Nunamiut

“Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities.” ~ Alan Bloom

"I'm sure you meant that term 'conspiracy theory" as a term of derision since what you descibe is an an "affinity of the ignorant", implying that there is something YOU know they don't." --unknown

John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

"When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time. -- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

Money Masters deletion: Lack of adult behaviour in the evaluation process

On the Noteability of the economic historic documentary film "The Money Masters" - If an endorsement from a Nobel laureate in economics like Milton Firedman is not a good enough sign of noteability.. then who and what ever is ???

I request a serious discussion on the validity of removing a internet phenomena. It should be possible for adults to discuss rational points! This is below Wikipedia. Does noone here have the sincerity or the sufficient interest in conducting a civil debate? Are you here to censure free open discussion as well?? Deleting my discussion posts?? This is preposterous! Nunamiut (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• The widespread existence and viewing of the documentary in question is now a historic fact, an estimate close to a million is verifiable.
• Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena , and has a large "following" no matter its content.
• refrences to the film can be found throughout the internet, more so than for most documentaries of any kind.
• This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman
• Its content is even reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online)Nunamiut (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When the article was up for moderation/discussion under move to undelete, NONE of the arguments where countered. All arguments were just ignored instead of discussed.

Unacceptable behaviour

This user Collectionian is repeatedly deleting my discussion entries. That kind of Stalinist behavior is nothing but utterly disgusting and shows a total lack of respect for other people. He's actually trying to totally silence another person. Its contemptible to say the least. Stop it right now. Nunamiut (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

the deletion of "the Money Masters" from wiki

I suggest we delete all wiki pages that concern musicians that have less than 50.000 sold cd's. That would be the same rationale. Or lets just delete all information that we conservatives ( insert your favorite political/personal view -ism or party) find useless, such as not well known actors, musicians, politicians, any book that has sold less then 50 k , any dvd that has sold less than 50 k in fact lets delete all information that less than 50 thousand people are aware of! Lets never let anyone know of information we dont approve of! [/irony off] i.e.: this was irony.

Propaganda from the Middle of the Road

Propaganda from the Middle of the Road
The Centrist Ideology of the News Media

(a five paragraph exerpt from a 29 paragraph long 1989 fair.org article By Jeff Cohen)
the original article at www.fair.org:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492

"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."

When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"

It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."

[...]

"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)

Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others.
[..]

from a www.fair.org article by Jeff Cohen

from www.fair.org
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 --Nunamiut 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some links to important information about Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution (official policy; combined from

"Verifiability": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

and

"No Original Research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ATT/FAQ (proposed policy, guideline or process)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (style guide)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines (guideline)

Certain materials you posted on the the talk (discussion) pages for Federal Reserve Act or Federal Reserve System have been removed (1) as apparent copyright violations, and (2) as not in conformity with the purpose of the Wikipedia talk pages. Please do not copy and paste large amounts of information from other web sites into Wikipedia talk pages (or into articles). (Also, although you disclosed your sources and even provided links, this probably does not eliminate the copyright problem.) The primary purpose of the talk (discussion) page for a Wikipedia article is for Wikipedia editors themselves to discuss ways to improve the article, not as a repository for copies of materials about the subject matter of the related article. It is permissible, however, under the Fair Use Doctrine to include shorter quotes from other web sites, etc. The information you referenced looked interesting, and you may want to consider discussing the materials in the talk pages.

Thanks, and happy editing! Yours, Famspear 17:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: I am going to try to look at the material you referenced and see if we can use some of it as the basis for an addition to the critique section in the article for the Federal Reserve System, since that article is the one that already contains a critique section. We as Wikipedia editors need to write the addition ourselves, however, and use outside materials (i.e., from other web sites, etc.), like the commentary you referenced, only as our sources, with perhaps only limited quotations. Copyright laws limit the amount of "copying and pasting" you can do. This is a bad time of year for me, so it may take awhile. Yours, Famspear 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Centrist Ideology of the Media

The problems with wikipedia on controversial issues seem to be that many of the US users and others have a thoroughly conservative view on history as well as economics. In this respect they seem to believe that any attempt at even remotely displaying signs of the actual controversy that has in fact occured throughout the history must be POV. I don't know if this has something to do with the educational system, the US media or just the users of wikipedia, but it creates a huge gap between europeans views of what is a fair and balanced view of history and the US version one meets on wikipedia. No serious debate is generated and there seems to be a grave lack of understanding what the history subject is all about in some cases. Often encyclopedic form is used as an excuse although huge amounts of wiki articles on current entertainment industry pieces are far more extensive and cover several scores of pages and references and supplimentary pages.

One media analyst summed it up in this fashion in his article
"Propaganda from the Middle of the Road"
The Centrist Ideology of the News Media

"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)

Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others.

from a www.fair.org article by Jeff Cohen

from www.fair.org
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492 --Nunamiut 09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a Conspiracy Theory?

A theory, is something that is imagined might occur. There is no need of evidence or testing for a theory, it is still merely a thought process "game". For example: in theory you could win in lottery by buying a ticket.But this is only theoretical until you actually go out and buy a lottery-ticket. when you have bought a ticket there is a possibility you might win, and the more tickets you buy the more probable your win will be. In other words: if we have absolutely no indications of a conspiracy, it is just a theory. If we have several hard facts and evidence of elements that indicate a conspiracy or that actually are main traits of conspiracy, we have a conspiracy possibility and a probability at some degree that there is a conspiracy at hand. Whether people agree or not is immaterial as long as there is a established a possibility that a conspiracy could have occured if the circumstances were sufficient for the necessary elements to have taken place. More evidence then augments, heightens the probability and at last the degree of conspiracy.Nunamiut 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant that term 'conspiracy theory" as a term of derision since what you descibe is an  
an "affinity of the ignorant", implying that there is something YOU know they don't. --unknown

AfD nomination of Votescam: The Stealing of America

An article that you have been involved in editing, Votescam: The Stealing of America, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votescam: The Stealing of America. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? It is me i think (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jules B. Kroll, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ciponline.org/financialflows/krollbio.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to: "If CorenSearchBot is in error: Simply note so on this article's discussion page."

the article currently contains scentences and paragraphs with syntax like:

"Mr. Kroll received a B.A. degree from Cornell University in 1963 and an LL.B degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1966." We need to be able to quote or paraphrase on our informal userpages without being edited by BOTS.

These cannot be seen as "copyrighted" since they are mere statements and lists of facts. I will not bother to rewrite them or the syntax until someone documents an absolute urgent and legitimate need to do so.Nunamiut (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

and If the fair use legal statement defends anything at all it must be entries such as this one.

the deletion of the history-economic documentary film "the Money Masters" from wiki

The 1995 Historical-Economic documentary The Money Masters now has such a large reference throughout the world that it borders on the laughable to pretend it does not need a wiki page, it is linked to and postet thousands of times on youtube and googlevideo each of which have had several tens of thousands of hits if not hundreds of thousands. It has recentley been available full length on both google video and youtube. It is actually and even probably (more probable than not) among the most widely referenced film in alternative economics debates ever at this point in history. Its bordering on lunacy to pretend anymore that its not intellectually dishonest to try to silence and pretend that this movie does not exist.

Just a quick google of the money masters now gets it over 115 000 hits/references, as opposed to a few years ago. By this logic alone, at _least_ ten to fifity thousand people were neded just to _create_ these pages ( and please dont try to dishonestly imply that these are somehow bot-created pages or otherwise automatically generated. Googles own system of verifying linkages lends such an attempt at explaining it away no honesty.

If the current deletion is continued I suggest on the basis of the same rationale that we delete all wiki pages that concern musicians that have less than 50.000 sold cd's. That would be the same rationale. Or lets just delete all information that we conservatives ( insert your favorite political/personal view -ism or party) find useless, such as not well known actors, musicians, politicians, any book that has sold less then 50 k , any dvd that has sold less than 50 k. in fact, by the same rationale; lets just move to delete all information that less than 50 thousand people are aware of. Let's decide "democratically" to never let anyone know of information we don't approve of.Nunamiut (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So you are in fact pretending that a film no matter how much it grows in popularity over the years should not be included on wikipedia?

Speedy deletion nomination of The Money Masters

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. FlyingToaster 07:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1995 Historical-Economic documentary The Money Masters now has such a large reference throughout the world that it borders on the laughable to pretend it does not need a wiki page, it is linked to and postet thousands of times on youtube and googlevideo each of which have had several tens of thousands of hits if not hundreds of thousands. It has recentley been available full length on both google video and youtube. It is actually and even probably (more probable than not) among the most widely referenced film in alternative economics debates ever at this point in history. Its bordering on lunacy to pretend anymore that its not intellectually dishonest to try to silence and pretend that this movie does not exist.

Just a quick google of the money masters now gets it over 115 000 hits/references, as opposed to a few years ago. By this logic alone, at _least_ ten to fifity thousand people were neded just to _create_ these pages ( and please dont try to dishonestly imply that these are somehow bot-created pages or otherwise automatically generated. Googles own system of verifying linkages lends such an attempt at explaining it away no honesty.

If the current deletion is continued I suggest on the basis of the same rationale that we delete all wiki pages that concern musicians that have less than 50.000 sold cd's. That would be the same rationale. Or lets just delete all information that we conservatives ( insert your favorite political/personal view -ism or party) find useless, such as not well known actors, musicians, politicians, any book that has sold less then 50 k , any dvd that has sold less than 50 k. in fact, by the same rationale; lets just move to delete all information that less than 50 thousand people are aware of. Let's decide "democratically" to never let anyone know of information we don't approve of.Nunamiut (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So I have to take it you are in fact all pretending that a film no matter how much it grows in popularity over the years should not be included on wikipedia?

the recurring speedy deletion of "the money masters"

As far as I can see Wikipedia is neithere capable nor here to judge _the value, accuracy, artistic merit or content_ of any body of work. It's here to be an encyclopedia.
The Money Masters have been watched by thousands upon thousands all over the net, and is found everywhere.
By the same rationale Why doesnt Wikipedia delete all references to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ?
What is this supposed to tell us? Whats the rationale? Has this become George Orwells 1984 history department?
Where are the serious citizen who can behave and reason as adults? Nunamiut (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This Documentary exists 

• The existence of this documentary is now a historic fact.
• Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena , and has a large "following" no matter its content.
• This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann
• Its content is even reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from The Money Masters, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I did have a specific topic. I find it curious to say the least that a internet phenomena is kept a lid on in spite of the fact that it has increased to deafening proportions across the web. A decision to remove it some years ago does not seem to me as a reasonable argument for continually slapping speedy deletion tags onto it. I pointed out that its notability is a fact, verifiable and documented, the film has even been commented upon and given praise by a Nobel Laureate ( Milton Friedman ). I did put a hangon tab on the page several times but it was deleted along with the discussion page. It seems there is a single administrator that does not even want the discussion to be seen by other admins. Films like Loose Change, and obscure documentaries (whether some people accept them as actually filling their specific demands to the definition "documentary" or not) have pages throughout wikipedia. The slapping on of responses like this is a disingenuous way of pretending discussion has been conducted or has been held. I have read wiki rules and guidelines for more than five years and I do not need any more pretences hurled against me that I have not read this or that guideline. I do not accept this kind of juvenile behaviour and dishonest debating technique. I will ask you to stop deleting my post to discussions and refer any monitoring of my contributions to another admin. Nunamiut (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nunamiut

In response to the above incident report on AN/I I have protected the article The Money Masters from recreation due to your repeated attempts to recreate it. The article was deleted as part of a community process in which consensus was that the article was not fit for inclusion. Recreating the article in the same format led to it being speedily deleted and repeated recreation just creates disruption and work for others to clear up. The encyclopedia works on the basis of community consensus and to continue to argue against the results of it because you don't agree with the result is not helpful to anyone. Editing the closed deletion discussion (Ctrl-click)">[1] when there are clear instructions at the top not do so is unacceptable behavior also. If you think the article subject can pass WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS as it failed to in its deleted version, then you should work on the article in userspace, addressing all of the concerns pointed out in the deletion discussion and submit it for review. As it stands you will not be able to create it as an article and further attempts to do so will be treated as disruptive. Mfield (Oi!) 05:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Information to new readers: The article on the documentary has now been reinstated. Nunamiut (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A "community" "process" consisting of three juveniles who ignored ten 100% legitimate documented factual claims for their own POV assertions. Disgusting. Nunamiut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of article The Money Masters documentary.

The article seemes to have been deleted early 2008.
On its archived discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Money_Masters I can find several people who just state that the article ( the film ) is "not noteable" without even justifying their claim. After which they go on to "disagree" with the content of the film. An Encyclopedia entry is not subject to wether or not one likes or agrees with the content. One does not remove articles about nazi germanys films by Leni Riefenstahl on the argument that its content isnt noteable.

The notability of the film lies in that it has been growing steadily over the years and is now a prevalent phenomna and because it has steadily increased in its spread throughout the internet, now has several million references throughout the internet. On that note itself it is a phenomena worthy of noting in wikipedia.

I have tried several times to conduct a civil debate on this, I added the hangon tab, I provided verifiable arguments and pointed out that I do not care about the views in the film.
the views presented in the film are not what is in question here.

• I do however suggest that the article is renamed The Money Masters (film) on the same lines as Loose Change (film)

Some of the most crucial and verifiable arguments for its inclusion go as follows:

• The existence and widespread usage of and references to this documentary is a verifiable fact.
• Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena (spanning two decades now) and has a large "following" no matter its content.
• This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann
• The film gains several hundred thousands of independent hits throughout the english speaking world in google searches
• It's content is also reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online), no matter wether one agrees with such views or not. This makes it noteable in itself as a source for finding out what and where the rationale for such movements come from!

Any argument just stating "only 50.000 sold dvd's" or "the film is not noteable", " I dont consider it noteable" can not pass for justified legitimate arguments.

I expect serious sincere responses conducted as adults and not the slapping on of wikipedia guidelines to pretend that this user has not read guidelines and using that as an argument for deletinon.
The issue here is the article, not this user or my abilities or errors as a wikipedia contributor . Again, remember, we are not doing this to review "views", we contribute here to inform people around the world. Wether we like or agree with the information or not.
sincerely, Nunamiut (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#The_Money_Masters_documentary. which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review 2

Visitors: please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_25
and state your opinion.

On the latest deletion of the film "the Money Masters (film)

I think the issue is misunderstood on the deleting the article "the Money Masters (film)". I did not argue that the article in it's previous form should be undeleted. I argued that there should be a new article reference to it in wikipedia based on its notoriety/notability. The participants in the discussions argued solely on errouneous issues such as the films content, which I belie is not how one verifies a film's notability on wikipedia. The next arguments were that there were no references to it online and that all such were selling it. This is also a errouneous claim, if one browses past the first two pages of google hits as with any commercial product or product for sale one gets to the actual references. The film is verifiably been commented upon by several economists and it currently has over a hundred thousand views if not more on sites such as google video and youtube. These are factual claims that can be verified by anyone. I have not been able to make any of the opponents state what evidence reference is needed to make the article acceptable and they have avoided all my points as if they did not exist and their responses have been derogatory towards me and so shallow and superficial so as to not make it possible to find out what they wanted that would make the article comply to their professed standards. I still am at a loss which arguments you and the rest have weighed in and I am really wondering who I or anyone else is to prsent a new improved version to. For the perhaps thousands people who turn to wikipedia after having seen the film for information on where and when this film appeared and any other facts, I can only conclude that you have made this as difficult to find out as possible. I find it disturbing to say the least when video games get more space on wikipedia than serious economists and films devulging historic facts no matter how much we disagree with the content. The content is not the issue. There are articles on wikipedia about Leni Riefenstahl and her films on wikipedia. The film is praised by Nobel Price Winner in the field of economics Milton Friedman, it does nothing but cite documented historic quotes and events. I do not believe that you will get others to change their minds or enter into a rational civil discussion on this, I just want to make a record of what you have committed here for posterity. I find it pretty revolting that reason and proper arguments do not have any impact on enough mature adults here anymore. Sincerely~. Nunamiut (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore the exact same reasons for keeping as given for keeping the article on another work of documentary: the book Votescam:_The_Stealing_of_America could be given for "The Money Masters".

See its Afd discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Votescam:_The_Stealing_of_America

• All the films of texas radio talk show host Alex Jones get a mention on wikipedia, but the Money Masters is for some reason not worthy of mention after even getting praise
  from a Nobel price winning laureate in economics, Milton Friedman. Does that speak volumes?

• I guess only the mediocre hollywood movie productions deserve any mention in the minds of "wikid-pedia" "admins".

They have lost all my respect. They have no integrity, no spines, no genuine interest in what an OPEN encyclopedia should be. They do not know the essence or even the simplest fundamentals of a rational discussion, they leap frog all arguments to cater to some kind of fear of not looking cool. Both Contemptuous and cowardly traits.

John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

"When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time. -- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

If Milton Firedman is not a noteable and good enough figure.. then who is??

Claim: Documentary film the Money Masters "not noteable enough" -

On the Noteability of the economic historic documentary film "The Money Masters" - If an endorsement from a Nobel laureate in economics like Milton Firedman is not a good enough sign of noteability.. then who and what ever is ???

Do wikipedia ever question their "moderators"? Nunamiut (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"You can't prove a Negative" - a reminder.

Logic
"A common discussion-killer is the declaration: "You can't prove a negative!" Immediately the conversation screeches to a halt and people turn to other topics. Is there really nothing more to be said? A: Fairies don't exist. B: You can't prove a negative. A: Okay, fair enough. So how do you like this pizza?
Does it have to be this way?"
May 27, 2009
Response from Peter Smith on May 30, 2009

"I'm reminded of the exasperated Bertrand Russell faced with the young Wittgenstein: "He thinks that nothing empirical is knowable. I asked him to admit that there was not a rhinoceros in the room, but he wouldn't. I looked under all the desks without finding one but Wittgenstein remained unconvinced." It is Wittgenstein here who is being obtuse and in the grip of a silly theory. Of course we can establish empirical propositions both positive and negative – for example, that there are five desks in the room and no rhinoceroses.

By any sane standard, it is just plain false that you can't prove a negative, and that supposed "discussion-killer" should itself be promptly killed off.

Response from Richard Heck on May 31, 2009

"Perhaps part of the problem is the word "prove", which also tends to get used when talking about such things as the existence of God. (No-one can prove that God exists, we're often told.) As our erstwhile leader, Alex George, has often pointed out, however, outside mathematics, one can rarely "prove" anything. So to be told in that sense that no-one can "prove" a negative is unhelpful. One can't "prove" a positive in that sense, either.As Peter said, more or less."

Nunamiut (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jules B. Kroll

A tag has been placed on Jules B. Kroll requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove speedy deletion templates from pages you have created. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was just a formality on works in progress. I didn't dream that you suggested speedily deletion of all articles in progress as an automatic response and general policy. But why add the entire speedy deletion tag twice to my talk page? Please do not fill my talk page with large identical info tags. Nunamiut (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles have to indicate why the subject is notable, even if it is "in progress". If you patrolled newpages as some of us do you'd be surprised by the sheer number of articles that pop every minute that have basically no content and never will. The reason a credible claim of notability is required is because not everyone will automatically know the person, place or thing you're creating an article about. One thing that you may find helpful: start articles in a subpage of your own userspace and when you are satisfied that they make a claim of notability and are referenced, move or copy and paste into a new article on the live site. This way, you can work in peace without having to contend with possible speedy deletion. Cheers! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. reasonable and clear. I thought that was the reason but since the deletion happened immediately I found it a little strange. Nunamiut (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm alert

In case you didn't notice, I was being condescending and sarcastic with that IP editor on Talk:Francisco Franco. His comment was drivel of the first order and clearly his hope was to get us angry and make us rebut his offensive nonsense. Doing that would serve no useful purpose so I gave him the brush off. I suggest that you do not allow him to draw you into discussion, at least not unless/until he has some well sourced facts he wants to discuss. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Duly noted. All the best. Nunamiut (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Useful Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIZ2

Pretending that there is no controversy.

(My reply to discussion on the FED talk page) The criticism below is actual criticism that has been voiced countless times before. This is to document such criticism for the article , to be able to follow what progress it makes, and to be able to see wether or not it is improved, wether or not issues are handled, solved and resolved.

I ask that people refrain from taking upon themselves to characterise or play judge, jury and executioner over other peoples views on this topic, my views and critisisms are as legitimate as the next mans, and I resent being censured or completely deleted arbitrarily without any communication, explanation or discussion. I will take to arbitration the next guy who takes it upon himself to delete my entire comments.

My contention , following this article for more than 6 years now is as follows:

The pretense for the last three years to five decades has been that there is no controversy over the FED.

Well, for those wikipedians who read the news as well as write and edit articles and talk pages, it is finally pretty obvious that there IS a controversy and always have been. The controversy, both past and present has always been the same: a lot of people actually _do_ know what is going on. For those of us past their twenties and thirties, who also read books like "Money, Whence it came and where it went", and "the Great Crash of 1929" by monolithic authors and economists such as the late John Kenneth Galbraith, we have been aware of it for a while. A bill to audit the FED has now gained important foothold in congress, and it's critics must have had some pretty important criticisms. This wikipedia article has a section called critisism which went from ridiculously incomplete to ridiculous and now to laughable. It now claims that some (unknown) source or critic(s)has claimed that the president has too much influence over the FED. This is equal to the flat out dishonest "Fox journalism" variety of the "some people say" argument, and has nothing to do in a wikipedia article. All of the section on the historical evidence of serious debate and criticism has long since disappeared. The over a hundred years of fights over the FED from the days of Andrew Jackson until 1913 is completely vanished in favor of a multitude of sections on technicalities. How this passes for lexical knowledge is beyond me. But it seems the FED _will_ be audited or the controversy will grow ever higher.Nunamiut (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

These are serious historical facts and actual events. If someone pretends that my voice is unnecessary here I would like to have a debate on policy and how one treats history and historical debate here. Treating people derogatory to the point of complete disregard for other peoples scincerity is not only juvenile, its contemptible and an utterly disgusting form and tactic. It ssure as hell is not adult in any way shape or form. Nunamiut (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Current Wikipedia "trends"

Wikipedia seems to act more like a conservative think tank these days, than anything else: you have to click "show" on the pink lines to see what some critics have written. Additionally: Lately it has become customary for some of the gatekeepers at some crucial wiki articles to just label your entry "POV", as if all views are not points of view, or any other label, if you do not subscribe to a conservative US version of world history and events.

The latest fashion the last month has been "the pink line", but more often than not one just gets deleted. I have had Nobel price winners as sources and then got the "not notable enough" reason for deleting my entry. Also US congress representatives I have quoted have suffered the "not notable enough" deletion, so I'm starting to wonder if its any use "contributing" to wikipedia at all, as it seems too firmly in the grips of a thoroughly mediocre view of the world.

So I would not recommend wikipedia as any source whatsoever for serious information on any critical historical events to say the least. ... See More

It kind of goes without saying of course, but I _had_ really hoped for a bit more serious treatment of subjects such as history by wiki admins, as I had thought that they were capable of peering each other, but there does not seem to be enough admins interested in critical history or economics, without someone making a juvenile attempt at some form of labeling anything you have documented however thoroughly as "original research" primarily due to their own lack of knowledge and/or inability to use google. Or simple refusal to read your documentation of course, use links and follow them.

Oh well, tonights little sigh. :) I think I'll go join one of the "left wing" "liberal media" fora's on history or edit Anarchopedia again ;) http://www.anarchopedia.org/ I think :) (As if there was anything remotely liberal with the media either in the US or elsewhere..)Nunamiut (talk ) 04:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses 2009

(on the Federal Reserve article - Criticism section / paragraph ) My issue was rather specific, it was an issue with a specified section: the criticism section, and a specified portion of that section: all the claims that were not sourced or documented in any way shape or form. I also gave an example: that several of the lines were formulated in the fashion "some people say", which nowadays is not even accepted in mainstream journalism. I believe Fox News is are the only ones left with the chutzpah to still dare using it, since they (like the article in question) no longer care about being taken seriously, only about propagating a selected (in this case conservative) version of world events. That is not how any matter is studied or presented neither in history nor in serious journalism. But relax, I give up. What's the use. Let Wikipedia become a dishonest conservative think tank for all I care. It's becoming too much to bother discussing it anymore. I dont think serious researchers will ever go to wikipedia anyhow. It gets to be too mediocre after a while. Anyway. All the best. Cheers. Nunamiut (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not the only one that had serious edits deleted by Scray. Deleted with explanation, of course, but spurious explanation at best. Maybe we should not give up? --Infinitesimus (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Try Again on "The Money Masters"?

Nunamiut: I was disappointed to see that the Wiki page on "The Money Masters" got deleted. I took some time to edit it a bit, and to add some references. Hopefully those will help it survive another AFD. If you'd like to try to post it again, then feel free to pull the new edition off of my User page, down in the Sanddbox section. Regards, Jeff Trasel (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the effort and informing me, but I dont think the wiki "admins" debating me on the deletion issue will concede defeat any time soon. They have invested too much prestige in it. We need to be at least ten to twenty adults who will actively participate in the deletion discussion on the deletion page immediately after when the admins have deleted it the first time. But great effort! Kudos! I will try muster up the willpower and think of a way to organise serious people, perhaps even through a FB fanpage for the movie, I dont know. All the best anyway. Cheers! (Nunamiut) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaza "War"

Your definition of "war" is dishonest. For adults the Lewis Carroll Humpty Dumpty quote is as normal as an allusion to any of George Orwell's works and readily and regularly used throughout academia. I reiterate: you need to pick up more books before you criticise others for utilizing common literature and knowledge in public discourse or attempt yourself at subtle ridicule and then complain when the "fire" is returned. I hope and trust you comprehend all of this without further complaints. Nunamiut Nunamiut (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell/Oxyhydrogen

Please do not use Wikipedia to promote perpetual motion machines. You clearly know nothing about the subject, and your involvement simply wastes our time. I would encourage you to read the articles, learn more about the subject, and educate yourself. I intend this as an honest assessment of your level of understanding and not as an insult to your intelligence. I have no doubt that if you would take the time to read up on these and related articles, you would find answers to your questions without the need to promote fraudulent theories. Rklawton (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not "promoted" _anything_ as you suggest. Please refrain from making fraudulent charges based upon your own pet peeve.Nunamiut (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nunamiut. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gaza "war".

Again, it must be only in the US republican party, the CIA, Kadima and the UK conservative party that anyone considers the Israeli 2008 attack on Gaza a "war". As Bill Hicks said it, I don't know if you understand this but: "a war is when TWO armies are fighting". But so much for the english speaking worlds honesty. Really who cares anymore what's written in wikipedia on history. As laughable and sickening as it is Orwellian. Go figure why. And just leave out the bullshit about POV and commentary will you. If you cannot even adhere to even the most basic honesty and decency what business do you have criticising me for commenting here. Intellectual and academic honesty? Dont look to the US and the UK institutions or publications anymore. And Yes We all know who owns all the places of publication by now so you can stop typing your internal dialogue right away. Commercially controlled institutions and boards for higher learning?? What are you people?? Plato and Socrates would spin in their graves. US and UK "intellectuals"?? "Educated" at Oxford/Eton ?? A contradiction in terms.Nunamiut (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think it should be visible to all who "pass" that the dishonesty was objected to. I know of noone (real persons and sane human beings that is) who refers to the bombing of and attack on Gaza as the "Gaza War", outside the media that is. I understand it's difficult for many to comprehend what's wrong with following the lowest common denominator in History as a subject, as the consequences of parallels treatment of procedure and guidelines in subjects such as medicine and physics are probably equally difficult to explain to someone who thinks it's a good idea to stick to "guidelines" instead of reality, but like I said, why stop there? Why bother with such a as truth at all? As long as we apparently have all accepted that we live in the third reich and all have to accept follow the current dialect of newspeak? Yes, But no, you see? No? And So anyway, you are of course _aware_ that you are seriously suggesting and defending that Wikipedia is to allow Murdoch et al to define the language and how we percieve history in the english speaking world, yes, I can see how that does not make one's bowels and innards wrench while committing the fraud when one thinks the current apex of academia and truth is to be derived from News Corp & Harvard-Yale-Eton corporations. Oh well. Nothing new here then. Nice spectacle though, looking at your common hallucinations again, but sadly I refuse to partake in or even consider discussing the results of them for any longer intervals at a time. There are about a dozen other valid arguments against your chosen despicable and disgusting "policy", but why on earth would I venture to waste much more of my time and energy while in this life on what will obviously be months, years or decades on a guaranteed futile effort to change a policy through a policy page where clearly I'm to expect people with and of superior(?) intellect to yours will actually be using all their time and skills in _defending_ your commonly held insane position. Nunamiut (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Question to all admins

Question to all admins really: I'd like to know how one can seriously list "Hamas" (regular Palesitinean Gaza Citizens really) traffic police as both in any sense "military" or the even worse insinuating "Military commanders". Add to that the question on/of How what Israel and the US at random intervals chooses to classify as terrorists, suddenly become considered regular army and soldiers actively pursuing a war, instead of "merely" being resistance fighters in their own territory, or even just regular human beings in their regular jobs or regular conscripts, merely existing in their own territories while the very same civilian area is massively bombarded, - how this is justified in any meaningful sense as a "War", is difficult for any rational adult to grasp or even try to justify with any sane reasonable humanist logic. I get and agree that while it is true that the majority of english speaking mainstream media uses and have ingrained in the North Atlantic communities the term more than just a little orwellian [NewSpeak] term: the "Gaza War", but I would put it to reasonably rational and intellectually honest adults that another more fitting title with (The "Gaza War") put in brackets as a subtitle (even under a sub-heading if needed) would do the generations alive to day a greater service than the current pretences that attacking a heavily populated civilian area with massive numbers of bomber attacks is anything other than a crime against humanity, as is pretty clearly defined in any number of articles on the term. (If you are not an admin, I suggest you live this specific criticism alone, and I equally ask you to refrain from issuing any personal "warnings" as such will be not only ignored, but merely considered personal attacks and reported as such until they cease. If discussions here are supposed to serve any meaningful purpose I suggest people stick to the issues, and start take heed as to what they are actually being criticised for when intellectual dishonesty is pointed out in their _words_, sentences, topic and issues and refrain from thinking it's a personal battle they have to win. I will concede to any factual flaws in my argument but wont take anymore of the bullshit "warnings" on courtesy as none such are afforded whenever one criticises the _topic_ but are constantly met with personal attacks, threats and "warnings" from non-admins and admins alike. If people can stay on topic and off speculation about my persona, intentions, and their own straw-man interpretation of my criticism, courtesy will be the order of the day, if not you will be met with the same level of negativity in criticism of flaws that you have applied in your inability to stay off invalid side-topics attacking my persona, perceived "intentions or your personal favourite interpretation of any number of straw man arguments you can construct. Again, if you are not an admin, you should seriously consider refraining from replying to this topic until you are reasonably sure you understand what you are replying to and what your reply contains and entails. Sincerely.Nunamiut (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A New form of revisionism?

When a major revision of an important historic event such as the Dresden Bombings takes place, is it really enough to quote a couple of articles from the guardian and say the Dresden city council are in some way the final arbitrators of world history in the face of 65 years of discussions by historians? I find this new trend in wikipedia disconcerting to say the least. This does not look good at all. I think this finally shows the real and serious weakness of wikipedia. This topic needs serious historians, serious academics and rational debate. Not off hand complete deletion of all dissent coupled with some quick comment that amounts to dismissal on the basis of nazi-smear. I find this development _extremely_ worry-some. Nunamiut (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bombing...

You recently rewrote part of the lead to this article. Resulting in this sentence:

"In four raids, altogether 3,600 planes, of which 1,300 heavy bombers dropped as much as 650.000 incendiaries, together with 8,000 lb. high-explosive bombs and hundreds of 4,000-pounders, in all more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices were dropped on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony."

I suggest that this is very poor grammatically and too information dense (In fact, it looks just like the kind of sentences I, myself, write and then regret). I would suggest the sentence be broken up and that all of that detail is not required in the lead section at all. Also you have mixed . and , in large numbers. English Wikipedia uses comma separators. Rmhermen (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Any summary would have to be dense with information. I'll contend and defend that the accuracy in this case is not only needed but crucial to be had at the very outset, if the rest of the issues in the article is to be properly understood in any meaningful way. Mixing , and . cant be a problem big enough to point out to me, the conventions on it differs in the US and Europe, even between European nations. Whats your agenda here? Discrediting me and my abilities?? I'm perfectly capable of cleaning up the syntax some more if that's your real issue. Curious effort you make here, but thanks for your feedback anyway. Nunamiut (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But you are correct. I found a single mistake in the use of , and . in numbering. My bad. Thanks. But next time I think you can safely assume that you can correct such quick oversight mistakes of others immediately on your own without going to the length of contacting the editor to point it out to him. Nunamiut (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Iraq casualties - Obvious flaws in the NGO and medical organisations estimates.

Today We have sites that publish studies form the LAncet and many others that go FAR beyond the "official" US statistics on casualties. All well so far. Diversity, corrections and all. Except one "small" thing:

EXCEPT, that ALL these estimates are absolute TOTAL and UTTER bullshit US-UK _apologetics_. Which is proven "relatively" easily by ANYONE through common sense: 10 years of US-UK-EU pre war (second iraq war) sanctions led to what the UN and other NGO's / Medical journals and institutions confirmed had to be the uneccessary deaths of 500.000 _children_. Then how many _old_ , youths and adults died in the same period as a cause of the 10 years sanctions??? - SO, are we to _believe_ that during the close to 10 years of war and post war situation, after the _complete_ destruction of ALL water, power, electricity for hospitals, exodus of ALL doctors, lack of ALL economy, infrastructure, cars, means of public transportation (money to run them), lack of gasoline, fear, people staying at home... are we to believe that DURING the war, the situation was BETTER than during the sanctions???

Are we to believe that the estimates of people dying as an indirect cause of the war ( lack of medicine, healthcare, hospitals, clean water, healthy and sufficient food, lack of doctors etc. ) people were BETTER off _during_ the WAR and in the years AFTER the war, things miraculously became _better_ than during the sanctions, and that it was at all LIKELY, that it even was _possible_ that the situation returned to being even on "a par" with the situation _during_ sanctions???? IF NOT, then FAR MORE than 500.000 children are likely to have died as an indirect cause of the war and all the deficiencies caused by the war. Even NOW almost 10 years after the war, _nothing_ is back to the standards during the sanctions. Money from the oil exports is NOT going to the population, health care, clean water etc. at the same levels as during the sanctions. Simply because NO ONE knows where the money is going! Almost a decade after the beginning of the war, reports have been clear: there is not even _metering_ of how much oil is leaving Iraq on a daily, weekly monthly or even year basis! Nothing! NO accurate estimates exist!

Add to that the massive numbers of grotesquely deformed babies being born as a cause of the 400 TONS ++ of Depleted Uranium dropped over IRAQ , turning to micro fine particles blowing ALL over Iraq for close to a decade! Food imports were not even sufficient during sanctions when oil production was full, and ALL the income went to Iraq proper. Despite the oil embargo, Iraq was able to transport oil to Syria, Russia, China and North Korea and others. But that is not the main point, the point being that there is NO way of _telling_ how many have died! Simply because so wast amounts of people have fled (estimates) , because of the way estimates are done, because of WHO are doing the estimates, and simply because of the lack of resources to even conduct any kind of serious estimates because of ALL of the above, AND more.

And I must have forgotten to mention at least two dozen other factors and elements, but I hope this at least makes the picture a _little_ clearer. We cannot trust Amnesty International, ALL of the medical establishment have thoroughly discredited themselves a long time ago for anyone who have followed the industry with any depth of investigation the past 3 decades. Whistleblowers have been shunned and silenced by the Lancet too. As well as _all_ of them flying their true colors during the FAKE "swine flu" H1N1 scare of 2009...The one honest UN representative was gunned down and killed in IRAQ, and the entire government there consists of plain criminals and opportunists put in place by the US.

Books can be and have been written on Iraq's problems. Trying to establish "conservative", "unnecessarily exaggerated" statistics is another pit fall, of those institutions trying to avoid criticism from the US establishment for being biased. The Lancet got scathing attacks for what little they _could_ document, and all other estimates were written off as spurious and biased "guesstimates". I think we can safely say that the "worst" and highest "guesstimates" ARE the _very_ much CORRECT and MOST ACCURATE ones at this stage. That is of course if we are at all bothered with truth, analysis, reason and rational thought... not very popular these days of course. Which is why it always comes under attack from those who claim to be the serious ones who "stick to" what they can "document"...

Nunamiut (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Useful basic information and tips

Useful basic information and tips

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIZ2

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Wikipedia_links%29

• the nowiki tag is "nowiki" enclosed in < > and brackets. useful for showing tildes (~~~~) ( < nowiki > < / nowiki > ) (remove spaces)

• how to create a redirect #REDIRECT [[Target]]

N Nunamiut (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dont Template The Regulars

Dont Template The Regulars

test

test

test

test

Nunamiut

Nunamiut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nunamiut%7CNunamiut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nunamiut | Nunamiut

Nunamiut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nunamiut

Collusion (software)

I have responded on my talk page.

Also, I would suggest you move some of this content from your talk page to maybe an external blog. The bits you've written about Gaza, Iraq, propoganda, etc. are in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On the Soapbox issue, I agree somewhat, but on historic and political issues there will always be controversy, so there is a very fine line between stifling views that have, may have or really have merit as serious criticism and thus should not be subject to "POV" and "Soapboxing" accusations. There are _real_ controversies and in historical and political matters it is NOT always obvious that wikipedia (or any other majority) is in "the right", or that wikipedia debates have acquired the necessary insights or amount of people for a proper discussion, nor that the participants have adequate knowledge, skills or have even bothered to address the counter arguments, sources or even obvious basic logic based on their own biases, whether they be themselves aware of them or not. Wikipedia is in serious danger of being a forum for right wing US/english speaking views of world history, as the view on world history is often far more nuanced in Europe or indeed in the Nordic countries, in a manner which makes it very difficult for users to find a reasonable middle ground. I don't have any solution to this issue, I am merely pointing it out and feel we all should take it much more seriously and perhaps allow for more sections on criticism and opposing viewpoints on such articles, ie: those that concern issues like history, politics, recent developing world events and so on.

Standing too hard on wikipedia principles of majority vote on this one puts wikipedia in serious danger of ending up like say something on the lines of a "FOX News"-like version of the (english speaking) world, if these/such views indeed were to be the majority view. This is exactly why one does not have majority vote on history in the academic world, but rather check sources and accept constant debate, revision and criticism and let students study _opposing_ views on history _at length_ , to make people see the problem. Wikipedia could go a long way to reflect this, as (but not only) an encyclopedic fact, but also because this _is_ the factual part of it and the way encyclopedic content was intended to reflect human knowledge honestly and with adequate integrity. I don't think we / any one of us would want us to be viewed or completely discredited by the next generations or even our grandchildren even in our own lifetimes. But again, it has been difficult to make admins and users alike to accept that the US / english speaking conservative version of world events does NOT correspond objectively to the world majority view or real life experience of reality in world events. Long winded and poorly phrased, but I just feel it has to be raised again and again until this issue is taken seriously by the english speaking community. Thanks again though. Sincerely. Nunamiut (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello my friend

I saw you in the article of Schachtschneider. Would you pls so kind and contact me. Thank you paradiesaaaa@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adniim- (talk • contribs) 02:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Votescam for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Votescam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votescam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)