,violence,security obsession,invasions and torture. It is as if we have a newspaper in Oświęcim and we have credible,detailed reports of the horrors in the Auschwitz concentration camps. Our job is to report the facts..and if they are only horrific with no other POV to balance the story; then so be it.
Imo there is absolutely no justification for us to call one war maker a "terrorist" and not the other. To me the only difference is 1 wears a robe and the other wears a suit....and the only way to stop this runaway train (carrying a cargo of lost civil and political rights,19th century classism,suspicion, fear, geopolitical blackmail,intimidation and aggression) is through reporting the basic, naked unsanitized facts; because people are basically good, honest,fair and reasonable; and simply by knowing and facing the facts they will reject the downward spiral and move humanity toward that elusive path that everyone here can see out of the corners of our eyes. There's nothing wrong with presenting both sides of a story when there are two sides to present. With some stories (like Auschwitz or Abu-Ghraib) there is only 1 side...and to try to sanitize or whitewash this type of story is nothing more than putting lipstick on a clutter up a news story with garbled qualifiers and esoteric,deflective rhetoric is nothing more than boorish littering. That's my pov. Neutralizer 23:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious POV; In relation to global news events/world leaders, I believe this applies;

"This is the verse your pastor,preacher or priest may not want to talk about;

Ephesians 6:12 'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood; but against principalities, against powers,against the rulers of the darkness of this world,against spiritual wickedness in high places.'"

Articles in progress

As suggested by Eloquence above; I have prepared this article for any other wikinewsies to edit and publish as/when any of you wish.

Bird Flu "Feature" Article #1
ready for move to "developing" as of Nov.27 @9:20 AM
    Title= The greatest enemy of all--Infectious Disease

"The 1918 has gone: a year momentous as the termination of the most cruel war in the annals of the human race; a year which marked, the end at least for a time, of man's destruction of man; unfortunately a year in which developed a most fatal infectious disease causing the death of hundreds of thousands of human beings. Medical science for four and one-half years devoted itself to putting men on the firing line and keeping them there. Now it must turn with its whole might to combating the greatest enemy of all--infectious disease";from The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1919.

The Bird Flu of the early 20th century was named the Spanish Flu and was also known as La Grippe. It was a severe strain of avian influenza which killed up to 50 million people worldwide in 1918 and 1919. It was caused by the H1N1 type of flu virus, which is considered similar to today's bird flu virus types H5N1 and H5N2. The Spanish Flu is credited with as killing as many american servicemen,43,000, as were killed in European WW1 battles. 28% of all americans caught the virus and 675,000 died from it. As with the expectations of the current strain, the flu was most deadly for the healthiest people; those in the 20-40 age range (death comes from one's own immune system, so the stronger it is, the more likely one is to die from bird flus).

In 2005, the world's leaders and governments are trying to prepare for a repeat performance by the killer bug. 1.48 million chickens had been culled in just one region of Japan alone (Ibaraki). Health experts are warning that a mutation of the virus may be transmittable between humans, just as it was in 1918. In the U.S., the Bush administration is currently calling for states to spend $510 million for flu fighting drugs, which might reduce the severity of the flu. President Bush is also asking Congress to set aside $100 million to help states prepare and plan.

Bird Flu
I am a biologist who has done laboratory research with viruses and I have taught microbiology to medical students. I have participated in editing some flu-related articles at both Wikipedia and Wikinews. I think it would be useful for Wikinews to produce an article that related the current concerns about a possible new flu pandemic to what is known about the 1918 flu. There is also an embryonic article kicking around that could be used as a starting point for an article that would discuss flu vaccinations and other ways of dealing with the flu. What I would ike to see is a series of articles that do not report the latest flu-related "event" but which explain what is going on and what can be done about it. One possibility would be to do the background research through Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 14:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have suggested to JWSchmidt that he would be the perfect editor to write the story he is talking about. Neutralizer 16:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I had a chance to add mention of what I think are some of the most important issues about the biology of the H5N1 bird flu that make it of concern as a possible source of a new pandemic flu virus. I suggest that you do an edit of the current version and then I'll move it to Wikinews for the next round of development. I'm still not sure if you want the emphasis to be on current attempts to prepare for the possibility that a variant the H5N1 virus will start to spread from person to person. --JWSchmidt 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Privacy promised for text messages ($40,000 reward if code broken)

Two Czech programmers; Dr. Marian Kechlibar 27, and Jiří Šatánek, 31, have devised SMSOO7. A program that codes text messages so well that no third party; secret service,police, or even mobile phone operators can read them. Dr. Kechlibar is a mathematics professor at the Charles University in Prague.

"We felt that there is too much phone tapping going on in this country," Šatánek said. "Everyone has a right to their privacy." The two are working on a version (set for release next summer) that will code cell telephone messages as well. Their Prague company, Circle Tech, is offering a 1 million Korona reward ($40,270 U.S.) to anyone who can crack their code.

The program took about a year to develop and uses AES, a symmetric cipher. There are two keys to their code, one on the sender end and one on the recipient end. The keys to the code are not generated until after a person installs the software on his or her mobile phone.

They are also working on a code that cipers regular cell phone conversations, which they hope to release it next summer. __________________________________________

U.S. Public Relations firm engineered/sold Iraq invasion from 1991-2002

  • Mark Borkowski, "The real sultan of spin", John Rendon is one of the most powerful men in the world, but the PR specialist rarely comes of out of the shadows," Mark Borkowski, posted online January 31, 2005. Also, the Independent (UK)($), posted January 31, 2005.

Wikinews photo of the month (imo) December'05!

Protesting workers in Ljubljana's Congress Square;LET FREEDOM RING, AND RING,AND RING :)

that is a nice picture. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 18:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


  • I'm not really sure what your current status is, but if you want an article submitted which others will get pissy about, feel free to ask me to do it. I'm avoiding wikinews now only because it soaked up too much of my time, briefly. But, I don't mind preforming POV language sanitization on an article & submitting it if asked to do so. Nyarlathotep 16:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutralizer, I am also unsure of your status, and whether these articles are still for development, or have been published? Please at least put started- and last-edited dates on them, I would suggest putting each article onto it's own page under your area -- I assume that you are allowed to edit pages named eg User_talk:Neutralizer/Bird_Flu_article .. but then again, maybe not. ;) Good luck anyway, love your POV article, very well written, succinct, and level. -- Simeon 12:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Great wikinews Ambiance

My website

Puzzle for thinkers

File:Sep.11 EarlyWarningNote.jpg
undisputed;9/11 EarlyWarningNote by U.S. navy intel Lt.;handed to government officials Aug.12,2001;held by them until put on court file Oct.'01

note; "bin laden"* reference on left side; also Pentagon,Whitehouse and World Trade Center (mentioned twice)! also "let one happen;stop the rest"* Clava Tchigirinsky* Dr Haider* A. Khan ulista petrovka* "they will call me a liar"*,DelmartEdwardJosephMichael.shtml

asterisk *= mentioned in note

notice; top 2 articles have the most detailed info. That site is operated by retired police detective Michael Ruppert

Related Story

This article is being printed in U.S.newspapers, was top story today in Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Thanks Ed; just read it...seems like the "able danger" guys are being muzzled. Neutralizer 01:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


Coincidence Theory

"It's just a coincidence".say the "Coincidence Theorists" suckers/dumbos...even though a fifth grade algebra student can figure out that the odds against it (below) being a coincidence are more than a trillion to 1.

The alternative explanation...that these Cultists (who own & operate America's foreign policy) just plain enjoy wars, engineer them and profit from way too "out of the box" and upsetting for most of us to even seriously consider. It's always easier to look away .


-Prescott Bush S&B 1917

-George Walker S&B 1919

-Roland Harriman -Democrat S&B 1917

-Knight Woolley S&B 1917

-Averill Harriman -Democrat S&B 1913

"cabal in the State Department led by undersecretary Averill Harriman."

-Averill Harriman -Democrat S&B 1913

-William Bundy -Democrat S&B 1939 "William Bundy's name would probably be on more pieces of paper dealing with Vietnam over a seven-year period than anyone else's."[53]

-McGeorge Bundy -Democrat S&B 1940 "McGeorge Bundy...came to personify the hubris of an intellectual elite that marched America with a cool and confident brilliance into the quagmire of Vietnam."[54]

Gulf War;
Bush to Saddam via ambassador; 8 days before Saddam invaded Kuwait; "we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" (it's called a "double cross" set up)

-George H. Walker Bush S&B 1948

Iraq War

-George Walker Bush S&B 1968


-John Forbes Kerry -Democrat S&B 1966

Skull and Bones initiation dates source;

Reference below is for people who call themselves "Christians".

Ephesians 6:12; "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood; but against principalities, against powers,against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places ."

What say we just ignore this doesn't really fit into our view of today's politics,does it? Wouldn't we know Satan's followers if we saw them? They wouldn't use disguise, would they? Satan wouldn't like wars, would he?

hidden camera photo of a "Skull and Bones" satanic ritual; (

MrMiscellanious's "vacation" announcement deception?

MrM announced his vacation on the 7th; 1 hour AFTER the Rfda; but he made it to look like it began on the 6th. with his big block announcement(now removed) on his user page. These types of deceptions, if that's what it is, serve to confuse the issues and I suppose helped him by some seeing him as being Rfda'd AFTER he went away. I suppose he didn't think anyone would bother to see when he actually made the "on vacation" announcement; but I had nothing else better to do. Anyway, he seems to have returned now. I think someone should put a comment on the Rfda about the timeline for his "vacation" announcement since several contributors were swayed by him being away and likely thought he left on the 6th; BEFORE the Rfda.

I received the above message from you via email... I don't think there's any deception really. His grandfather passed away, I believe, and, if he's like me, it's possibe that he didn't even look at Recent Changes as he posted his vacation message. If you'll notice, he didn't edit at all on the 6th -- traveling to the funeral no doubt. I suspect he posted his vacation announcement when he arrived at his destination. I'll do things the wiki-way and go ahead and assume good faith. I don't see how it makes any difference. He DID leave for a few days. He's back now. I think the best way to spend your block would be to avoid Wikinews altogether, by the way. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop the False Statements, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Chiacomo, your comments above are false in fact; as the edit history shows.

He made 20 edits on the 6th and has edited every day since then.

the selective application of behavior rules and blatantly false statements does not work well on wikinews because of our histories. There is noone who would prefer to assume good faith than me; but when false statements are made and contributors are misled, whether intentionally or not; I will speak out.

In terms of assuming good faith; I think you should suggest Amgine stop editing for a month in light of his gross breech of that guideline regarding numerous contributors including Vonbergm and myself;
"I do not have reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet....I do not apologize for being unable to determine if you are, or are not, a sockpuppet. I simply do not have access to tools which could determine decisively one way or the other."
"User may be a wiki-anarchist or troll"

If you wish to assume that MrMiscellanious just happened to announce his "funeral vacation" 1 hour AFTER the Rfda and just happened , inexplicably, to make the announcement appear as if it had been placed on his page a day earlier; then go ahead and use that method of assuming good faith;

I am , in this one instance, going to emulate Amgine's method of assuming good faith; i.e. "I do not have reason to believe MrMiscellanious was not trying to deceive the community and elicit sympathy regarding his Rfda".

And by the way,Chiacomo, I have been falsely accused of being a troll by 2 administrators; and have been blocked for a month for certainly no worse behavior than MrM; which means my right to express myself on an important Rfda has been stripped away for no worse behavior than that of MrM; so excuse me if I am PISSED OFF about that.

Are Chiacomo and Amgine the same person???

Does anyone have the technical capability to check this out?
Update; I wouldn't have given this rumour much credit except for Chiacomo's robust defense to the accusation and Amgine's panic behavior shown with an over the top 1 month block of Ed Brown in the course of related discussion;
"04:27, 11 December 2005 Amgine blocked "User:Edbrown05" with an expiry time of 1 month (Sockpuppet use to attack, rfda. [55]" from the block log[56]Neutralizer 14:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC);

I will tell you that I have received 4 emails from apparently different sources advising me that you and Amgine are the same person; playing the old "good cop/bad cop" scam. You will note I have not accused you of being a sockpuppet as Amgine accused Vonbergm of being one, but Amgine does seem to have no problem using multiple identities on this site

[57] calling them "static ips" when/if he gets called on it.

How would you react if I said to you exactly what Amgine said to Vonbergm; "I do not have reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet....I do not apologize for being unable to determine if you are, or are not, a sockpuppet. I simply do not have access to tools which could determine decisively one way or the other."

You have the nerve to address "assume good faith" with me without having done that with Amgine. I also remember it was something called "Chiacomo's Sandbox" at Amgine's Journalwiki identity where one of your great examples of "assume good faith" was in secret operation.[58] It was supposedly Chiacomo's sandbox but only had Amgine edits??????? (you never even tried to explain that one)..which also, I suppose, might make someone suspicious about whether you and he are the same entity..not to mention that on numerous occasions questions I posed to Amgine on discussion pages were answered by you.

The point is; you as well as a very small number...2 or 3.. of other admins. behave in the most arbitrary and hypocritical way in terms of assuming good faith and enforcing our rules....with 1 of you even being so arrogant as to categorically reject the proposal of an impartial mediator[59].....and after awhile the Elmer Gantry style of hypocrisy laced preaching of you 3 gets old and insulting to the intelligence of all of us....and YOUR COLLECTIVE EFFECT IS TO HOLD BACK THE WIKINEWS PROJECT!!!!![60] Neutralizer 15:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Chiacomo and Amgine both have different IP addresses, from different ISP's on different sides of the continent. They have not used proxies to browse Wikinews. Unless they are able to be omnipresent, their identities are their own. And, Amgine doesn't have a sockpuppet - that's his IP address when he forgets to log in. I've seen you edit under yours a few times - does that mean I can call you for having sockpuppets? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand -- when I look at MrM's contributions, I see his last edit on 20:45 December 5 and the next at 13:52 December 7. I suspect that you have never set your timezone preferences on Wikinews and are seeing the results in GMT. As concerns my user pages on Journowiki, I see no reason to defend them here, but, since you brought it up:
This was a basically a rant, but I thought the prose was pretty good.
So yeah, I made only one edit and the rest were made by Amgine.
You need to take a chill-pill man... Your continued vitriol toward Amgine and MrM is getting old; I don't think your block is doing you any good. I do notice, however, that there've not been any huge blow-ups on the policy pages or article NPOV since you've been blocked -- the project seems much calmer since you've been gone. Perhaps this is a coincidence. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand???? you said "He DID leave for a few days" that's not true; he edited within every single 24 hour period !...and now with your user "pages" on Journalwiki; you only made 1 edit [61] under the name Chiacomo and that was the sneaky little offsite ambush plan Amgine/Chiacomo came up with. Tell your partner, MrM to take a chill-pill man; you 4 guys have been the leaders around here for the past 3 months and are driving it into the ground. I wonder when you say above "user pages on journalwiki" what the names are on your other pages? Maybe Amgine??? After all, in Amgine's words;"I do not have reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet....I do not apologize for being unable to determine if you are, or are not, a sockpuppet. I simply do not have access to tools which could determine decisively one way or the other." Btw; daily reach of wikinews is DOWN 20% since I was 4 guys are calming it to death by chasing off any contributors who ACTUALLY WORK ON ARTICLES ! Neutralizer 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bottom line is that MrM. made the vacation announcement from his own regular computer(according to him) over an hour after the Rfda was launched...and the vacation announcement said 6th -12th even though it was not made until the 7th. and several contributors still seem to think that the Rfda was made after he went on vacation and MrM has done NOTHING to correct that false impression. Neutralizer 22:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of personal attacks

Two admins are such control freaks they expect me to leave personal attacks they make on my talk page."You are nothing but a disrespectful, evil troll. I hope that you never come back to Wikinews"[62] They resort to leaving these personal attacks and baiting comments here on my talk page when they are not able to argue their points rationally and fully knowing I can't even reciprocate on their talk pages while blocked. I have asked them to respond to me on their talk pages if they wish to have control of those types of comments; I have put those personal attacks to the history of this talk page where anyone who wishes can view them.

Please note that I never contacted MrMiscellanious about this matter and have been trying to get one of these admins to correct the mistaken impression left on the Rfda that the Rfda was called after MrM went on what he called "vacation" when in fact he announced the vacation over an hour after the Rfda was called. They do not seem to want to correct that misleading impression.

Neutralizer 04:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Challenge to the Alliance

I challenge CSpurrier,MrM,Amgine,and Chiacomo to take a wikibreak for the remainder of the time I am blocked (about 2 weeks). I GUARANTEE that wikinews daily reach per Alexa will INCREASE by at least 30% during the time the Alliance is off site...with no negative side effects. I am willing to bet $100. which I will place with any neutral regular contributor who has a paypal account for distribution to the alliance if our daily reach does not increase by at least 30% when not being dragged down by the bad karma and behavior of the alliance. Neutralizer 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion of comments

It is inappropriate and deceptive to remove only portions of a given section of discussion. Please either restore all of my comments or remove the entire section. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Take it up with Amgine; he said in part; " may certainly remove messages from your talk page which you do not wish to have there.." [63]

Since I can not respond on the talk pages of others, I am filtering out those comments I feel are baiting and disruptive. All comments are, of course, available in the history of my talk page and I only have 1 talk page for people to have to check journalwiki for me.

Use your own talk pages for any response you want others to read.

Now you guys know how it feels when YOU delete other people's edits like the 4 Rfdas the alliance arbitrarily deleted. And the edits in the current Rfda which CSpurrier removed apparently without checking with Paul to see if it was just an accidental logging out error.

Interesting how you can go from hurt little boy to big bad boss so quickly, Chiacomo. Neutralizer 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I am asking Eloquence to revert his decision to allow blocked users to edit their talk page. All you've done is use it to continue your disruptive behavior. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Spoken like I true censor MrM. What? if you don't like it you don't want to here it? What you doing on a news site? Hang out at the Pentagon where you can read the party line. -Edbrown05 04:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ed, my edits were made to enlighten Neutralizer of his actions here. He has been blanking user's comments, which I do not think he enjoys having done to him. This should be a lesson to him - a community site relies upon respect, and he is not showing much to anyone. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "You are nothing but a disrespectful, evil troll. I hope that you never come back to Wikinews" is part of the personal attack by MrM that I blanked [64]. He's been able to get away with this type of malicious,nasty attacks on wikinews with no punishment whatsoever; but I'll be damned if I'll let him leave his threats "I will make sure of whatever choice you make for it to be your final choice."[65] and attacks on my talk page. Let him put this kind of crap on his own talk page if he wants but not mine. Neutralizer 12:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Let the record show that this response was made after Neutralizer started accusing me of trying to get sympathy votes on the RfdA by staging a funeral of one of my relatives. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a BALD-FACED LIE! I said the same thing that Amgine said about Vonbergm being a sockpuppet which was there is no way of knowing for sure what your intentions are. + EVERYONE HERE has lost relatives MrM... + WHY DO WE ALL HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR LOSS RIGHT NOW..WHY DID YOU FEEL YOU HAD TO TELL US 1 HOUR AFTER YOUR Rfda CAME UP?????? + YOU called it a "VACATION"! You are the only person I know who lost a loved one here on wikinews...why is that???? MAYBE CAUSE YOU WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW IT????? 1 hour after the Rfda. Either you're incredibly manipulative or incredibly attention seeking; either way, you're a drag on the project.Neutralizer 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? Because that's the time I get home usually, that's why. I told Amgine on IRC of it, posted my message, and went to the funeral home. It's none of your business. I don't care what you say anymore - your last message was a personal attack and you will be blocked when your current sentence is up. I posted the vacation note because I felt as if it is my business what I do with my life, and wanted to inform people that I would be gone for a while. It was the quickest tag I could find. Again, it's none of your business. If I wanted people to know I was at a funeral, I'd post a huge message on my user page. But I didn't, because I don't like other's sympathy. But I do like respect, which is the absolute least you could've given me in this situation. Check my edits, I get home usually around 2:40 - 3:20 (Eastern) on weekdays. The edit was made at 2:52 PM Eastern. The first thing I did that day was walk in, go to my computer, leave the message on IRC, tag my user page with the Vacation tag, and went off to the funeral home, where I remained until later that night. But obviously, I'm wasting my time talking to you. You are a conspiracy theory freak. No matter what I do, it's always in a demonic way to destroy Wikinews slowly to you. It's getting really old, and I will no longer give you the satisfaction of trying to lure me into any more of your conversations that are used to pull quotes out of context (I'll bet anyone that there will be a quote pulled out of this entry to be used in another one of Neutralizer's messages). Any more personal attacks against users here, and this page will be protected, as Eloquence suggested to do. Grow up. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

MrM. I can't go on your talk page; so, YOU STAY THE HELL OFF OF MINE!!!!


I demand that an admin block MrM for a month (as Amgine just blocked EdBrown for a month) ..MrM is an out of control lunatic making vicious personal attacks[66] and personal threats with increasing frequency; as well as promising to be increasingly nasty to the entire community [67] Neutralizer 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Ed has been unblocked, and Amgine apologized for it. Seems as if that's all squared up. On the other hand, this is a wiki. If you don't like me editing pages, you should leave. I can't help it if you're blocked; that's your own fault. But if you continue to take quotes out of context and accuse me of staging a funeral for sympathy, I will treat them as personal attacks and you may be blocked even longer. My personal attacks were made by your provoking messages, which I see no worse than a personal attack, personally. Besides, you calling me a "lunatic" is also considered a personal attack. If I am blocked, you will need to be blocked longer than your current blockade. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to your email


DATE: December 11, 2005
FROM: Neutralizer
TO: Bawolff
SUBJECT: Wikinews e-mail

This is what came into my talk page yesterday from MrM; "You are nothing but a disrespectful, evil troll. I hope that you never come back to Wikinews"

as well as many other previous personal attacks and threats like this; "Here's where I turn nasty.....I'm going to be mean to the other administrators now..I will make sure of whatever choice you make for it to be your final choice."

It's just not right that he can continue to get away with this type of personal attacks and personal threats.

Well I disagree with Mr.M on many things, you in all honesty had that coming. What you said to him was very offensive, and I could understand why he got mad. Please remember to follow Wikinews:Ettiquite and have a nice cup of Tea once in a while (If you can't edit TEA tell me what you want to say there and I'll post it in your name.) Remember your still on probation and the chance that you'll get unblocked, and keep the privlidge of editing your talk page, depends on your behavior now. Its not that hard to say things nicely, and still get your point across. Its also usually more effective if you don't offend people in the process. Last of all don't forget to say sorry, or cross out (<s>) anything you said if you feel the need. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 21:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)