User talk:Sunvalley

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispooks!

We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Robin (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (IST)


usefull links

Carbon Dating The Web - Predict the Birthday of a Webpage!

Time Travel - rebuilds website from various archives.


Aircraft searches: -

FOIA and released documents:



file metadata:

picture editing online:
image converter:
free images:

How to get the YouTube thumbnail preview image from a video
How to get the YouTube transcript

Getting a Twitter preview without JAVA:

Military analysis US side:

Articles discussing Zbigniew Brzezinskis Between two ages:

white collar crime:

newspapers by country:


Thank you for your occasional contributions to Wikispooks. They are always apposite to the site's core purpose, plus well constructed and referenced. They are much appreciated. --Peter P (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2018 (GMT)


I just modified your reversion to Document:Gangsters Paradise‎‎ . Well spotted on the typo. I replaced the link with an internal one, since the original document didn't have it. -- Robin (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"See Also"

Wikispooks:Style_Guide#Standard_sections notes that "See also" sections are deprecated - the idea being to aim for ways to link in similar pages that explain their relevance. Are there any more possible missile struck planes? If so then we could try having a page for them and using |const. -- Robin (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That I did not have in mind, sorry. If this is in the style guide and effective since 2014, then I guess it's not very much up for debate. But it is a very easy way to add links to related topics - in general I have to say, I am in favor for a see also section, at least in some cases. I guess relacing in the 'Style guide' means replacing. So that whatever I would file under 'see also' is in some way to be integrated in the text? For the "Sexual blackmail" article I would add in the first paragraph that on Wikispooks there are the articles: "VIPaedophile" and "The Pedophocracy" which deal with a similar (same?) topic in a different way. Not sure if there are other good ways to do this, cant think of anything better there.

Beside that you may now create a section for downed airplanes by a missile, so if I would like to link from Itavia Flight 870, to KAL007, to TWA800 and to MH17 then I would be writing a sentence or two in the articles, that there are these other air disasters, that were caused in a similar way and that they are equally suspicious because of this, that and the other. Is this the way to go? Sunvalley (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Covid-19 Timelines

What do you think about a separate Lockdown timeline, say at COVID-19/Pandemic/Timeline? I'm concerned that it we put too many events, it might lose the focus. -- Robin (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

That is probably true. As you say it can be another timeline on the same page. I feel that it should overall not be to many sub-pages, but then again I was thinking that for consequences like: economic, coming food shortages, etc. way may need another. Cant do much today, please go ahead. -- Sunvalley (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Ooops, I meant COVID-19/Lockdown/Timeline! We do actually have some bespoke timeline technology (see JFK/Assassination/Timeline) but I've hardly used it. -- Robin (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. From the viewpoint of navigation on the site, I think that it may not be ideal to build too many sub-pages from sub-pages. The casual reader likely will not use/see/recognise this since it is a bit different from Wikipedia where (mostly) all info for a topic is centred around one page and one sub-page if it comes to that. The point generally is, that information gets scattered over too many pages like this (you loose oversight which one you've read and which one you haven't opened yet). Maybe it is possible to leave it as it is for now. When it gets out of hand then it can still be done. A separate timeline page at COVID-19/Timeline that list both timelines?. With one sub-page from the main topic it is a bit more clear and you can click one topic after the other and read what is important to you.
At the other hand, if you say it already makes more sense to sort it like this, then no problem with me.
The other timeline software that you enabled with the Kennedy assassination will not get displayed without Java, so will many readers see this? Don't know how people browse this site, but on the web I mostly turn Java off.
Right now I rather put it in the simple way that I know, is the fastest and gets displayed for anybody. -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup notices

Good work on the cleanup notices! -- Robin (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


I just replied to your query at Template talk:Document - the summary is to try Template:Rate. Probably the easiest way to get started is to copy one from User:Robin and adjust as needed. -- Robin (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations on your MS Estonia rating! I've just tweaked it a bit to use all the fields, in case that helps. I'm at a loss to explain why the bottom section is deficient on the MS Estonia page. That template has been broken for ages (by an SMW upgrade) so perhaps it's time I worked out what went wrong with it. -- Robin (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Social media

As other users are discussing (re-)opening social media accounts, I was wondering if you any input, as to what platforms you think could contribute to more traffic and solid editors or viewpoints about the types of engagement we should be using. If you don't have any input, that's also fine, but please let me know. -- Jun (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Pete Raffa

Well dug on this. I think your version of the wording would be an improvement. -- Robin (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


Hello there Sunvalley, as there appears to be a surge in deep politics videos banned from youtube, I'm re-uploading them via our new wikispooks youtube channel. If you have videos on pages you'd like to add or re-appear on a wikispooks entry, please report them on the talk page or my own talk page if you bulk-request them. --Jun (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes thanks. Saw that channel and was thinking about what would make sense for upload. So right now I can't think of anything. But also I wonder how long that will live. Can't decide if better or not, but it may make sense to leave all legacy now. You could draw a box with a screenshot from the video and put the video-link in a hyperlink below, just to give a similar visual representation, only it will not play on this website (there is also the question if people come here mostly with java active or not, and my impression is most visits during the day are from mobile OS, so is good video integration for those visitors important? don't know).
Most sense it probably makes to keep using YT for long hd videos that clearly benefit from extra resolution.
Otherwise, if you generally want to re-upload videos that we have linked here with a "video box" but now have been deleted by Youtube, I can note down links as I go along. -- Sunvalley (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Solid points, probably making the YT-links unlisted/private will help a lot I've heard as it gives us leverage in terms I can't discuss here publicly. Look forward to your down-links, but don't sweat it, it's just a backup. --Jun (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Youtube 2

Hi there, hope you're doing well. I've good news and bad news. Good news; I've uploaded the two videos to the YT channel. The SJW lecture is here; Bad news, the JRE vid has a copyright claim, the only way to upload it seems to be recording it by phone. I have no stabilizer for my phone, so It will take more time than the few weeks I gave you as time. You can also record it yourself by phone if you wish. I've e-mailed you the YT login data. Meanwhile I'll try to play around with a stabilizer and circumventing the superbam/Spotify copyright algorithm. Jun (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)--

Cool, thanks. I do have a Kali 2018.1 image (can be started as live CD), never done much with it, but I did notice there is a screen recording tool integrated that works right away. You can do a whole screen recording or only a certain area of the screen. Not sure about audio but if it works seamlessly as well, then still, there is the audio recognition that will prevent upload. Let's leave it at that. I will add it in a different way to the article (picture from the vid, explanation, link to the archive) -- Sunvalley (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

YT 3

Here is the video you requested on the 27th January.

Let me know if there's anything else.--Jun (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Sunvalley (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

YT 4

Here is the video you requested on the 21st of April. ---Jun (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. These people should have a place here as well - I think there was another video that I once could track down on Information Clearinghouse. They produced some more, but that is all ancient history now. -- Sunvalley (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I dont care if you are right or wrong

Sorry if you are upset bout that. You insist on the "importance" of your ideas, as if your opinion doesn't count when criticised, as if you were inferior. Naturally you wont admit it instead arguing over 'facts'.

This will lead nowhere and you know that. You are one of the master-manipulators I've met in my live. You are very agreeable as long as others admire you and pad you on the shoulder -- as can be seen here on this page. What's actually going on is a behavior modification program. Anybody who dares to confront you gets to see the shadow side of this "sunny" character. You are an angry man. Urban (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I will not let you move out factually correct information only because it is not of your liking; information you at times (it seems) not look at closely enough to see my point, as my re-edit here shows, information it took also my time to get to. And I will go on and edit his page, he may be a hero in crypto (which you seem to have an interest in), he definitively was highest IQ and capable. But he may also have had a dark streak. Not the murder, but the rape allegation (which I consider to be true, no matter that the Gringo documentary is a real hit-piece). A "dark streak" that comes into a person when drugs are not recreational but habit and/or addiction (my value judgement on drugs anyway). And he had a strong habit by 2013, do we have to discuss that? Look at his face in the VICE short-clips from that time, one can tell.
As to the question on your user page: I asked for an attempt to find consensus how we can work towards understanding and a common goal (given that our worldview is much apart on WW3 and the possibility of it, which I think is the main issue, but likely not the only one). I asked for a place to discuss this, but what you send here is a NO.
I apologize for having edited your citations in articles in the past. You have a different style in putting it in and I lost the overview when too many of that was present, so I changed it the way like most people here do it. In full view of the Wiki HTML I just need a certain pattern to navigate fast, and so I saw fit to just go about it like this. That was at a minimum mindless, and given that it is sometimes the small things that can make people upset, bordering the stupid. Given the outright hostility in your last comment at Covid purposes and somewhat mean value judgements here I think it is of no value to you, but I apologize and will not do that consciously again.
On occasion I have noticed to be corrected here in the past, in a timely manner, by other users, and I could always (almost always) see the point right away. With you that is different.
Also given that you say NO to a simple talk and at least an attempt to find consensus, I will ask for arbitration - or are you somebody in the ~140 IQ range with a lot of read in psychology and this is all a joke to you ("dares to confront" being your cue here)? I will now spend time that would better be used elsewhere, totally unnecessary and sad.

-- Sunvalley (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions to policy make clear how to proceed from here on out. We will take to the talk pages then. Would have been better to spare me from this attitude, which I think is based in: "nach oben kratzen und nach unten treten". Or so it appears; and I may have an easy time here to show who challenged whom first, and who did not take lightly ... it may be a joke after all, but on more levels or in more directions I could initially think of. But whatever, up to more constructive work. -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


It might be worth adding a few more ratings of articles you are particularly pleased with, to get them more frequently on the front page. Terje (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)---

Alright then, I have not followed the discussion on how to improve the main page closely, but I assume that articles with ratings will give a reservoir from which the system can take at random, to bring different results more often. Two right now, will have a look what else. -- Sunvalley (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


Hello SV. Hope you're all well. Don't think you've read it, but Robin actually edited the style guide for In particular, the adding of non Semantic Wiki headings is no longer wanted. As I see you often adding good info in articles this way, but with headers named "See Also" or "External Links". Would you please be willing to remove those headers on your articles and just place the content just in the article with a ref? If the article needs more exposure, idk, take a picture and add it next to the ON, or make a short GIF with a humoristic header? Or smth. But in general, since May of this year, Robin have asked us to not include those sections and actively try to remove them. Thanks --Jun (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. Summer is good here, so I am doing alright. No, did not see that. I was aware of the removal of 'see also' sections: "Since the upgrade to SMW technology, it is much preferred to avoid this section and instead use appropriate SMW-based". As far as I recall 'see also' sections mainly listed other articles on Wikispooks (same usage in Wikipedia), that could linked in via 'interests', etc. - but there is still the following mention: " "See also" sections may be helpful in exceptional cases, but other methods of linking in documents are generally to be preferred." - At Russia/Encirclement I used it more recently to link to China/Encirclement, since I thought that is proper case there (but then, it could also be written out in the text section).
What I added under 'external links' is of general interest to the matter at hand. Somebody used 'further reading' somewhere lately, which basically comes down to the same. Can I ask you to clarify with Robin if that is in order, or if the issue remains the same? Thanks. Alternatively, I will just add as a question to the talk section at Style Guide. -- Sunvalley (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
See the new; with updated guidelines from Robin. "Further reading" is also unnecessary as it very often can just be put into the lede if it's that good it needs mentioning on a separate header. Integrating those links with an explainer text is easy as you often only need one ref or QB. I'll also edit some in the future to indicate what should be the new standard with the guidelines, but I hope this new section in the SG with Robin's answer clarifies it. To be clear new guidelines are; If another page is particularly relevant to the page in hand, this should be explained in the text. If the external link or the article has a WS link, link to there (with a FA). --Jun (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify the logic behind avoiding lists of links:
  1. Links should be well chosen and shed light on the subject, so definitely should be read
  2. Given that editors have read them and liked them, there should be one or more bits of useful information it's easy to <ref> or {{SMWQ}} (or {{QB}}, though SMWQ is preferred for quotes with |subjects, since this improves multiple pages in one go)
  3. This should help readers find links of interest - they can riffle through the Refs section, and click on the up arrow to get a tip as to what information it contains
So for creation of new content, avoiding lists of lists makes a more functional product. Removal of existing lists of links is more work, because it entails reading the articles they link to, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend trying hard to do it. If you're interested to read the article anyway, than of course it becomes easy. -- Robin (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Main page discussion

Greetings, Please try to contributbe again for the winter main page formatting here: --Jun (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)