Help With Wikipedia Nazis

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But wait - sometimes, we ARE responsible for the actions of others.<hr></blockquote> Most people have a strong aversion to sharing anything, and blame gets no free pass. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **4911** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:39 am

Not that im implying that your shit, your not - your human, and you know what I think about humans. It was just first thing in my head for an example. I might be wrong, too. Im kinda blurry tired. Hey listen man its like 6:30 in the morning, been up all night... I gotta hit the hey for an hour before work, Peace Thoughtographer.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:42 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dude, you MADE him put up his shields. You didnt see the connection and got into a spat.<hr></blockquote> You're assuming that I didn't expect his response. I know what I "made" him do. Yeah, it's late. Goodnight, and take it easy. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/5/06 11:43 pm

by **James Redford** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> If high-talking windbags like this will assault me with an I.Q. score the moment I question their approach, then my hopes for things changing in the world anytime soon rest elsewhere. I didn't miss his point, but then again, I never addressed it, did I? If he's so eager to further alienate someone like me by heaping pride on top of rhetoric, then he's only hurting his cause. There are plenty of people out there who wouldn't have bothered to look past the title of this thread and first few lines, because it stinks so much of self-righteousness; I figured I'd throw my own into the mix for good measure. I don't claim high intelligence, because that would imply that I think I'm better than others, which I'm surely not. I mean, I'm an asshole, sure -- but not that kind of asshole. Playing pin-the-tail-on-the-nazi because a god damned Wikipedia editor exercises the same rights you have is straight up childish in my eyes, and I know I'm not alone. If you don't mind someone mucking up the waters by rolling out the the word "nazi" to rally people behind their cause, that's your prerogative. I think this guy is smarter than that, and would better serve his purpose by sticking to the facts, which are obviously interesting enough to speak for themselves. <hr></blockquote> The only "windbag" in this thread is you. You're the one who called me an idiot, and now you're here moaning about me replying to that fallacious charge of yours with my statement of the fact that I have a genius IQ level. If you dislike reading about people's IQ levels then stop being a hypocrite by fallaciously calling people idiots. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:40 pm

I guess you're not so free from "programming" as you'd like to think. <a href="http://www.autcom.org/iq.html">www.autcom.org/iq.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/6/06 3:41 pm

by **James Redford** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:51 pm

Well, the Wikipedia Nazis have again deleted the documentation on the Salem and Anticev recording and the full text of the two New York Times articles on the Salem recording: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wor...er_bombing</a> Now my Wikipedia username has been blocked from posting by Philwelch ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philwelch">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use...:Philwelch</a> ). Again, below can be found the Wikipedia source code to the article version which contains the above-said documentation: <a href="http://stateterror.web1000.com/1993-wtc-bombing-wikipedia.txt">stateterror.web1000.com/1...ipedia.txt</a> Please do what you can to keep this documentation in the Wikipedia article. There must be a truly special place in Hell reserved for people like Wikipedia Nazis Philwelch, Kmf164, Phase4, and Zanimum, who take pleasure in attempting to keep people in ignorance by censoring documentation which is inconvenient to them. Without people like that, governments such as Stalin's U.S.S.R., Hitler's Germany, Fidel Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Mao Tse-tung's China would not be possible. Such people as Philwelch, Kmf164, Phase4, and Zanimum may not murder people with their own hands, but they attempt to protect from the light of truth governments that do--in this case, the U.S. government bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. For such people's own sake, they had better repent before they die. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **James Redford** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:04 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I guess you're not so free from "programming" as you'd like to think. <a href="http://www.autcom.org/iq.html">www.autcom.org/iq.html</a> <hr></blockquote> I don't think sheer IQ is the most important aspect of having a properly functioning mind (i.e., one that is able to come to correct conclusions). As I've already indicated in this thread, the most important aspect in that regard--at least as it concerns political issues--is to not be beholden to the psychological conditioning, propaganda, and indoctrination of the State. There are many people with extremely high IQs who aren't able to think for themselves when it comes to political issues. Indeed, governments employ many of them to help in furthering the agenda of governments. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:16 pm

I still don't see why you're wasting your time by attacking Wikipedia, since it's clear that you don't understand the point of it. Maybe some day, when you've thoroughly addressed the real, and totally valid issues pertaining to the documentation that you're presenting, you'll obtain the critical mass needed to push this into Wikipedia. Until you do that, you're wasting your time. For what it's worth, I think it's disgusting that someone tipped off the editors about this thread in the first place, and I certainly hope that nobody thinks I was responsible for it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not">Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. 2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability. 3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not: 1. User pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of User pages should not be social networking but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. 2. File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia. If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can also install wiki software on your server. See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this.<hr></blockquote> "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/6/06 4:27 pm

by **James Redford** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I still don't see why you're wasting your time by attacking Wikipedia, since it's clear that you don't understand the point of it. Maybe some day, when you've thoroughly addressed the real, and totally valid issues pertaining to the documentation that you're presenting, you'll obtain the critical mass needed to push this into Wikipedia. Until you do that, you're wasting your time. For what it's worth, I think it's disgusting that someone tipped off the editors about this thread in the first place, and I certainly hope that nobody thinks I was responsible for it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not <hr></blockquote> It is you who obviously doesn't understand the issues in this matter. I didn't use Wikipedia as "a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising," or as "a free host, blog, or webspace provider." Take a look at the below version of the Wikipedia article which includes the documentation spoken of in this thread: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center_bombing&oldid=47114507">en.wikipedia.org/w/index....d=47114507</a> The first part of the issue here is FBI undercover agent Edam A. Salem's quote being deleted where he admits to building the bomb with the supervision of the FBI and the District Attorney of the City of New York. In the recording, FBI Special Agent John Anticev does not disagree with Emad A. Salem's below account of the bombing: "" ... we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case! "" The second part of the issue here is the deletion of the links to MP3s of the taped conversation between FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem and FBI Special Agent John Anticev where the above quote comes from: short clip: <a href="http://nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/emad%20salem.mp3">nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/emad%20salem.mp3</a> , longer clip: <a href="http://nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/SalemWBAI.mp3">nwo.media.xs2.net/tape/SalemWBAI.mp3</a> The third and last part of the issue here is the deletion of a link to the *full text* of the two New York Times articles on the Salem tapes: - Ralph Blumenthal, "Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast,", New York Times, October 28, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4 <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm">www.freerepublic.com/foru...0e34de.htm</a> - Ralph Blumenthal, "Tapes in Bombing Plot Show Informer and F.B.I. at Odds,", New York Times, October 27, 1993, Section A, Page 1, Column 4 <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm">www.freerepublic.com/foru...0e34de.htm</a> The above is the entirety of the issue here. The issue here is that certain individuals at Wikipedia obviously greatly dislike people having access to this documentation, and hence bowdlerize and censor the article by deleting this documentation. Obviously the above documentation is *the most* relevant to any telling of the World Trade Center bombing which stakes any claim to giving an accurate account of how that bombing happened. But it is precisely because said documentation is so devastating to the U.S. government's image that certain individuals are repeatedly deleting it from the Wikipedia article on the WTC bombing. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The above is the entirety of the issue here. The issue here is that certain individuals at Wikipedia obviously greatly dislike people having access to this documentation, and hence bowdlerize and censor the article by deleting this documentation.<hr></blockquote> Just because you say that's the entirety of the issue doesn't make it true. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Obviously the above documentation is *the most* relevant to any telling of the World Trade Center bombing which stakes any claim to giving an accurate account of how that bombing happened. But it is precisely because said documentation is so devastating to the U.S. government's image that certain individuals are repeatedly deleting it from the Wikipedia article on the WTC bombing.<hr></blockquote> Maybe so. Wikipedia is a manifestation of the consensus, like it or not. Expecting the paradigm to shift and bend to your will will not alter its ultimate course, and you will only end up being (falsely) accused of "vandalism". I suggest you seek other channels to disseminate the documentation, instead of, as I said, wasting time with Wikipedia. What you're doing is tantamount to repeatedly driving your car into the same brick wall. I'm on your "side" here, insofar as I'd like to see any and all legitimate documentation pertaining to events like this out in the open. I just think your methods lack the foresight necessary to achieve your goals. Next time, you should try just posting the documentation, so the actual issues you're trying to call attention to receive the scrutiny they deserve and start a discussion. It just seems to me that you went about editing the Wikipedia entry, knowing the documentation would be removed just so you could cry persecution. This will be my last post on this thread. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **James Redford** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:42 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Just because you say that's the entirety of the issue doesn't make it true. <hr></blockquote> But it being true makes it true. And I don't merely say so, I prove it. Again, look at my version of the Wikipedia article: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center_bombing&oldid=47114507">en.wikipedia.org/w/index....d=47114507</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Maybe so. Wikipedia is a manifestation of the consensus, like it or not. Expecting the paradigm to shift and bend to your will will not alter its ultimate course, and you will only end up being (falsely) accused of "vandalism". I suggest you seek other channels to disseminate the documentation, instead of, as I said, wasting time with Wikipedia. What you're doing is tantamount to repeatedly driving your car into the same brick wall. I'm on your "side" here, insofar as I'd like to see any and all legitimate documentation pertaining to events like this out in the open. I just think your methods lack the foresight necessary to achieve your goals. Next time, you should try just posting the documentation, so the actual issues you're trying to call attention to receive the scrutiny they deserve and start a discussion. It just seems to me that you went about editing the Wikipedia entry, knowing the documentation would be removed just so you could cry persecution. This will be my last post on this thread. <hr></blockquote> I've done well in getting documentation on some Wikipedia articles, such as on Operation Northwoods: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ope...Northwoods</a> Virtually of the documentation (i.e., the mainstream media references, the U.S. government press release, Brig. Gen. William H. Craig's memo, etc.) to be found in that article was done by me. I wrote the entire "Related Operation Mongoose Proposals" section and posted all of the documentation to be found in that section. I'm the one who discovered how Operation Northwoods was originally declassified in 1997, and how the most damning section of it has been online since 1998. People were saying that it was originally declassified in 2001. I wrote the below three paragraphs documenting how Operation Northwoods was declassified: "" The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board[1], a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.[2][3] A total of about 1500 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board. "Appendix to Enclosure A" and "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" of the Northwoods document were first published online by the National Security Archive on November 6, 1998 in a joint venture with CNN as part of CNN's 1998 Cold War television documentary series[4]—specifically, as a documentation supplement to "Episode 10: Cuba," which aired on November 29, 1998.[5] "Annex to Appendix to Enclosure A" is the section of the document which contains the proposals to stage terrorist attacks. The Northwoods document was published online in a more complete form (i.e., including cover memoranda) by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001.[6] "" All of the documentation in the above (besides of course the last reference [6]) was posted by me. Nobody besides me knew any of the above (at least publicly) until I posted it. Every mainstream media article--besides what at the time was a dead link to ABC's 2001 article--to be found on that page was posted by me. That includes mainstream major media articles going back to 1997 talking about the Operation Northwoods document (although back then they didn't mention the Northwoods name, they did quote from the document). But I have noticed that there are some Wikipedia articles where the Wikipedia Nazis aren't in full force, such as with the Operation Northwoods article. Thankfully the scads of documentation (i.e., pretty much all of the documentation to be found in that article) that I posted to that article has so far remained intact. And while I'm at it, please everyone download the below Ogg Vorbis audio file and host it on your own website if you have one: "April 23, 2001 ABC News Report on Hidden Video Captured of Skull & Bones Ritual," PsyOp911, October 4, 2005: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/psyop911/skull-and-bones-2001-04-23-abc-report.html">www.geocities.com/psyop91...eport.html</a> The above article and transcript is by me, and I also recorded the audio file. Everyone has my permission to host the above article with the audio file on their own websites. I don't want this audio file being flushed down the Memory Hole like ABC's streaming video links on their television broadcast of this was. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **shawshank erection** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:27 pm

"the more i know, the less i think i know" a phrase i like to remind myself of.

by **shawshank erection** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:30 pm

and is there really "a truth"? i think there are a multitude of truths. just take at a high school history textbook.

by **James Redford** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:36 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> and is there really "a truth"? i think there are a multitude of truths. just take at a high school history textbook. <hr></blockquote> Truth, and knowledge of truth, exists. Whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist. Yet, if truth does not exist, then the proposition "Truth does not exist" is true. And if there is anything true, then truth exists. See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 1, Objection 3. ------- "Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005: <a href="http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth">www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2&mforum=libertyandtruth</a> "Jesus Is an Anarchist," James Redford, revised and expanded edition, November 9, 2005 (originally published on December 19, 2001): <a href="http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf">www.geocities.com/vonchloride/anarchist-jesus.pdf</a>

by **shawshank erection** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:38 pm

and Hassan i Sabbah said, "nothing is true, everything is permissable" do you have the book on truth, because if you do, i'd like a copy. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

autofellatious

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Re: Help With Wikipedia Nazis

Who is online