Is Citizendium worth it? Options Rating

[LamontStormstar]

Wikipedia has a number of articles that are controlled, and these articles cannot be changed to include factual information. We know for certain that the following articles are controlled heavily, and are factually inaccurate:

- Lockerbie Bombing (Pan Am Flight 103) - controlled by SlimVirgin
- Cuba
- Port Arthur massacre - controlled by Robert Merkel, in turn to Longhair and Ambi etc
- LaRouche articles - controlled by SlimVirgin

You missed some. SlimVirgin and Jayjg control all the middle east ones and any of their pet interests like animal rights (there's lots more) so they can't have accurate information

Ambi (aka. Mr. Rebecca) controls all the shemale articles so they can't have accurate information.

Stephen Ewen is now slandering me on Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_...oldid=100138131

"This fellow's account was created in full knowledge that he has long been problematic all around the Internet."

What the hell is that all about? Because I got banned from Wikipedia for being an expert in the field I am a problem user? No, Stephen, you are misrepresenting me. Again, using my real name when you are attaching lies to it is a big problem.

Again, remove all contributions by me and all is fine. Why can't you do this?

It is a lucky thing that I didn't contribute any more than this test. You can only begin to imagine the kinds of things that a place that operates just as badly as Wikipedia, yet enforces outing, is going to cause. Now, thanks to CZ, and in particular Stephen Ewen, I can have people at job interviews search for my name and see his lies. Thanks Stephen.

Stephen Ewen must be a Wikipedia admin by has behavior.

Dude... for the defamation... SUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blissyu2]

Yes well it really is quite simple to delete an article then recreate it. That's all that they need to do. If the only reason that they want my contributions is to make fun of me and slander me, then what right do they have to do that? If they are keeping them and allowing me to contribute, fine. If not, delete them please. Its not a difficult chore.

Just pretend that you wrote that. Because I never would have written something that would end up as inaccurate as that.

[blissyu2]

I wrote about it on CZ forums: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1098.0.html

I've also sent Stephen Ewen an e-mail.

But let's see, if he's banned me for requesting it on wiki, then what will he do for me daring to discuss it in detail? Firebomb me?

[GlassBeadGame]

I wrote about it on CZ forums: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1098.0.html

I've also sent Stephen Ewen an e-mail.

But let's see, if he's banned me for requesting it on wiki, then what will he do for me daring to discuss it in detail? Firebomb me?

Blissy: My curiosity has finally got the better of me. What is your history/experience/expertise with the Port Arthur killings? How did come into at least some information before the incident? Did I understand correctly (from you) that your father was a suspect (I believe cleared) in another series of Australian homicides? Is your knowledge of of Port Arthur killings somehow related to this other incident with your father? I have seen so many vague references and I am puzzled. I hope I'm not asking for something that is personally difficult .

[blissyu2]

Blissy: My curiosity has finally got the better of me. What is your history/experience/expertise with the Port Arthur killings?

I knew that the killings were going to happen from March 1995, 1 year + 1 month beforehand, when a man named "Rob" told me that he was going to do a series of killings, starting with the murder of 4 + up to 6 other random people, in a single day on 27 April 1996, and ending with the murder of his ex gf on 27 April 1997, during which time he would murder 10 targets - people who he believed were the most evil people in the whole world, as well as 4 different types of people (as many as he could find) and a number of random people to distract police. He did not aim to ever be captured. He had many people assisting him to commit these murders, as only 1 of them (his ex gf) was someone that he personally hated. He was murdering the others because THEY hated them.

Rob told me because at one stage Rob was convinced that I was the epitomy of evil, and I was to be his 11th target. On 27 April 1995, Rob attempted to murder me. From 27 April - 3 August 1995, Rob made another 20 attempts on my life. I have gone in to detail about this elsewhere. I then was faced with an opportunity to kill Rob myself, in self defence if you like, but decided not to, for purely selfish reasons that I thought that I might have to go to jail for life for murder. I therefore felt that it was terribly important that I stop the murders from happening, and went down to Port Arthur in April 1996 trying my level best to stop them. I failed. Primarily I failed because I mistakingly thought that it would happen throughout the day of 27 April. I didn't remember that the time was also important, and that Rob had first tried to murder me at 10pm on 27 April. I failed terribly in a lot of ways.

I also talked to I think every single person who was at Port Arthur that day. They kept calling me and writing me letters because I was the person that had gone out of my way to try to stop it, I had warned people, I knew the person responsible, and so forth.

I have pieced together the things that I don't know personally, and hence I think that I know about 99.99% of everything that happened on that day. I do not, however, know everything about the murders that Rob committed from 29 April 1996 - 27 April 1997. I followed some of them in newspapers, but really I don't know all that much about them.

Did I understand correctly (from you) that your father was a suspect (I believe cleared) in another series of Australian homicides?

No. My STEP-FATHER was a suspect, not my father. He was not cleared at all. He admitted guilt.

Prior to the arrest of Ivan Milat, the Australian federal police were investigating a number of organised crime gangs in relation to the Backpacker murders (they believed between 35 and 40 people were murdered, although only 8 bodies were found). At one point in their investigations they had narrowed it down to 1 gang, and they had 8 people being interviewed. One of these people was my step-father, another was Ivan Milat. According to my step-father, they were given a choice as to whether they would all go to prison, or just one of them (at that point none of them admitted anything). According to my step-father, they found out that Ivan Milat was a homosexual, and as a result they agreed to turn on him. Ivan Milat most likely did commit at least one of the murders, or at least was a member of the gang that was responsible. He did not, however, commit all of them. They were performed by a gang, either as initiation rituals or else as random killings that were covered up by them. Most likely a combination of the two. I do not have direct knowledge of this case, as it is just what my step-father said.

My step-father was a turd, I hated him, and he is now dead, as of May 2001.

Is your knowledge of of Port Arthur killings somehow related to this other incident with your father?

No. They are completely unrelated. And it is my STEP-FATHER. My real father is a psychologist and a very nice man. There is no hint or suggestion from anyone that an organised crime gang had anything to do with the Port Arthur massacre. No conspiracy theory or anything like it has ever suggested such a link. Backpacker murders were committed by an organised crime gang. Port Arthur massacre was a serial killing. It is perhaps amusing that officially the Backpacker murders is a serial killing (when its not) and Port Arthur massacre was listed as a random killing, when the reality is pretty much the opposite.

I have seen so many vague references and I am puzzled. I hope I'm not asking for something that is personally difficult .

It is very personal, and if this was 5 years ago I would be very upset about you asking it. However, I have since that time come to definite conclusions about what happened, and have researched the whole lot, hence I feel at peace with myself about everything. There is no point in appealing Martin Bryant's sentencing, as he was involved, and should be in prison for 35 lots of 3-5 years, which is still life. And Rob, who was the mastermind behind the whole thing, is dead now, so there's no point trying him.

So the only issue is that of truth.

However, when it comes down to it, I actually don't care all that much whether other people believe what I say anyway. I don't need it to be in Wikipedia, here, or anywhere else. However, I know the truth, and I really hate when people try to dispute it.

Perhaps I never should have edited the PA article on Wikipedia. It was very upsetting to me to see them lie about it. It really upsets me.

If you want to see some things I've written about it, you can follow these links:

* http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/...B!131.entry (8 May 2006)
* http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/...B!128.entry (7 May 2006)
* http://catonine.virtue.nu/fightclub/April27.html (17 April 2006)
* http://catonine.virtue.nu/crimes/disorderly.html (August 1995)
* http://catonine.virtue.nu/enemies/index.html (1992 - 2003)
* http://catonine.virtue.nu/fightclub/index.html (1987 - 2001)
* http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/18january2006.html (18 January 2006)

I've written tons and tons all over the internet since 1995 about it. Sometimes it feels tiring to have to repeat myself so much. And yes, my story does change slightly every now and then, because I've found out more about it. Back in 1995, I only knew clues as to what was going to happen, and indeed wasn't even completely sure what had happened to me. Since I found the web sites that document the holes in the story, which I found in 2003, you would see that my posts since that date were dramatically different. There was also a stage where I supported Joe Vialls' version of events, but I don't anymore.

[Nathan]

What a bunch of nonsense. Stephen Ewan is reading this yet he doesn't bother to explain his actions.

That's like saying any one of us who were banned on Wikipedia are "problematic all around the Internet". Did the Internet perform a massive cave-in when I wasn't looking and it now ONLY constitites Wikipedia?

Give your head a shake, Stephen and shake out those cobwebs - better yet, become an admin on Wikipedia. They could use someone like you.

[Infoboy]

Give your head a shake, Stephen and shake out those cobwebs - better yet, become an admin on Wikipedia. They could use someone like you.

Probably already is. Wonder who?

[Nathan]

Infoboy: Good point

[The Joy]

I'm confused. It looks like you've been banned twice for different reasons?

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Speci...Adrian_Meredith

What does "CZ Author only" mean?

Rather sad the way your contributions were treated. No good faith at all! They could have discussed things that bothered them with you in a civil manner (not in a WP way that appears calm but is in fact a form of insult, mind you, but in the way, you know, normal people discuss things).

[Nathan]

I don't quite understand their logic of one indef block on top of another...

[guy]

What does "CZ Author only" mean?

Anyone in theory can be an author and write about anything he or she fancies. Editors are people CZ accepts as experts, who can correct articles within their area of expertise. They allowed Adrian to be an author (until they blocked him) but not an editor.

[GlassBeadGame]

No. My STEP-FATHER was a suspect, not my father. He was not cleared at all. He admitted guilt.

Sorry confuse him with your real father. No disrespect intended. That is an amazing story. Thanks for taking the time to share it.

[Infoboy]

What does "CZ Author only" mean?

Anyone in theory can be an author and write about anything he or she fancies. Editors are people CZ accepts as experts, who can correct articles within their area of expertise. They allowed Adrian to be an author (until they blocked him) but not an editor.

Do you have to disclose in public details, to any troll, of your history/CV to be considered, or is naming and private verification enough?

[Infoboy]

This is promising:

http://en.citizendium.org/robots.txt

User-agent: *
Disallow: /wiki/User:
Disallow: /wiki/User_talk:
Disallow: /wiki/Image_talk:
Disallow: /wiki/Talk:
Disallow: /w/index.php?title=User:
Disallow: /w/index.php?title=User_talk:
Disallow: /w/index.php?title=Image_talk:
Disallow: /w/index.php?title=Talk:

[The Joy]

What does "CZ Author only" mean?

Anyone in theory can be an author and write about anything he or she fancies. Editors are people CZ accepts as experts, who can correct articles within their area of expertise. They allowed Adrian to be an author (until they blocked him) but not an editor.

But why would that be a reason for blocking indefinitely?

[blissyu2]

I am guessing that it is because I asked for them to remove the contributions, that they didn't like me doing that.

Note that they re-created my userpage, but removed any link to this site:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User%...oldid=100135529

Oh and of course they deleted my post to their forums:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1098.0.html

I am sure that I am banned from there too.

[blissyu2]

So this guy is now trying to justify his slandering of my name by QUOTING ME DEFENDING MYSELF!!!!

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_...oldid=100138455

Sorry buddy, but if you are going to try to justify it, you are going to have to do better than simply quoting me defending myself. You will need to catch me in the act of something.

This guy isn't even trying to research things properly. That's uber lazy. I linked to those things myself in this very thread.

If you clicked on what he said, and actually believed what he was saying, then I dare say that you are pretty thick.

And another thing is that he has edited one talk comment about 10 times now. That's somewhat misleading, isn't it? Isn't that akin to changing history?

Original message

Then got a response

Then wrote in reply to that

Then edited his previous comments Not once, Not twice, Not three times, or even 4 times.

He then took a break but then edited it some more a day or so later:
Once more, twice more, 3 times, 4 times.

Before this got a response to his new changes to his original text

I mean surely talk page messages are things that you shouldn't be editing to pretend that you said something that you didn't? Trying to hide something, Stephen?

[blissyu2]

I wrote a letter to his university to ask them to assist me with a lawsuit against him. Quite honestly, I don't see how he stands a chance of defending himself. He added "evidence" after the slander, and the evidence that he presented had nothing to do with his claims. But anyway, hopefully we don't have to go through the whole legal process. It is very simple for him to delete it.

Of course, this whole thing has shown very clearly that CZ is worse than Wikipedia.

[Somey]

Interesting. According to CZ's Deletion Policy, an article "may (and in some cases should) be deleted by a constable, acting on his or her own recognizance, if ... it was drafted solely by a contributor and then blanked by that contributor."

It sounds to me like you were following the proper procedure, at least... It may be they want to keep the article simply because they think it's a good article, but someone could always claim that it's "unmaintainable" or constitutes "original research," which are also grounds for deletion over there.

Do they have a "right to vanish" from Citizendium? One would hope so...

[blissyu2]

I basically wrote the Wikipedia article on the topic too. Over 90% of the references and over 80% of the content on Wikipedia was written by me. All that others have done is to change truth in to untruth, to misquote references, and to add in gibberish.