User talk:Galba Gaius

May 2017
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Acroterion   (talk)   02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sagecandor (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RESPONSE

First, I did not attack anyone. I did observe that trying to impose highly dubious subjectivity was more in the nature of propaganda than of a modern encyclopedia. I know that Sam Johnson was guilty of this too, but I would like to think we have improved ourselves since then.

This concern with form over substance is extremely legalistic. Clearly the position that this article should be dismissed comes straight out of the basic Psyop disinformation manual. The claim that this is a right wing conspiracy theory without any foundation should not be tolerated. Nor should the assertion that Bernie supporters are loony fringe. Nor should the assertion that Russia was involved, which is nothing but a rehash of cold war propaganda.

The mere fact that HRC and the DNC have been slandered in the past is absolutely no evidence that this is the case again. Even the use of the term "conspiracy theory" should be avoided as the term became pejorative as part of the effort to discredit those who could not swallow the Warren Report. In normal life conspiracies are commonplace, although most are perfectly lawful. Going to dinner with another couple, for example. This is more true in Matters of State, although there lawfulness is much less common.

In this case we know Julian Assange took note of Mr. Rich's murder. We also know that Mr. Rich was murdered. The excessive use of "alleged" is disingenuous. It should raise eyebrows that a high burglary rate should be used to blame the neighborhood for the murder; burglars seldom murder, and never in this way. Maybe it was Chinatown?

Since this is the first time Mr. Assange has noted the murder of an inconsequential person, the obvious conclusion was that Mr. Rich was one of his leakers. The claim that Mr. Rich was not a hacker is just smoke; there is absolutely no reason to believe that hacking was involved with the leak of HRC's emails. Mr. Rich had all the access he needed and, being an idealistic youth, may have been horrified by what he read.

So the obvious conclusion is that Mr. Rich leaked HRC's emails. An equally obvious corollary is to suppose that this was the reason for his murder. To go further at this point would be to enter the realm of speculation. But to try to deny it smacks of cover-up.

While no one would accuse Wikipedia of being a Citadel of Truth, one should not be willing to accept it becoming an organ of propaganda.

Ted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.87.132 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Project Magpie
Hello, Galba Gaius,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Project Magpie should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Project Magpie.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Meatsgains (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thne heads up.
I hope someone will flesh it out soon. I cannot; I find this software particularly awkward. And all I know is what I remember from watching a Congressional hearing. But this is important.

Thanks - Ted

Speedy deletion nomination of Project Magpie


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Project Magpie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jdcomix (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)