User:Neutralizer/2

PSYOPS
I am wondering if the most recent example of "Information used in psychological operations will often be replayed by the news media "- Secy. of US Defence, D.Rumsfeld- is the recent reporting of quotes from questionable sources about the results of a village being bombed in Afghanistn; all of that speculation from un-reliable sources could have been meant for "foreign" consumption to help defuse the reaction to the attack....I say this because the US government never once told the american audience that it had killed any important terrorists.

CNN's "Situation Room" Jan.19th. 7pm [17]

J.D. CROUCH, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Great to be here, Wolf.

BLITZER: What about last Friday's attack on that building along the Pakistan-Afghan border? Have you confirmed definitively who died, who was killed in that attack?

CROUCH: I don't think there's any confirmation on that. Obviously, I know there have been things that have come out of Pakistan. But all I know at this point is what you have seen, you know, in the press.

BLITZER: But do we know one way or another whether Ayman al- Zawahiri, the number two to Osama bin Laden, whether or not he was killed?

CROUCH: Like I said, I don't think there's any -- there's a full understanding of that at this point.

BLITZER: But there -- but you do -- can you confirm that other senior al Qaeda operatives were killed?

CROUCH: Not at this point, no.

The Whitehouse spokesman told CNN that there is no evidence that ANY bad guys AT ALL were hit in the US bombing of the Pakistani village. This after we ran articles which made the attack seem to be somewhat acceptable because it was "reported" to be somewhat successful.

Al_Qaeda_bomb_maker_reportedly_killed_in_U.S._airstrike_in_Pakistan

Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike

Neutralizer 12:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In the Prussian strategy
the whole population is categorized into three "educational castes" to formulate future easier elite control of the population.

1. those who will be policy makers, who are taught to think (0.5%),

2. those who will be engineers, lawyers, doctors--who are taught to partially think, only for accreditation in specialized topics (5.5%), and

3. the children of the masses, who are to be taught how to follow orders (94%).

The Prussian educational system in the United States was idealized as a strategic tool to demote political and intellectual equality and to reformulate an aristocratic society in novel formal institutions. It could even be called a "de-educational" model, because it promotes a society that is endemically uneducated and trained mostly to follow someone else's centralized instructions thoughtlessly.



Ricin
I have moved this discussion to the talk page. Neutralizer 14:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please answer the question raised at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Substance_found_in_University_of_Texas_dormitory_tests_positive_for_Ricin#NPOV_question ?? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Nice early catch on history of false positives in ricin tests. Nyarlathotep 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems
I'm seeing you have problems with any official that is in someway affilliated with a U.S. entity. Please explain why you think that their statements are considered factual in specific articles. As I have observed, it is what they find is what we report, and we attriube it back to them - we never take a stand and say it is fact. Please stop tagging articles as POV in this method. It is a violation of site policy, and qualifies as disruption. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

answer to MrM; Here is just the most recent example of how Wikinews published US officials' statements as fact"Ricin found in University of Texas dormitory" as the title of a lead article ; I am sure you can find many more examples if you look.


 * Hi,MrM. Actually I concur with our NPOV mandate to reign in our natural tendancy to embrace the anglo/american centric point of view and am trying to engage this "ongoing problem". That's really it in a nutshell. I think I am doing a good job of keeping my own pov(which is much more dramatic) completely out of my Wikinews contributions. Neutralizer 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ironic. I felt we were doing a fantastic job in limiting our anglo POV.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We certainly do much better than most western media; but we still have some way to go I think. It's not enough to just attribute the quotes to a western leader; we need to also work at improving articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that we encounter; as per anglo/american centric point of view. Neutralizer 01:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

New stuff
In case anyone wants to use these;


 * 1


 * 2



Talk:Australian treasurer makes "extremely divisive" comments
Will you please go put a tag on this talk page so I can zap your comment which has nothing to do with the writing of the article? I can sympathise with your "I'd send this man a nastygram if I had his email address" attitude, but the talk page isn't the place for it. If you don't I'll see what happens when I list a talk page for deletion. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 21:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Brian, if you like, but I think talk pages are ok for passionate discussion; at least I believe so. Neutralizer 21:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's been some discussion, on the Water Cooler I think, about having a "have your say" tab. Personally I'm opposed to it because you'd have to do things like ask users if it was okay to remove swearing - or get them to reword their comment when they'd cooled down.  However, I'd rather have that than see things degenerate on talk pages.  Your average newspaper manages to function, although I'm sure they don't have quite as wide a spectrum of political views as we do.  So, my stance on that currently is that if an article discussion page wins widespread support, I'll just avoid it.  In the meantime I think we should stick with a clear definition of what talk pages on articles are for - if we end up with discussion pages we'll need to defend the talk pages along those principles and move comments, and I think we need to establish some precidents on what is acceptable. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your welcome message. Much appreciated. :) Sarah Ewart 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

typo
Hey ya'! My first look at 'recent changes', looks like "breech" should be "breach" under the headline rename. I'd thought I would let you confirm and correct it, rather than risk looking one-upish!! Best regards :) Edbrown05 00:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks so much. Neutralizer 00:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My Ricin Intervention
My comment was saying that I was sick of all these edit wars that have been happening lately. And just wanted to say STOP. (BTW Block would have included all users involved, including admins).

I have no POV on the article at all.

I agree with you that threats on article talk pages off-limits, but I just wanted warring to STOP.

In hindsight no it was not…but I did not know at that time, if it was over. (and most of the RC was with fill of edits on the talkpage)

I hope you did not take this as a personal threat; I have much respect for you as a editor.

I hope this answers your question, feel free to contact me if it does not. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What apology?
You deserve no such apology. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead edit warring
I'm aware there is edit warring occurring in the leads. This is highly disruptive. Please stop. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi Neutralizer... I think you need to create your own "Statement by user:xxx section" at Dispute resolution/Users Borofkin, Mrmiscellanious, and others. What I was hoping was that people who consider themselves to be involved in the broad/ongoing dispute with MrM would make a statement about what their problem is, and what they would like to change, specifically focussing on what needs to be changed to prevent further conflict. - Borofkin 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see that you've removed your section from the dispute resolution pages. The idea is to try and get everyone's complaints on one page so that, as a community, we can try and figure out what the problem is. What I'm interested to know is, in your opinion, what is it about Mrmiscellanious behaviour that causes so many disputes? Rather than focusing on a specific dispute, think about the patterns of behaviour.... what is it that links all the different disputes together? - Borofkin 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on vonbergm's talk page. I like the way it is going, even if it is a little different. - Borofkin 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Neutralizer... I've had some discussions with SiP, it has been suggested that we move the diffs onto a separate page (a "common brief") that we can all contribute to. What I think we should do with the "statement by" sections on the main dispute resolution page is to create a detailed description of what you consider to be the worst single problem that MrM has caused, including how it made you perceive MrM, how it affected you and your editing, and how you wish he had behaved differently. My section and Vonbergm's section as they currently stand roughly conform to this idea. This is just a suggestion, you are welcome to contribute to the dispute resolution however you like. - Borofkin 05:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when one brings a request for dispute resolution I have two considerations: has the bringing party attempted the other steps outlined on the dispute resolution page; has the bringing party informed the other party of the dispute resolution request? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Amgine, your uncalled for attack on SiP (with accompanying edit summary calling him a "fool") is not acceptable and is typical of how MrM's supporters attack anyone trying to address MrM's behaviour. You always rush to sabotage and deflect and bog down in details any community effort addressing MrM's behaviour and you have been very good at it thus far; but please don't insult my intelligence by pretending you are unbiased when it comes to MrM's behaviour; you have always jumped in to bog down or deflect attempts by the community to address it. Neutralizer 14:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Da Vinci Code Lawsuit: Conspiracy Theory
Regarding your comments ... I had read your comment, and I consider it to be a rather unlikely conspiracy theory. I won't engage in the debate any further than to point out that any concerted effort to discredit Dan Brown for political reasons would be pointless. He's a best-selling author and has a following ... but he doesn't have any credibility in politics or academia. A campaign against him is likely just to increase sales of his books. I read the Skull and Bones article and figure that it's tinged with just about as much conspiracy theory as fact.

I listened to an unabridged audio tape of "Da Vinci Code" and my conclusion was that it really needed quite alot of abridging. The long, rambling, tenuously intertwined tendrils of "theory" were interminably tedious and detracted from a relatively unremarkable story. (And the romantic "twist" was thoroughly predictable and implausible).

Based on that I imagine the Solomon Key will be more of the same ... and the Bush/Kerry/Cheney crowd and smugly recline and be assured that, when Dan Brown is done, no one will believe anything ... no matter how outrageous ... that will be said about any of them. (They'll be able to just wave it all off as more of that Brown "conspiracy theory claptrap" and move on).

Heck, this could all be part of the plot! Try to discredit him to call attention to his work so everyone knows what you're talking about! It's a double reverse psychology gambit. I think you're on to something here! (Not).

JimD 18:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Block request
I have reviewed the material MrM has presented as evidence in putting a case for your being blocked from the wiki. I find I cannot apply a block on this basis without reviewing every talk page of an involved article to see if you have made any effort to reach agreement. However, having gone through one which I'd commented on I'd say that were I presented with another list like this I'd look for the block button. You are capable of contributing, but if you can't stay within project guidelines go elsewhere. MrM may have completely different political views from you, but he stays within the lines. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

GlobeScan story
I am very disappointed to recognize that you attributed the Bush quotes in that story to statements made during his surprise visit to Afghanistan. -Edbrown05 09:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded on Ed's talk page. Neutralizer 13:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Welcome
Thank you for your welcome. I'm afraid, however, I'm just not going to be able to be "gutsy" in this environment. See my user page, if you're interested. ironiridis 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead image rollback
I rolled back in the lead because commons is about to delete the image, and I don't what that to happen on the main page. Would look really bad. I'm leaving it in the article, in case Elliot K can talk to the photographer. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Vietnam memorial images were licensed non-derivative, but can be used commercially. I think the current image can be allowed on Wikinews, actually, but I'm not sure I understand the "grant of license" part of the Image use policy myself. I'm trying to work that out right now. I hate copyright. It makes my time on wikinews endlessly more complicated. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Commercial means images used by for-profit companies. So, if a company were to print and sell copies of Wikinews Print edition, as an example, that would be a commercial use. So would running a website with lots of advertisement that copied our images and news stories. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't use images which are licensed as non-commercial. A non-commercial license says it may be used for anything non-commercial. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Block Request
Hi,Brian, Thanks for taking your time to look at MrM's request. I still have trouble knowing when I cross the line between reasonable article discussion/editing and doing something that warrents the block button. Is it possible, whenever you have time, to look at the article you referred to and give me some guidance as to what I might have done in a better way? Neutralizer 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably the most difficult thing to do to avoid conflict is to stop assuming MrM has a significant pro-Western POV which he applies in articles. From where I'm sitting, he uses his choice of created articles as an expression of POV and within those articles sticks to what is within the sources and a fairly reasonable presentation of NPOV.  On the other hand I sometimes wonder if you read too many blogs or other stuff like that where there is a touch of conspiracy tied into passionate editorial.  Don't let that creep into your contributions.
 * Next thing I'd suggest is don't be so keen to get something published. I know there's a lot of the time that's the fastest way to get a review, but if you put up 2 or 3 short paragraphs under develop and go sourcehunting you should be able to build a more coherent picture of the situation.  I sometimes end up with 10-20 sources open in tabs in one Firefox session, and then edit the article in another.  As I finish expanding or replacing each of my initial paragraphs I'll make sure each point is cited in a source, in a related article, or by some other means that is explained within the article (E.g. Last paragraph on Opposition may boycott Thai election; demonstrators want Thaksin out cites Wikipedia with a link to the article that I quote from).  The pain in sourcing things is keeping the number you list on the article reasonable.  Every source link is an opportunity for someone to leave wikinews and continue their reading on another site.
 * You do seek third party help when you get into a dispute, but it sometimes comes across as being done with the conviction that the third party will invariably side with MrM. Don't assume tags are unjustified when you receive them, if you don't get it then ask someone else to try and figure it out for you.  As those you place yourself are not always well received, lay out your objections on the talk page then look for someone to read the article, go through your objections, and comment.  If they put the tag on, so much the better.
 * Something to keep in mind in trying to follow all of the above is not to be devisive to the community. Try and avoid getting into "us vs them" situations with opposing groups of contributors.  Conflicts between you and MrM are often the catalyst for such events, and with our open editorial process frayed short tempers don't reflect well on the project.
 * Anyway, sorry I took a while to respond. Work and life in general have been keeping me busy. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Bush quote
I have just now returned home from the hospital after a minor surgical procedure and am currently still under the dizzying effects of pain medication, so please forgive me if I ramble.

I became involved with the GlobeScan story because I saw MrM stepping on it. That treatment by MrM was unsurprising to me, because I’ve noticed from his past edits a history of disdain for stories that involve polling results. My first reaction was to jump in and restore the lost edits. When that led to the story being locked, only later did I try to improve the reporting in the article.

I made one copyedit pass at the story after my earlier attempt to restore the story, and then ran out of time to work at it any further. I returned to the story the next evening to make a go of getting the context of the Bush quotes better expressed, and then discovered the Bush comments came from a televised interview conducted in the United States, not while he was in Afghanistan. I corrected that information and re-published the story.

To realize that my hand was involved in publishing a story that earlier contained false information, hurt me. Hence my comment on your talk page.

The more I have come to know you, the more I have come to appreciate your points that challenge conventional assumptions. Through experience, I harbor no thoughts that your contributions have any intent to hurt Wikinews, and I was relieved to see by your post on my talk page that the error was one easily made in the way you described it.

I apologize for not inquiring first from you how this could have occurred before posting my boorish comment on your talk page. -Edbrown05 03:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Peculiar edit on WN:DR
Neutralizer, can you please explain this edit on Deletion requests? It appears to have removed a number of votes from other users. - Borofkin 05:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

DR
Please do not remove people comments from Deletion requests Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * An explanation is required for such an edit, and it had better be a good one. The edit appeared to be nothing more than vandalism, and I believe that a block is in order. - Borofkin 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Brian,Borofkin, that was an extreme unintentional screwup..I don't even know how it was possible? Could it have been an edit conflict? As you can see I was of the same view as most of the edits I apparently deleted so vandalism would make no sense....I really can not figure this one out can you? The only edit I made was adding my own agreement with Vonbergm; is it possible a vandal was somehow piggy backing my edit(in an edit conflict with me at that moment?) I am really baffled at this. Neutralizer 13:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone; Could I have edited an out of date revision in this situation since the page includes edits on a bunch of different articles? Neutralizer 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possable that you edited an out of date revision, however you nomally see a warning letting you know. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

an article


 * I just wanted to note that a similar incident happened to me once, where inexplicably an edit I made showed my text added, and along with it, the disappearance of other previously posted text. I found no explanation for it.-Edbrown05 19:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in, but let's assume good faith. This mistake was corrected and no harm is done. Surely the user didn't think the deletion of the text would go unnoticed. Surely it was an accident. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Break
My wife is getting really pissed at how much time I spend here; plus I have been making some really stupid/careless edits.... so I am out of here for awhile; Love you all....Neutralizer 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

RfAr
You do realize that it is up to the involved parties to request a recusement? For example, I believe all the ArbCom members are also friends with Brian New Zealand. I have faith in their ability examine the evidence fairly, and to work with us to develop mutually agreeable findings. I think you may have a mistaken impression of how the arbitration process works. Brian, the ArbCom and I will all work together to get findings of principles and fact the ArbCom can agree with. The ArbCom will also want our input on remedies, which are similar to sentences in a court case - except they are attempts to address problems for the community rather than to be punitive. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 18:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on most of your points, especially since there is fundamental difference on to whom the disclosure should be made. But I'm glad you've raised your concerns on the talk page, and I can assure you they have been read and discussed. The ArbCom maintains communications tools which are not public, so I don't know what they're discussing amongst themselves, but I think it's a fair guess your concern is being discussed there as well. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 19:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Format for /Evidence
I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean -- your message about formatting is a bit cryptic... Also, please format your /Evidence correctly. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - joint statement
Hi Neutralizer... I've started a draft joint statement as part of the dispute resolution process. Please take a look.... - Borofkin 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)