Neurolanis

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. And also, please review our policy on discussing opinions on talk pages here: WP:SOAP. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We have strict policies to ensure that what articles say is verifiable. There are no conspiracy theories that are supported by reliable sources that have scientific consensus or are accepted by relevant experts, and therefore they are not verifiable. Some of our policies you might want to read are WP:Verifiability, WP:No Original Research, WP:Synthesis, and WP:Fringe theories. Your comment was reverted because it did not seek to improve the article. You were merely stating your opinion, which is not what talk pages are for. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest inclusions to the article on the article's talk page. Before you do, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability of facts, because only reliable sources, as defined there, are allowed. If you present sources that do not meet this standard (blogs, conspiracy theory websites, etc), your comment could be removed or dismissed. Note that Wikipedia's policy on banning original research mandates that any conclusion put forth in an article must be made by a reliable source and that conclusions made by Wikipedia itself based on a collection of facts are not allowed. Other than that, have at it :) Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and honesty. :) Neurolanis (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

head in the sand

Y'Have any ideas how to help people get their head out of the sand?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The important thing here is information, the facts. Neurolanis (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) ".

Where are they ..the facts. Hey that's me 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. There are many small facts that suggest certain things, but no facts in regards to who was behind 9-11, how and why. Or not at this time. The people are lied to left and right, from politicians, media figures, and even by those who step forward and claim to have the truth. Getting to the bottom of 'the truth' of this world requires more than a good mind and a true heart, and more than time and energy, it takes great luck; great because no one to my knowledge has found it. But the fact remains that there are many things about the official account of 9-11 that don't add up, and many people are simply looking for answers to those questions, while others are claiming to have found the definitive proof they need to explain who, what and why. I don't have the answers, I'm just one of those curious people who have questions to ask. But the government and media have been secretive to the point of treacherous regarding these questions, to the point of calling anyone a "conspiracy nut" for asking a question like, "Why is it that although at the time hundreds of citizens and firemen ran out of the Twin Towers saying they heard explosions shortly before they collapsed, and reporters not only reported this (live) but some of them reported hearing them themselves, now do they deny that there ever were explosions?" That is a valid question and deserves a valid answer. Like, “How did the buildings pancake down at near free-fall speed?” (In other words, they didn’t really pancake down so what really happened and why were we lied to?) People simply want questions answered, and the government and mainstream media are doing everything in their power to avoid answering them. It doesn't make them look good, especially in the face of conspiracy theories. People should be careful to believe in outlandish claims, but at the same time they should be curious and keep asking the important questions until they get honest answers. If they don't, and it doesn't look they will, then people should do their own investigative work to find the answers, including, “Why won't they simply answer the questions?” Neurolanis (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some theories on psychology... A lot of people prefer pseudo-certainty to uncertainty. In fact, this psychological phenomenon has been offered to explain the existence and popularity of 911-conspiracy theories. Well, why would it not work the other way around? With several familiy members I noticed this pattern, when confronted with facts which are anomalous:

1. disbelief, laughter
2. (when more details are added) interest/curiosity, excitement, dispair/disgust
3. (when a "harmless" explanation for the anomalies is found or offered) relief, rejection
4. (when further evidence is presented) irritability, disbelief, changing subject.

My conclusion is that psychological self-defense mechanisms are setting up a denial-mental filtering system (stage 4). The clue is the shift from interest to irratability (2 -> 4). A solution seems to first take away the fear, and thus the need for denial. Presenting ever more convincing facts would heighten the fear, the cognitive dissonance, and therefore the filtering and the denial. Evidence is not merely unproductive, it is counter-productive. But: how to alleviate fear? I have little clue. The best thing is, not to fear yourself, I guess.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. I agree with you on the reactions, I've noticed the exact same thing. I've also noticed, being self-aware and forthcoming about this, that when I first open my mouth to start speaking about this there is a change in me mentally in the social sense, it's almost like a subtle shield goes up with an expectation of negative reaction, and pushing me to be brave is my need for acceptance of the evidence. I feel that on some intuitive level both of these are perceived by the listener and that likely affects their judgement, so you're right in that we need to be fearless ourselves in discussing these subjects (I remember the old saying that fear creates fear.) The thing is, this subject is associated with a rebellious state of mind, and I'm not sure why; listing important facts or asking important questions is a very Human thing to do and is not rebellious. I think we have all been raised since childhood, often by parents and always by teachers and the media, to react a certain way to certain things. To quote David Icke, "We have out-sheeped the sheep, because sheep need sheep dogs to keep them in line and we keep each other in line." That is true, because any sign of individuality is met with comical, cold or downright hateful reaction; we're all supposed to praise the pack mentality and condemn individuality. Therefore, this is a deep psychological issue (why "the truth is so hard.") People are wrapped up in this warm cocoon and they don't want to be exposed to harsh reality. You will find that those of us who can easily accept the truth have already discovered our individual strength, unlike the majority who haven't and can't accept it. Thus the issue of accepting the truth has more to do with emotion and individual growth than evidence, you're right.

When did individual thinking become condemned? There is something to be said for supporting and protecting individual thought and strength in general at this time. But this isn't at all easy of course. How does one defy the social laws which are designed against the individual without losing social acceptance? If people lose all respect for you, you'd might as well just talk to the wall. I'm thinking that many of us need to work together, even if just in the sense that we support each other's efforts. In the end this is a huge undertaking though, isn't it? To try to change the state of mind that the general public holds onto for dear life. It sounds too massive of an aim. Religion, politics, schools, psychology and even science I believe play a part in keeping us in a state of dependence. I'm not sure it can get better before it gets worse. Neurolanis (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not

Why don't you start making that book of yours about how 9/11 was executed by the NWO and then well see if your'e right. Please use your user page. CTD Mark I (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What book? Neurolanis (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometime ago when you edited 9/11 attacks you said that you'd have to write a book to list all the evidence that NWO arranged the attacks, I dont think theres any restrictions about how to use your userpage. (I might be wrong but if you write it it'll still stay in the page history.) I won't bother going through the page history again. CTD 09:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's alright, forgot about that remark. Yeah I could but books have already been published, websites are already out there and people are already lecturing about or discussing these facts. I have nothing to add. And like I just posted above, I don't have the answers. I'm no different than a lot of people out there who are just looking at lots of little facts that don't fit in with the official take and feel like there are many questions which deserve to be answered. Like the Laden family being taken out of the country to protect them, when you'd think they'd be questioned about Bin Laden (but I know, they're rich.) Like people who were warned about flying to NYC during 9-11. Like Condoleezza Rice being warned of an impending attack by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet. Like Bush stating that he had seen the first plane strike and assumed it was merely bad piloting, despite the fact no known footage of the first plane hitting exists (that the public knows about.) Like lies about the tower designs. Like a man captured by the Canadian secret service who in trying to convince them that he was a CIA agent told them of an impending strike on the Twin Towers, a week or so before 9-11. Like the fact that conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones had been preaching about a conspiracy to merge the world into a new order long before 9-11, and he himself had predicted such an event would happen shortly before it did (or did he know something?) Like the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon and managed to hit the one section that was under reconstruction, and managed to do very little damage, and that managed a manoeuvre to be in the position to land where it had that experts say was impossible. Like footage recently released of that 'plane' with an object doesn't resemble a plane but a much smaller object. Like the missing wreckage in the other one, and yet one of the terrorists' ID cards found in good condition! Like a 'terrorist' who left his briefcase at the airport which contained a suicide letter which just so happened to be left behind by security (who would take a suicide letter onto a plane that was going to be destroyed?) Like the accused terrorists who were still alive after 9-11. Like why there just so happened to be a training exercise that very day which confused airline security (just as there was a transit bombing exercise in London before the bombs went off.) Like the lack of evidence proving that there is a real terrorist threat. Like the government's refusal to release any such evidence or to answer these important questions. And there is a lot more yet, and I bet a lot more to come out.

It's just too tiring. It's tiring to think about, tiring to talk about, and tiring to argue for over and over. How does a person compete with the political system, secret service and mainstream media? It's in his own best, albeit selfish, interest to just keep it to himself. And maybe that's what I'll do. I just hope these questions get answered before it drives me crazy. Neurolanis (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, whats your point with the suicide letter Like a 'terrorist' who left his briefcase at the airport which contained a suicide letter which just so happened to be left behind by security... actually whats weird about that? Hey that's me 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything. Pilots who were considered horrible by their trainers managing to pull off what they did to expert precision ... and yes the suicide letter brought with him, and the brieface 'accidently' forgotten by security, it does look suspicious. But it's a minor point. The visual evidence, expert findings and witness accounts of things are all much more important than little pieces like that of course. I just mentioned it because it popped in my head. Neurolanis (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

Okay, Laden family if you think they werent questioned or investigated before let out of the country your'e nuts and it was propably a trick to try lure Osama out of hide. Besides if they would have known that Osama was about to do four massive terrorist strikes why would they have been in the US in the first place? Flying to NYC well if I'd have to execute the worlds most greatest terrorist strikes I would select planes about to fly a long distance so it would have lots of fuel in it to burn as they did. The first plane hit thingy there is footage of the first plane hitting (look youtube) or if you were referring to that it wasn't shown on tv when he claimed to have seen the clip he is the president of the most powerful country in the world so the speed that he got a hold of the videos would be much grater than how fast the tv channels received the footage and were ready to show it. (He is also G. W. Bush) What lies about the tower design the hits took out the cores of the buildings so they were poorly supported from the top and when you have 24,000 gal. of fuel burning it's pretty damn hot so the steel started to bend. If you are going to bend a world in to your control you dont start killing people. That Pentagon hit thing is possible if they crashed the plane before crashing in to the building as they did (poor piloting) And they did damage to the E, C and D rings killing a 189 people. Maybe they selected days on wich there were exercises to confuse people. And oh, the warnings weren't taken seriously see that document about what led to 9/11 by the 9/11 comission. To find new York With such an advanced plane isn't hard. (GPS) or to fly a plane in to a huge tower (there are other hard things than flying to why being an airline pilot is so tough(just ask if you want to know(No I'm not one but I still know))) Hey that's me 16:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your questions are the same as mine. It doesn't make sense, that's why we need answers. No most of the fuel was released within seconds, then an hour of smouldering fire. And 9-11 saw the first three fire-proofed steel structures in history to collapse due to fire? And straight down, perfect demolitions. You clearly have trouble accepting that things aren't as they seem, and you certainly aren't alone. But it's up to you to decide whether to look into this subject with an open mind, or not. There are many facts here, and they don't add up, and that's why people are asking questions. There are powerful people in this world who don't give a damn about you, or even millions of people. They do whatever fills their pockets or grants them stronger connections. Hard for sane people like us to grasp, but it is true. I was once naive like you. I don't really know what to say, only that the truth can break your heart. Not that there aren't a lot of good people out there (like say, those fighting for the truth.) Neurolanis (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Crhm... I searched answers, those weren't questions. Anyways, jet fuel burns quite slow and at max 980c° I'll just talk of one building (easier to explain) if the structures were ment to support the building at 20° I think that by the time it reached 500° the steel would have been quite bendy under that sort of pressure. And the crashes wiped out the center structures of the buildings so there was only around 50-75% support for the top part. Heat up some remaining 25% and you have a turn for the worse. :(

Hey that's me 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have ANY idea how much explosives in would have taken to blow up a building that large??

And not to mention that all of the charges would have needed to be placed at exact locations. And you said they were three of the first steel fire-proof buildings, in that case the desing of them would have been a lot less sophisticated than these days. I think I recall a document about the critical failures of the building wich included that the fire resistant materials(just nevermind any weird terms, I've been awake for 27 hours :P) around the support beams crumbled off and exposed the pillars to open fire, and that the exterior support structures mostly took on the lateral loads when the inside core supported mostly vertical loads. Hey that's me 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You demonstrate my point exactly; it would take a lot of explositives and a lot of (planned) work = inside job. Neurolanis (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the truth

A federal technical building and fire safety investigation of the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 has been conducted by the United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The goals of this investigation were to investigate why the buildings collapsed, the extent of injuries and fatalities, and the procedures involved in designing and managing the World Trade Center.

The report concluded that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. Gene Corley, the director of the original investigation, commented that "the towers really did amazingly well. The terrorist aircraft didn’t bring the buildings down; it was the fire which followed. It was proven that you could take out two thirds of the columns in a tower and the building would still stand." The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse. In addition, the report asserts that the towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones. NIST stated that the final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report. This was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue University.

---

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed its performance study of the buildings in May 2002. It declared the WTC design sound and attributed the collapses wholly to extraordinary factors beyond the control of the builders. While calling for further study, FEMA suggested that the collapses were probably initiated by weakening of the floor joists by the fires that resulted from the aircraft impacts. According to FEMA's report – and subsequently contradicted by NIST's findings – the floors detached from the main structure of the building and fell onto each other, initiating a progressive "pancake" collapse.

---

What I think you are... another victim of social proof. I'm immune to that. I'm sorry but you really haven't provided any solid argument that they were demolished by a world large organization, wich no one knows about. No offence but you should cut down on X-files. He-he just kidding. Hey that's me 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, you mistake me for an idiot? I'm not. Me have brain, me no Sheeple, tank you. And you are a liar, and, well, the nicest possible comparison would be to say you are like a pig from "Animal Farm" (that's being very nice.) You are a pawn of a system based on ignorance planning to take control, as so many have, over a beautiful planet ruled by a spiritually dumbed-down people. You could maybe, if you try hard enough, think for yourself; for although you enjoy looking down at the Sheeple you are yourself much more stupid than they are; for the average person, although believing that the mainstream media is telling them all they need to know and scary stories about Big Brother are best left ignored, would not wish to join in an effort which is based on utter stupidity (madness), allowing their own souls to be destroyed (they'd have to be tricked and pushed into it with great deceptive effort, despite the strong gut knowing that it was wrong – which would inevitably rise up and overthrow the controllers, like it always does.) Moronic scumballs, however, gleefully follow the Devil (metaphorically speaking (there is no Devil (and Joan of Arc wasn't really hearing the voice of God, either.) No my friend, people who wilfully, knowingly, participate in an insane campaign against truth, nature and spiritual harmony are the most extreme example of complete and utter stupidity that I can imagine.

He-he just kidding. Neurolanis (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good one. Now what about Al Quaeda taking responsibility? CTD 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has committed crimes against humanity need to be exposed and removed from power (or a state of freedom where they may continue committing harm (I guess that's what 'justice' is for.) But this doesn't just account for the puppets exploited by the rich, but the puppet masters in both the East as well as the West. Whether in business, government, military, secret societies or in no real organization as such -- whoever they are and however they are connected, anyone who has been pulling the strings of evil need to be exposed and dealt with. Every criminal, whether insanely rich or dead broke, has a lot of excuses for their behaviour. Always. I always say: people who follow the Devil can't look him in the eye (a metaphor, of course.) Neurolanis (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Neurolanis, I am sorry I have only just seen your comments on my Talk pages. You said your comments in the "Conspiracy 'Theories' Statement Problem" at the bottom of the "Talk:September-11-attacks" section had been removed after you had re-posted them three times. You also asked me if there were a way of protecting your comment and if there were a "record on whoever has been doing it". No, there is no way you can actually protect any section within articles, 'Talk' or otherwise. Technically anyone can revert what you have added, but you most certainly can trace who did and when by clicking on the history tab of the the Talk page. It gives full details.

My heart goes out to all those who lost their lives in the atrocities of that day and their families, but as a Brit I have no right to comment on conspiracy theories for or against, as I would not be qualified as an outsider. It seems however, that replies by Arthur Rubin and Peter Grey to your comments ensure that your last entries will now stay on the page, as it would otherwise leave their replies pointless. Hope this helps. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and help, much appreciated! Neurolanis (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to September 11 attacks and related articles

This means that, if in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, you are disrupting the normal processes of discussion and article improvement at any 9/11 related page, you may be (for example) banned from editing such pages. (If you continue to edit in violation of such a ban, you may be blocked from editing altogether, but hopefully all of that won't be necessary.)

To avoid being sanctioned, I recommend that you carefully read the essential Wikipedia article content policies...

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

... as well as the following user conduct policies...

• Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Civility

In short, be polite and respectful when discussing article improvements with other editors; always work from the assumption that others are there to improve the encyclopaedia; use article Talk pages only for discussing improvements to the article, and only propose improvements which are neutral presentations of information published by reliable sources (see our guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more on that).

If you have further questions about how to contribute effectively or how Wikipedia works, feel free to contact me at my personal Talk page. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried hard to explain my case and people did ask me questions and I did answer. But I didn't ask for the questions and didn't think there would be a problem in answering them, but if the topic got off-subject or "carried away" I have no problem with it being archived. I was just waiting to see what I could recognize as some kind of official reply to my question. There might have been one that I didn't see, seeing as though the first two times I posted my question someone removed it without telling me why. But as you can see, I did end it with "thanks" even though others continued commenting. Neurolanis (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I found out that Tarage was resonsible for removing my 9-11 comment twice. The documented proof is on the History Page of 9-11 attacks. The dates that prove that he removed them: 03:38, 24 September 2008 Tarage and 01:38, 29 September 2008 Tarage. Wouldn't be surprised if Tarage was the one who placed the complaint against me.

I have just noticed that he had admitted this in the replies to my question on the Discussion page. I had somehow overlooked it before. Is this fairplay at Wikipedia; deleting people's posts without permission or even giving them a reason why?Neurolanis (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed your posts, and yes, if you continue to post un-reliably-sourced conspiracy theory nonsense, I will do it again. I, as well as many other editors, have told you flat out that the source you provided is not acceptable. You have gone out of your way to insult the editors of Wikipedia while pushing your filth. Well, if you aren't going to treat us with respect, then I won't treat you with respect either. Your proposed edit has been considered and rejected. Many just like it have been proposed in the past and also rejected. You should check the talk page archives more often. Wikipedia talk pages are NOT a forum for you to spout your personal beliefs. If you continue to do so, you will be topic blocked at best and banned at worst. Just because YOU think you are right does not make you right. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. If you don't have any, take your ball and go home. We don't care how much research you have done either. I have no time or energy to waste trying to help you since you so clearly do not wish to be helped. --Tarage (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Tarage, you must be one of the biggest liars I have ever known! First of all, NO ONE had told me to my knowledge before you REMOVED my comment twice that my source was not acceptable (and if they had, by removing it you took away my chance to read their replies, plus just because you don’t agree with a source’s validity or a comment doesn’t make it appropriate to remove it without even letting the editor know why you removed it.) And as for insulting other editors this is the first I`ve heard of it. For someone who enjoys enforcing and rambling on about his personal beliefs you have a lot of gull to accuse me of doing the same. I would never even consider disrespecting Wikipedia by turning its editorial discussion pages into forums to debate personal truth. Not my style. I would only ever attempt to explain the facts to the best of my knowledge, and if they are outright ignored without any clear reason at all I probably would ask for one. This is supposed to be a public encyclopedia, not a playpen for bullies to float their own agenda; everyone deserves respect, this including explanations for actions against them and not removing their comments outright (I`d agree in the case of spam, foul language or flame wars, but even then the person should be told briefly why his/her comment was removed if not at least for the sake of letting them know of their error.)

You sure make yourself sound like you represent all the best interests of Wikipedia, but you are just one person, and you are rude, bossy and a liar. You refuse to look at very credible sources or pieces of information, and you display on the whole a serious lack of wordly understanding. I sincerely hope that the majority of Wikipedia moderators are a tad bit less close-minded and more curious about the world than you are. (Truth is not how we`d like it to be, it is not multiple choice; picking what truths make you look good does not help the world at all. The truth is found through facts, and this takes time, energy and independent thought (and this takes passion, or at the very least on its most base level, curiosity. I hope that together, as editors, as Human beings, by looking at the evidence, we can discover the truth.) Neurolanis (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of attempting to help you understand(I don't know why I'm even bothering), I'll go statement by statement.

"First of all, NO ONE had told me to my knowledge before you REMOVED my comment twice that my source was not acceptable"

You should have seen the big 'Read the talk page archives' notice at the top of the talk page. You failed to do so. Had you, you would have seen that the arguments you are making have been made, and rejected, before. You have no defense here.

"And as for insulting other editors this is the first I`ve heard of it."

I need only take a look at your posts to see that you have called everyone who believes the official story to be 'idiots' or 'in on it'. Again, no defense.

"I would never even consider disrespecting Wikipedia by turning its editorial discussion pages into forums to debate personal truth."

This directly contradicts

"I would only ever attempt to explain the facts to the best of my knowledge, and if they are outright ignored without any clear reason at all I probably would ask for one."

Wikipedia is not a forum. You are attempting to push your own research there. We don't care about your own research, we only care about reliable sources.

"This is supposed to be a public encyclopedia, not a playpen for bullies to float their own agenda; everyone deserves respect, this including explanations for actions against them and not removing their comments outright"

Then why is it all of your comments start out by saying that 'everyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot'?

"You sure make yourself sound like you represent all the best interests of Wikipedia, but you are just one person, and you are rude, bossy and a liar."

If I were the only person against you, sure. However, everyone on the talk page has told you the same thing. You choose to ignore this.

"You refuse to look at very credible sources or pieces of information, and you display on the whole a serious lack of wordly understanding."

No, it is not a reliable source. We have told you this.

"I sincerely hope that the majority of Wikipedia moderators are a tad bit less close-minded and more curious about the world than you are."

If you mean 'I hope Wikipedia moderators agree with my opinion'... I don't even know where to begin. READ THE TALK PAGE ARCHIVES.

"I hope that together, as editors, as Human beings, by looking at the evidence, we can discover the truth."

It is NOT our job to do this. Wikipedia is not an investigatory web page. It reports what reliable sources say. We have countless sources saying what the current page says. You have a handful that say otherwise. And even then, they are not reliable sources.

I am going to be as clear as I can be. Do not post videos, we don't care. Do not post web pages that do not conform to Wikipedia's Reliable Source guidelines. Do not call people idiots for not agreeing with your point of view. If you cannot follow these rules, then you WILL be banned. Not by me, but by any of the countless moderators who will most certainly agree that your current behavior is unacceptable. Do you understand? Feel free to talk to any moderator on Wikipedia, I know they will agree with what I just said. --Tarage (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

REPLY:

“...I don't know why I'm even bothering....”

Below you will see that I understand, although I cannot agree in principal.

“You should have seen the big 'Read the talk page archives' notice at the top of the talk page. You failed to do so. Had you, you would have seen that the arguments you are making have been made, and rejected, before. You have no defense here.”

I obviously didn’t realize this feature nor could I have been expected to realize that I had comments to a post that was deleted. I only realized there had been comments made to them, or at least I presume there had been, through reading the replies the third time I posted my comment. Why would I need a “defense here”? What are you insinuating now?

“I need only take a look at your posts to see that you have called everyone who believes the official story to be 'idiots' or 'in on it'. Again, no defense. ”

You are referring to the third time I posted my comment where it wasn’t deleted, are you not? And I believe the word I used is moron (if someone fails to understand the obvious, especially when backed with tons of scientific proof and basic common sense, I would say a person qualifies. In retrospect that may have been a bit harsh, but I was upset at the time how my post had been deleted twice and then when I finally got it on people were not even considering the evidence. This I should have expected as before I had posted very credible links (credible, but not according to Wiki moderators, etc.) I assumed people here were curious enough to investigate an important issue with the sources supplied and study them with independent thought, so far I appear to be wrong.

“This directly contradicts”

Contradicts what? Seems you can’t explain yourself.

“Wikipedia is not a forum. You are attempting to push your own research there. We don't care about your own research, we only care about reliable sources.”

As I have told you already, I am “ beginning to read between the lines.” By that I meant that I am now understanding that Wikipedia, or at least according to some of its members, does not care about facts and instead favors whatever the mainstream says. And I KNOW Wikipedia is not a forum.

“Then why is it all of your comments start out by saying that 'everyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot'?”

I’d laugh if I wasn’t so aggravated by your art of nonsense. Clearly NONE of my comments start out that way, I merely try to explain facts as I see them and give sources which would explain it to you. Not as if you care, but in this power-hungry, Capitalist world, truth of what goes on behind the scenes of power cannot be plucked from the trees. It must be dug up from the soil (by soil I mean, you know, manure.) The truth, the facts, do actually matter to some people you know.

“If I were the only person against you, sure. However, everyone on the talk page has told you the same thing. You choose to ignore this.”

That’s not true. One person was brave enough to post his support, and on the same issue I’ve had pleasant feedback from several editors on Wikipedia. Your position is not shared by all others, sorry to burst your bubble.

“No, it is not a reliable source. We have told you this.”

You have told me that Wikipedia does not consider it one at this time. I was hoping that someone would look through the tons of links to EXTREMELY credible individuals and realize that the site was extremely credible, but guess not. It’s rather like a produce clerk finding an orange sticker on an apple and trying to explain to the manager that it belongs in the apple bin and the manager saying, “It’s clearly labeled as an orange, can’t you read?”

“If you mean 'I hope Wikipedia moderators agree with my opinion'... I don't even know where to begin. READ THE TALK PAGE ARCHIVES.”

Is it not clear to you? I did not realize this before, until I looked for proof for who had deleted my comment twice. I did not come across where replies had been made to my comment deletions, but after it had been posted a third time I could see that people were rejecting it, but I overlooked the fact that one such person was a moderator. That was my error, I mistakenly presumed that such a person would be a tad bit more educated and curious (worldly.) But I was wrong.

“It is NOT our job to do this (look for the truth.) [Discussion reference in brackets added by me, Neurolanis.] Wikipedia is not an investigatory web page. It reports what reliable sources say. We have countless sources saying what the current page says. You have a handful that say otherwise. And even then, they are not reliable sources.”

Scientific and documented proof as well as compelling highly credible witness testimony is to be ignored for the sake of worshipping whatever the mainstream says, I understand that now.

“I am going to be as clear as I can be. Do not post videos, we don't care. Do not post web pages that do not conform to Wikipedia's Reliable Source guidelines. Do not call people idiots for not agreeing with your point of view. If you cannot follow these rules, then you WILL be banned. Not by me, but by any of the countless moderators who will most certainly agree that your current behavior is unacceptable. Do you understand? Feel free to talk to any moderator on Wikipedia, I know they will agree with what I just said.”

You’re explaining to me that from your perspective, and it’s looking very much to me that you know of what you speak, Wikipedia is Fascist. Yeah, I guess I can understand that. What a shame. It could have been a very useful site for truth, facts and in-depth information. Instead, it’s mainstream propaganda. I understand. I won’t even bother asking how you sleep at night. I’ll just finish with letting you know that I won’t waste my time or others' by fighting a battle I can’t win. But the war is far from over. I will post my credible sources and information on other sites, unless or until someone of authority on this site gives me their support.

“Nothing vanishes without a trace.” –Chris Carter Neurolanis (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I can see you are so far entrenched in your views that nothing short of a topic ban will show you that you can't run around doing whatever you want on Wikipedia. Call it fascist, call it ignorant, but for every one of you out there, there are thousands like me who are working with the project to make it better every day. I tried to help you by explaining very clearly how things are run, but you've chosen to add labels to every little thing. So, I give up. Continue to add your useless blather to the talk page. I guarantee that it will either be ignored, deleted, or rejected, and if you continue to act like this you will be removed from the project. Have a nice day in fantasy land. --Tarage (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the one living in fantasy land, and I have an accumulation of facts to prove it. But oh wait, it's not featured on mainstream sources. It requires individual thought. Bah, never mind.

For the record I clearly stated above that I understood what Tarage had explained to me about the site rules regarding sources. I only disagreed with A. The principal. B. The wisdom (or lack thereof.) And C. That I hold in my heart some hope that not every moderator or administrator on Wikipedia is quite so close-minded (at least not in spirit (and this includes some serious extent in belief in freedom of speech.) But I’ve stated that I do understand and intend to follow his advice (regarding sources for Wikipedia.) Neurolanis (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sodium fluoride. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And you are now blocked for 24 hours per the above warning. You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neurolanis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am doing nothing wrong

Decline reason:

I think, perhaps, you should use this time to construct a foolproof argument for your claims, and present it on the talk page. Sodium fluoride being a health concern is something which tends to frequent conspiracy sites, notwithstanding any actual medical problems. Furthermore, insulting Wikipedia, as you did below, is not a good way to go about requesting an unblock. — Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

First of all, the last edit I made was after getting this warning. I just tried posting a comment on your page, not sure if it was accepted. But I attempted to explain how I added a few important facts to the article "Sodium Fluoride" and they were edited off. I have several credible sources on there (not as if they're needed, it should be common knowledge anyway.) Another credible source was posted on the Discussion page, under the very issue of health conerns for sodium fluoride, in which all the editors agree with me. But agree or not, medical facts are medical facts. Whoever keeps removing my information is being rude and quite unprofessional. Neurolanis (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your sources, and it seems to me you're drawing a conclusion which doesn't really exist in the article, and you're certainly posting your conclusion in a biased manner. "Despite fluoride's toxicity, it continues to be used in a wide range of products and sources, including water, milk and toothpaste." implies we're all going to die by brushing our teeth. Anything in sufficient excess, including oxygen, has the potential to kill someone. Sensationalistic posts aren't neutral, and in any event you were doing absolutely nothing to discuss this with the editors who were reverting you. Please see the links I've provided above (minus the oxygen link), as well as WP:3RR. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but they removed MY changes, not the other way around. I didn't know who those editors were and was wondering if they were teenagers or what. I can hardly believe my ears that you are unaware of the dangers of sodium fluoride, but check out the link I posted in Discussion: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm

And as for my wording, I didn't think it any different than the way mainstream reporters, essayists and encyclopaedia writers would word such a happening. But how would you have worded it? Neurolanis (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised just now to find that you did not unblock me, even after I explained myself. I wasn't surprised, however, to see that my edit was again edited off the page. Two editors were working together to remove my information, I guess so that I would break the limit of edits (first I've heard of this rule) before they did. Pretty clever, but also pretty childish. Oh boy, my dealings with this site continue to humour me. No wonder everyone says that Wikipedia is a poor source of information. Neurolanis (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Other way around; preventing what you were doing improves Wikipedia as a source of information. It's the only thing we really care about around here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? What is going on around here? Every editor in that conversation was stressing how dangerous sodium fluoride is. You don't believe that Wikipedia should reflect scientific truth? Neurolanis (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, yet another critic to mysteriously jump out of the woodwork, you'll see above a source which explains that sodium fluoride is in fact a dangerous chemical. Here is another: http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/bhepafluoride.html

If you doubt these credible sources, ask your neighbours. Neurolanis (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who am I? You posted an unblock request. This calls the attention of any interested administrator to your talk page, to see if the unblock request should be honored. "Ask your neighbors" is nothing we can use on Wikipedia; all we care about here is verifiable reliable sources. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh ... my ... ummm, by that I meant ask anyone. Virtually *everyone* by now knows at the very least that sodium fluoride is not safe to drink or have hot showers with. Around here anyway it is common knowledge. That is what I meant. There is no excusing this willing ignorance, in other words. Wikipedia should reflect the truth, and for a chemical so commonly used in water and toothpaste, and now also milk in the UK, the site should reflect the (already commonly known) health concerns about the chemical. I can't imagine what an argument in opposition to this might be. Neurolanis (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"The operation timed out when attempting to contact www.advancedhealthplan.com". Again, though, common knowledge doesn't matter - it's not a reliable source. Wikipedia isn't here to have the truth, we're here to cite reliable sources, such as the Government and the BDA. Conspiracy theory sites are not reliable sources, they never will be. Until you can prove, with verifiable, neutral, reliable sources - which the community accepts - then this idea is going to go the same way as the 'New World Order' theories. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you talking about conspiracies? This issue is about medical facts. But I understand that you are saying that Wikipedia does not care about truth, it cares about following the mainstream propaganda. I am getting that loud and clear, I've just enoyed entertaining the notion that Wikipedia may accept the truth (the same reason why I'll listen to what a liar has to say, so I can say I listened.) Also it has been a learning process for me.

By the way, you should try reading that whimsical article on the truth that you linked me to. Neurolanis (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Now My Front Page Has a Deletion Request...Unreal...

I am laughing here. This is so ... hmm what's the right word, silly?

My front page has a series of famous quotes from several American presidents and a few others, yet someone has asked that my page be deleted! I have seen many other Wikipedia members, including admins, enjoy dressing up their profile pages with colourful phrases and images. All I did was list some quotes, and so during my discussion with a sudden wave of editors who came out of nowhere to attack me for attempting to explain the dangers of sodium fluoride (see above), someone has taken it upon himself to request that my front page be deleted. Note also that no one had contacted me, expressing a problem. Nor did this person leave an explanation somewhere for the request.

If someone has a problem with the statements made by American presidents that I post on my page, that's not my problem. The statements are what they are; you can either agree with them, find them interesting, or dislike them. Asking that they be deleted is either childish or an attempt to attack one's freedom of speech. I posted there not one controversial word, made absolutely no assumptions as to what the presidents and other notable men in history were saying, and merely just left it up to the reader to decide. Others can be quirky, and according to this person, I am not supposed to post quotes on my page? Neurolanis (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually a userbox up for deletion. Make sure you read twice before jumping to conclusions, and assuming conspiracies against you. I've tweaked the code for the MfD, you'll not see it again if you don't want. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions? I know how to read, thank you. It states: "This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." If its own statement is not correct, that is not an error on my end.

Pardon me, but what do you mean by tweaking an MfD code? I'm afraid I'm not that tech-smart. Neurolanis (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MFD: A userbox you were using was tagged for deletion, so when you put the userbox on your page, it copied across the userbox's deletion notice too! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay thanks. Wonder why it's being deleted. Neurolanis (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye, Wikipedia

I am stepping away from this site, maybe for a time, maybe forever. But I just can't take it anymore. Being told that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, only mainstream concepts (see above) was the final straw.

Don't think of me as an idiot; I knew this to be true from the start. That is to say, I felt it, and I assumed it. But I always like to say I listen to both sides, I gave it a shot, I did my best. So I played dumb and pretended that Wikipedia cared about the truth, that it just couldn't see past the mainstream propaganda. From beginning to end it was an uphill battle, on Wikipedia's terms of course. I was never meant to win, so I guess it was a suicide dash. I posted many interesting facts about the 9/11 attacks which caught barely anyone's interest (never that of authority here.) I tried to defend David Icke amidst all the Anti-Semitism BS being made against him with absolutely no evidence to back it up (and my explanations and explaining of the facts were just shrugged off.) I tried to explain that sodium fluoride is dangerous (a common main ingredient in rat poisoning, etc.) This was attacked by a united lightning-fast army of editors and authorities (just see above.) Remember that saying, "the silence is deafening"? At Wikipedia the BS is ... can't find a word for overwhelming sensation of the nostrils, but you get the idea.

I am all about truth. Trying to explain the fantastic importance of truth is like trying to explain the value of life or the importance of personal growth; if someone is so horribly unwise as not to appreciate it, how could you possibly explain it to that person? Admins tell me here that they are dedicated to propaganda and that whole truth has no place here, and I just, what could I say to that? It would be like trying to explain to someone why they shouldn't join the Nazi army, I mean, it's insane. By all the ancient and Illuminati symbolism on the pages on Userboxes here it doesn't take a genius to figure out who's running this site. But what's hard to fathom is all the people here assisting them, seeming to actually believe that they are doing some sort of moral service. In fact, they are caging away truth and promoting propaganda. And I have no doubt that these very same people like who they see in the mirror and have no trouble sleeping at night, while I pace about my home trying to understand this blind subservient mentality and the ignorant pride that comes with it. Keeping faith and love for my fellow man can be very trying at times, to put it mildly.

But again, I'm no fool. I see sheeple everywhere, but I know they can be so much more, because I know in my heart of hearts that they are not being their true selves. This is, as Alex Jones has stated, a Prison Planet. And we are all to some extent slaves here. But as Malcolm X once tried to explain to his people, there are two kinds of slaves: field slaves and house slaves. The field slaves keep a distance from their masters because they despise them and what they do, while the house slave enjoys the benefits of getting close and loving his servatude. The problem is, the house slaves do not realize they are house slaves. They sit in fancy offices in Washington, Ottawa and London, feeling their power. But they are all pawns of a secret government (see the quotes on my front page.) And the puppets who serve puppets who serve puppets who serve puppets under them feel their power too, as artificial and inconsequential as it may be. The only consequence that it might bring is the spirit of revolution; of truth; of the natural world breaking into the unnatural world. Just the spirit, if not all the facts, or not right away. But when it comes to spirit, I feel Wikipedia is a ghost town (hmm, funnily enough that's a bad analogy, but just funny enough to stick with.)

All I can say is that you out there who feel yourselves to be resisters of Fascism are not resisting yet, only in your heads. When I can feel your spirit, loud and proud and fearless, I'll call you resistors. For now, although you are not part of the problem you are too small a part of the solution to feel proud about yourselves.

As for you Fascists -- yeah, you know who you are. You can laugh at me because you know the average editor here isn't smart enough yet to know hard truth from easy fiction. You're just doing your job, right? And they believe you. Well, not for long. The Truth Movement is just beginning, while the New World Order has begun its collapse. Those of you here who have supported the latter will not be arrested, as your part was too minuscule to be rewarded with punishment. You will simply be ashamed, and deeply embarrassed. Especially as you actually realize what the New World Order actually intended for you, your family and everything you held sacred. Hard as you might try to polish their boots, to them you're just another bootlicker. No one respects a suck-up, no one. And boy will your face be red.

I'll be waiting. Neurolanis (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Back, Jack (Or should I say, Obama?)

It didn't take long for me to get caught up in the heat of information and cultural awareness (and lack thereof.) I came across the subject of Obama's bloodline connections to many very powerful, successful and famous individuals. From Dick Cheney to Princess Diana, it gets pretty impressive. This fact outlines how the elite benefit each other, and how they are in control of the American government. Unlike 9-11 Truth, this time I had the support of mainstream sources and the publically accepted proof of a major organization specializing in genealogy. This time I couldn't be attacked with "you have no credible sources" (mainstream sources) or proof (government sponsored or accepted organizations' backing.) This time I had these things, and the close quarters of relation between these successful individuals was striking. So what could go wrong?

An excerpt from the Obama Discussion page where I proposed the subject as a sub-topic:

These aren't distant cousins, like 111th or 214th cousins. They are 5th and 9th cousins, etc. The list includes several other American presidents, of these George Bush, and celebrities such as Brad Pitt, Madonna and Marilyn Munroe, and from his mother's side Celine Deon and Alanis Morissette. And there are more still.

Sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23797072/

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/860708,genes032508.article

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/wireStory?id=4521690'

The first two times I posted this it was removed without any reason given, by two different individuals (ironically, the second time I've experienced this.) Then it was immediately attacked by a number of individuals who stated that the information of bloodline connection was insignificant. I understood that people would feel this way by the time you get to sixth and seventh cousin, because it does involve thousands of individuals (although this is still impressive, when you consider the wide scope of successful individuals involved.) I tried to explain how few people are involved at the fifth cousin level, but this met with comments saying, "How well do you know your distant cousins?" and "as fifth cousins you would share great great great great grandparents." Firstly, I have known my fourth and fifth cousins. But then, I am country. I explained also how important bloodline is to the elite and freemasons. Secondly, the latter comment is foolish and is ignoring the small number of related individuals involved. It would be like saying, as a Canadian how can you live 'next door' to an American when Canada is 4.5 million square miles and the United States is 3.79 square miles? Because they meet in the middle. Questions like that are designed to confuse a reader rather than educate.

Another editor created the page, List of notable distant cousins of Barack Obama. Merging that subject with The Family of Barack Obama page was discussed as a possibility, but this was denied in a discussion for the possible deletion of the page and thus the whole bloodline issue. This was on the grounds that the subject was too unimportant to deserve mention, and this concept was actually argued with the fact that no mainstream sources had literally stated “this is an important subject” (although they felt it important another to print or broadcast.) Instead of expressing my comical reaction at the absurdity of this debate, I had hoped to defend the topic by making a number of good points, which I felt I did a pretty good job of.

To quote:

Please keep. Bloodline still plays an important part in society, especially to the elite who believe that they have superior genetics to the common people. Freemasons also highly regard bloodline. It is often noted on Wikipedia which religious, corporate and political organizations that a person belongs to, as well as ethnic background and nationality. I see no reason to turn a blind eye to blood lineage. Not only does this subject interest people, but several mainstream sources felt it important enough to print or broadcast. Realistically the odds of being fifth cousins with Obama are extremely slight, and when you find out how many individuals within that field alone either happen to find themselves in positions of political power, corporate success or famous in highly competitive fields of talent, how could you say that it is unimportant?

Let's do the math. Let's presume that each couple in a certain bloodline has three offspring (that's being generous.) Three siblings would therefore have three cousins from each of the two aunts/uncles from either side of one parent's family (as their father would have been one of three siblings, etc.) All four sets of first cousins would total 12. To reach the category of second cousin, you have to go back a step before the hypothetical parents, to their own aunts and uncles (again two siblings each, minus themselves.) This would total 36 second cousins to the three hypothetical offspring. To go back again for third cousins, we can multiply by three: 108. 4th cousins: 324. 5th cousins: 972. 6th cousins: 2916. 7th cousins: 8748. From there it escalates into higher numbers. Keep in mind, this is while presuming that every couple in this hypothetical bloodline has three offspring, and that they do not interbreed (which elite families have been known to do.)

To find out that within this family, at such close quarters as to be 5th cousins, include many of the most powerful and famous celebrities of our time, is rather remarkable. Also included in these blood connections are Canadian celebrities Celine Deon and Alanis Morissette, and deceased British royal Princess Diana. Bear in mind, it not only matters for how these figures are related to Obama, but how they are all genetically interrelated. What this poses is not necessary smoke for conspiracy suspicions or simply high society politics, but the question of genetic superiority as well. I don't think that anyone is interested in pointing this subject in any of these directions per say; simply to show the facts which have been proven and publically accepted. Not every person here might share an interest in this particular subject, but so is this true of virtually any subject. My argument is that the bloodline connections are by themselves remarkable, and of great interest to any number of people researching this or related fields of study (pardon the pun.)

With the exception of a few votes, the page streamed "delete" top to bottom. And so, the issue has been removed from Wikipedia. The only remaining issue in the Obama bloodline subject is my request to add the subject as a sub-topic for the Obama page, which of course has a slight chance in Hell of being approved.

I noticed that an editor requested permission to add to Obama’s page the fact that he is left-handed, to which he was informed that there already exists a page for presidential handedness. So, according to Wikipedia the fact that Obama is closely related to several American presidents, current political powers, very wealthy businessmen and some of the most famous people of our time is too insignificant to mention on the site, but whether a president is left or right-handed is. Neurolanis (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

your editing

thank you for contributing to WP. saw some of your discussion over sodium fluoride. i have some constructive criticism for you. you tend to use unreliable sources. i too have had "battles" with other WP:Chem editors, however, if you use good sources, then what you write is backed up (verifiable). most of my work has been on the PFOA page. as you see, i talk about toxicology. however, i use reliable sources. maybe you can stick around, instead of marginalizing yourself. it seems you also tend to rant about how only you perceive truth. WP people will respect you more if you invested this energy to improve content of articles. i hope that helps. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean lamestream sources, not reliable ones. And yes, I am happy to say that I am a real human being and so naturally take truth over BS. That is why I fight for truth. My concept for better Wikipedia pages is more truthful, accurate pages. Not placing BS spins on truth to sound better. I have zero interest in that. If you are interested in helping to make people on Wikipedia appreciate the harmful effects of sodium fluoride I'd greatly appreciate your help. Not only for adults and elderly people, but for the children. Mothers who simply don't know any better, and who may mistakenly consult a resource like Wikipedia for the...facts. Neurolanis (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

then write content with neutrality and cite reliable sources (help WP) instead of ranting (hurt WP). some of what you ranted was interesting, but i still found holes to poke. but since you didn't add any content anywhere, no need to poke holes. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I do the best I can, given the fabricated environment and its limitations on the truth.Neurolanis (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

not trying to start a big discussion here, but, I like it here, to tell you the truth. i find it as conducive towards truth as one could ever hope for (given what it is). so good luck, and happy editing. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

in my humble opinion (IMHO). looking back at my edits, i've ranted too. i would also consider your recent paragraph to Freestyle69 as ranting (unproductive gibberish, whatever) because it didn't help improve the quality of any article on WP. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you want to be frank, I find all of your statements mindless, unrealistic and blindly supportive of the Internet's largest propaganda network. Neurolanis (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

i replied at my talk page where you can reply too, please, not sure if you saw my response there. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving For GOOD, My FINAL Two Cents

I just Googled "chemtrails" and what should appear at the very top but Wikipedia's page on the subject, only it is called "Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory." I just posted on the Discussion page: "They are actually referred to as chemtrails, never as chemtrail conspiracy theories." I would have made the change myself but they would have undone it and then told me that I was overstepping my bounds by editing the title (the position of 'editor' on Wikipedia is rather misleading.) What will happen is that someone will either remove it and will not tell me why it was removed or even mention that they did remove it, or someone will explain very politely that it is a general opinion at this time that the words 'conspiracy theory' are required as the establishment has not yet accepted it as fact. Someone might also advise me to be more considerate about how I word an objection (missing the humour of my statement which comes from its obviousness.)

Then, I would reply by saying, “It is not a conspiracy theory just because the lamestream newsreaders haven't repeated the words of an establishment spokesman which acknowledge the existence of chemtrails” (I wouldn’t actually say “lamestream.”) I would also add, “I see them in our skies with the naked eye and can literally obtain a witness account signed by at least hundreds of people in my local small-town community area alone, never mind my friends and family in the United States, Australia and across Europe who see them almost daily.” This in turn would be met with: "Your word or the word of hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people don't matter, we need a credible source." (I spoke on Wikipedia's hilarious meaning of "credible sources" above and will go briefly mention that again below.) Then I would reply to this with more evidence and whatever credible witness testimony I could find online, which would be attacked, and so on, back and forth, to absolutely no resolve.

Been there, done that, MOVING ON...FOR GOOD...

I have tried, Lord knows I have tried. The staff here at Wikipedia are like an army of clone soldiers out of Star Wars, mindlessly following the rules and stereotypes that are requested of them. Several of these also said to me very clearly, "Wikipedia does not care about the truth, only credible sources." (If you read this page you may find a couple of these.)

Credible sources? Hmmmm, sounds reasonable? Not at all. "Credible" means mainstream, just as "mainstream" means establishment propaganda. If you feel that folks who read Wikipedia and who trust its resourcefulness should know that sodium fluoride, commonly found in drinking water, toothpaste and some places now even in milk, is also a main ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, you'll of course be shocked when you find that Wiki's page on sodium fluoride barely mentions its toxicity. But like so many other important subjects on this site there is not a damn thing you can do about it. I know, I've been there. You can find credible sources, they'll be denied because they're not lamestream. You can dig up mainstream sources, they'll be denied because "it goes against the mainstream viewpoint." (Are you laughing yet?) So just as admins and editors have told me here, Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH. They do not care about what has been scientifically proven, what is all over the sky for millions to see, or that dozens of FEMA camps are being set up all across North America with countless hard plastic coffins and large ovens able to burn dozens of bodies at a time (yes, like right out of Nazi Germany (and don't think the German people realized what was happening until it happened either, they were proud and naive too.)

The world economy is collapsing and Wikipedia doesn't give a damn. They state as a fact that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from the French "people" to America. The people, really? All of them? In FACT it was a gift from the French Freemasons to the American Freemasons, as is inscribed on stone by American Freemasons having received it (with the Masonic symbol of the rulers and the "G".) They state that the current stars-and-stripes flag is the American flag, when in actuality it is the wartime/military flag (the peacetime/civil flag has stripes going upwards rather than across, and was replaced with the wartime flag during the civil war. (To this day, it has never been taken down.) And if you want to edit such obvious blunders, whether the facts are trivial or gargantuan, GOOD LUCK. Wiki doesn't care.

I tried placing information, which was supported by several major mainstream sources with scientific proof, on Obama's page; that he is closely related to Bush, Kerry, and a startling number of well-knowns -- from political leaders to famous actors and singers, to British royals and billionaire business men (the elite bloodlines.) But this was denied. The reason? Literally because: "There is no mainstream source indicating that the subject is important" (apparently for that particular subject mainstream coverage wasn't enough.) I tried defending David Icke's page against the slanderous statements that he is an anti-Semite, despite the fact that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support it. I argued this as best I could and frankly I did a damn good job and won the argument, but no one cared (no changes were made.) I struggled to defend the New Age threads, which were butchered with over-criticizing paragraphs: quite literally, most of every New Age subject I found were criticism rather than information on the subject! I kept making a point of this, while editing them and struggling for more changes. No one cared. The 9/11 Attacks...I don't even want to go there...just look above.

I knew this site was bad news ever since I gazed through the Wiki Userbox image pages and saw tons of Illuminati symbolism. I'm thinking that the jerk who founded Wikipedia was probably paid a pretty penny by the establishment for making it, because it brings lamestream propaganda to a new medium which otherwise is all about freedom of expression, thoughtfulness, truth and knowledge. But as it appears at the top of many Google searches, and is a quick and easy resource, so many people would use it (even though I know of no friends who bother with it anymore.)

I felt that if I gave it an effort I might make some degree of positive change. "No." If I could find credible sources. "No." Fine, mainstream ones. "No." Basically, trying to make Wikipedia ‘get real’ would be like trying to encourage Wal-Mart to stop its slave labour in China and treat its North American employees like adult human beings. It just 'ain't gonna happen' because there's a mainframe of propagandistic mindset behind it, and any attempts at explaining its wrongdoings to itself will be met with a mirrored response (YOU will be called a poor researcher, a conspiracy theorist or a propagandist.) It's like having a conversation with a crazy person. I’m referring to Wikipedia in the singular here because, like Wal-Mart, it is an entity. It has no face, no accountability, no individual thought or consideration. IT is an IT; a systematic force with legions of cookie-cutter men.

When you sign up to edit or be an admin they should greet you with: “WE ARE BORG. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. WE WILL ADD YOUR BIOLOGICAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN." Wait, scratch that. More like: "YOUR EMOTIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL DISTINCTIVENESS WILL BE RESHAPED TO MATCH OUR OWN." That’s right, Wiki even makes the Borg sound good!

And I can honestly say, after years of trying, that I did not meet ONE PERSON on this whole damn site who cared about truth like I do. There are many on here who care about truth for one subject or another, but not in general. Basically, Wikipedia is the by-product of Globalist disinformation. From what I can gather, some people here know this and others do not. But I can no longer waste my time and energy wrestling with bugs.

I am done. Goodbye. Neurolanis (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should let you go in peace, as it seems your brain won't allow you to assimilate here, but I am intellectually dissatisfied with your non-response to my two questions, one ended with rubric, and the other ended with unrealistic, here on my talk page. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you should have let me gone in peace. I just stumbled upon this while I came here to grab up those Obama bloodline news links above, and I feel a need to respond to this. Those comments you were referring to were my last on Wikipedia, I was getting tired or arguing and so I was basically agreeing to disagree. I was also extremely frustrated by that point, and so I was trying to be light in my responses (I did not want to spark a debate or argument, as I had at last decided to leave (for good.) Can we say goodbye now? I know it's hard but people do part ways. Neurolanis (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

back, only minor edits

So much for leaving huh? Worms always crawl back. --Tarage (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind welcome, your professionalism never ceases to amaze me.

Incidentally, I am only back doing very minor edits--correcting annoying spelling mistakes I happen to notice, and recently, yes, engaging in some important subject discussion. But I am not bothering myself with Wikipedia as I have in the past, I did all I could and I give up in that regard. Neurolanis (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet you found time out of your busy schedule to come troll the 9/11 talk page. Impressive. I'm glad that 'all you did' was nothing at all. --Tarage (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Find more to do with your time than troll my page. I am NOT a troll. Neurolanis (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Who, What, But No WHY?

I read the whole article and I can say that it fails to explain what it’s all about. The article seems to say "something happened and it involved drugs and abuse", but it doesn't explain why. Does anyone know whose idea was it, specifically why was it set up and what were its goals?

Obviously they were 'testing the water' to make use of the mind-control methods that they were experimenting with. This makes it a very serious subject (this added to the horrible treatment of victims during the project itself and thus also a violation of human rights.) Thus, the question of WHY is so important. Neurolanis (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this paragraph:

Headed by Sidney Gottlieb, the MKULTRA project was started on the order of CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles on April 13, 1953,[14] largely in response to alleged Soviet, Chinese, and North Korean use of mind control techniques on U.S. prisoners of war in Korea.[15] The CIA wanted to use similar methods on their own captives. The CIA was also interested in being able to manipulate foreign leaders with such techniques,[16] and would later invent several schemes to drug Fidel Castro.

The precursor program was called Project Artichoke. A section of the Project Artichoke article reads as follows:

ARTICHOKE was an offensive program of mind control that gathered information together with the intelligence divisions of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and FBI. In addition, the scope of the project was outlined in a memo dated January 1952 that stated, "Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self-preservation?"

Basically the answer to the "Why" question is rooted in the Cold War imperative not to allow Communist nations (specifically the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and North Korea)to get ahead of us, especially when it came to the possibility of developing a "Manchurian Candidate." Some say that real life "Manchurian Candidates" WERE created during this period and continue to be a part of covert U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy. A related discussion would be the conspiracy theory that Sirhan Sirhan was a real life "Manchurian Candidate" who was used as a cover during the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

If this topic is of interest to you, I would suggest you listen to the Pacifica Radio recording of Attorney Lawrence Teeter discussing Sirhan Sirhan's case. The link to this audio file appears below:

Lawrence Teeter, attorney for convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan, believed Sirhan was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert F. Kennedy in 1968. Teeter linked the CIA's MKULTRA program to mind control techniques that he claimed were used to control Sirhan.

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/15830 Apostle12 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Comments

I just wanted you to notice concerning your notice here (http://web.archive.org/web/20160403172225/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Confabulation), where you made a remark on the censoring of Wikipedia in relation to the Mandela-Effect. I don't know whether you've already noticed it, but Wikipedia is HEAVILY CENSORED and in the background there are STRONGLY edit-wars going on, whereof most people know nothing about. I'm sorry, but i only have the documentory about the censorship and the dark side of the Wikipedia in german: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHfiCX_YdgA. If you want to contribute concerning mandela-effect-research, please do so here on the wiki that has recently being put up: http://mandela-effect-wiki.tk/ Thanks, i think this mandela-effect is something very serious. You can also contact me from that page on the forum (i'm still working on the forum though :-) ) Greetings --84.72.192.208 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have experienced some of this in the past. I left Wiki at one point in disgust for how I was treated regarding the 9/11 topic. I was trying to get a mention of the conspiracy theory side of the issue on the 9/11 page. One mod kept removing my requests from the discussion page, and even denied doing it! He threatened to have me removed from Wiki altogether for posting about it, as if it made me a troll. Various people had come to argue the same thing, but he seemed to be combing over the Talk page, neatly removing these comments and threatening the authors away, as if the issue didn't exist.

As for the Mandela Effect, there really must be something to it for someone/s to be going through such lengths to squash it into the ground.

If you like irony, well...I just looked at the page you linked here and read through the list of synonyms...until I came to The Akashic Records...I'd never heard of them before. I Googled "Archaic Records," only to get "Akashic Records." So, but great irony, "Archaic Records" has become "Akashic Records." I swear to you, in my life experience, it was never "Akashic!" Is "Akashic" even a word?? Bizarre...

Neurolanis (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)