User talk:Diagonal

You are the first new member we have seen for ages! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey! Welcome! And here's how to signs your comments. --~ This one is taken care of by context. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Guys please see this section! I think its important. --Diagonal (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Diagonal, thanks for your contribution in recent days! This looks indeed very interesting, never heard these reports. Have no time to look closer at the moment, but it looks like it belongs quite high on the article page, not buried in the talk page. Maybe I'll move it later. What do the others think? --CE (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * See further comments over there. --CE (talk) 14:56/15:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

How can I upload HTML files I have saved? --Diagonal (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You can't. Depending on what it is, there are parsers that convert HTML into MediaWiki MarkUp, which would be best as that can be searched. But they are far from perfect depending on the quality of the input HTML. Alternatively you can make screenshots in most modern browsers that can "shoot" the whole, not just the monitor-visible part of a page, and upload them as pictures, or convert them to pdf. --CE (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Have uploaded some screenshots -just in case --Diagonal (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This clinical services journal page has been edited. Will have to put the screenshots up. --Diagonal (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sometimes things are recorded on wayback machine, that would be the best but does not seem to be the case here, see https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.clinicalservicesjournal.com/ Do not see why not to upload screenshots if something of relevance changed --Resup (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Diagonal has already uploaded a couple of screenshots, likely including this one. I have written on how to link to them without pulling up the image, see two paragraphs down. The latest on MoA features the edited article among other recent oddities. edit: I've added the links to the screenshots. --CE (talk) 19:27/20:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I edited the Spire FM 4th March entry. Please can someone find the url I replaced and put it alongside the screenshot link thanks --Diagonal (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Confused, do you mean this (your upload on 14 Apr.), originally 1:50 pm on March 5,  and your upload today (originally 9:34 pm on March 4) ?  Those links to files, with : in front, are links not displaying the actual graphics, and they may go in wherever needed in the discussion or mainpage. You can see you own contributions by hitting contribs after yourself on the recent changes page or directly like  this =  ( this) --Resup (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I just did what Diagonal asked for - restoring the link to the original article and adding the link to the new screenshot. If not, please clarify, Diagonal. --CE (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thankyou --Diagonal (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that I am not making myself clear. Please consider carefully. Firstly: a major incident was not declared until Morning of 5th March, NOT the previous afternoon/evening. Secondly: The Skripals were initially treated for fentanyl overdose. Thirdly: the policeman was not mentioned before 7th March. An OFFICIAL Statement by PHE that day only mentioned TWO people affected (Not three). Therefore the Policeman was a staged add on. Therefore, in order for all the Biomedical samples to be consistent the three 'victims' would have to have been dosed subsequently. The links I have posted and backed up screen shots. --Diagonal (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've undone your latest edit of the Skripal page where you put your giant screenshots in the middle of the text. As none of the pages have actually disappeared from the net (or have they), there is no need for them to be on the page at all, let alone in full size. You can add them to your collection on the talk page as links, in the following format (note the : before the file which takes care that they are linked to, not shown): (locally archived). Thanks. --CE (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also deleted the random Moon of Alabama comment you inserted into the OPCW section of the same page. --CE (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, I had just seen entry by the zombie account that was indicating they know my personal details (stress). I have also had warning signals out yesterday.


 * What are you talking about? The account I blocked this afternoon? You think its name was a message to you? --CE (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It is in the nature of this software that you cannot undo things you have written. You can always look them up in "history". And it is against the rules of this community to delete other people's comment, like you did with mine, which I just restored. Don't do it again, regardless of the state of your internet connection. --CE (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I seemed to have resolved an issue with my IP that cropped up. I may have been unduly wary recently, but I don't know. If you have any issue with the quality of my contributions please say. I am not used to this platform as yet --Diagonal (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I have no issues with your contributions, quite the contrary. Glad you are here. But deleting other people's content is a big no-no, due to the already a bit confusing software environment, so I thought I had to intervene. I might have done a rollback that also deleted a bit of your legitimate content. If so, sorry for that. Carry on. :o) --CE (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It occured to me that the title of the poisoning of Skripal page might be altered to reflect an apparent deception operation as regards the poisoning and a cover up of the same. Do people think that is appropriate? --Diagonal (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure how it needs to be called, I guess this is really asking what final shape us looking into Skripals matter will look like, apart from individual opinions. I am not clear, at this point. It seems clear that the initial  gov.uk claim that it can only come from Russia  is not supported. (as a theory building on Russia's past behavior, or allegations of such, and without knowing anything at all may appear sensible, but then details do not quite add up, as it is not excluded that other could do it as well, and -- cui bono --more likely to do so). But saying it was a deception operation is also a theory, with some merits, but not a proof. I am no lawyer but imagining trying to defend such theory in British court, it's most likely will not work; they would say they have Porton Down and OPCW conclusions to back up, and those strange things do look strange but are relatively minor inconsistencies having different explanations. I also can't imaging a .gov cabinet meeting where those guys would shut the doors and whisper, OK, and now, let us deceive the public. It seems clear that this was professional piece of work. Higher-up .gov's, who do not have technical or scientific backgrounds, could misinterpret or over-interpret technical information and then forced to come up with something to avoid embarrassment.
 * Regarding permanent neurological damage, I think it's a bit of misnomer. Yes, the alleged chems form  permanent chemical bond to such and such enzymes taking those out, and those affected molecules are not ever coming back, but new ones may be synthesized in vivo or 'imported' if the subject is kept alive. I am not aware of direct action on neurons/brain, that would be indeed irreversible    --Resup (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. I will think a bit more, but there seems to be some situation that was seized on and then the facts had to be made to fit the public announcements and its the mess it is. Please be as critical as you can of my take below. I am assuming the the CSJ piece about treatment for fentanyl and the doctors letter to the times where he said initial blood tests showed no abnormality are reliable accounts. I will look to make an expanded and referenced piece from the take below, if it seems to be standing up. I think I might be able to find official strategy docs on the use of deception. Most MP's are pretty clueless and even well placed civil servents will repeat "there's no such thing as MI5!"  --Diagonal (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The MoA comment was about how to read the court statement that Craig Murray had got access to. It is relevant I think to understanding the sly form of words used there. --Diagonal (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Maybe it can go in the section on analysis on official statements, (see also russian embassy statements)I started on the talk page. --Diagonal (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"A third-generation unitary nerve agent, A-234, is also known and is reported to be derived from acrylonitrile and a common organophosphoryl pesticide precursor. A-234 is dispersible as an ultra-fine powder as opposed to a gas or a vapor, and therefore has unique qualities." patent office Application I lifted from Craig Murray blog comments

Why claims of chemical weapons in Salisbury evidence a deception operation On 4th March two people had medical emergencies in Salisbury. They were treated by clinicians for exposure to the opioid fentanyl. A "major incident" was declared the following morning at Salisbury Hospital Until 7th March, only two people were known to be affected as stated on that day by the Gov dept Public Health England who also stated that all known first responders had been examined. Also on 7th March, under the command of the CTPN (formerly Special Branch) the MET announced that there was a seriously ill police officer in hospital - named in the press the following day. Subsequently a consultant in Emergency medicine at Salisbury NHS Trust wrote a letter to the TImes published 18th March clarifying that no one had symptoms of nerve agent poisoning and that there were no abnormalities in the blood test results for three people who had been significantly poisoned. Subsequently, permission for blood tests on the unconscious Skripals was sought in the Court of Protection. These subsequent blood test results were reported in the following ambiguous terms. "Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent." Biomedical samples from the three would later to be taken by the OPCW. Environmental samples collected around Salisbury by the OPCW tested positive for the presence of a toxic chemical (believed to be A-234 - the samples were said to be of high purity) The lab results have not been made public. Testing for organophosphate exposure in biomedical samples is never definitive. In the case of Sarin the presence of isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA) in urine can be said to be indicative of Sarin exposure but some victims of an alleged incident at Khan Sheikhoun April 2017 failed blood tests for Sarin exposure, but had IMPA in the urine, indicating that IMPA may have been ingested. A234 is a nerve paralysing agent that would cause irreversible damage to anyone exposed. It would act in mintues. Anyone who was was exposed and then mistakenly treated for opioid exposure would not stand a chance of recovery. These inconsistencies show that whatever happened in Salisbury on 4th March it was not the poisoning of the Skripals with Novichok. http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_Skripal