User talk:24.215.205.163

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thanks, as you can see from the history, I was unsure of your edit at first. I have added the page to my watchlist and will monitor the contribution. If it starts getting nasty I'll post on one of the Admins notice board. --Alf melmac 22:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alf!

I'm sorry but I had to block you and the other editor you were warring with for violating the Three-revert rule. I have made the block for 11 hours for both parties to accept that this will have be talked out, not warred out. --Alf melmac 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It is ok with me, Alf. I am sorry if I breaked Wiki rules - I was actually unaware of them. I hope something can be done, taking into accpount that I have documented the article with a lot of research and that I will put even more research to support the text.

In the meantime, guidance for disputes over accuracy is laid out at Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute and the process for resolving disputes is laid out at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Alf melmac 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank the pair of you for being understanding and replying so postively. I hope the matter can be resolved amicably. --Alf melmac 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


RE: The Misinformation Article OITC Fraud RE: The article: OITC Fraud

This is an unusual situation. It involves classified institutions protected by the US Congress under security rules 3-5. If you have such security clearence, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee has the full jacket. It requires formal authorization.This is not a dispute that can be settled by the uninformed and unauthorized. Allowing the authorship and reprinting of intentional misinformation in this case is inproper.

No amount of unauthorized research will turn up anything of substance, only misinformation. The other party writing, can only find and post misinformation. News stories etc do not provide truth. If you happen to be a head of state or head of a central bank, providing that you follow security protocols, you can get verification. Treaties between nations, and classified protocols attached to them, are a fact of life that impacts this discussion.

Classifying this as a fraud and implying that its officers are criminals is improper. The courts have ruled that no web site may be exempt from the rules of defamation. The author Waffelknocker is a police officer who has investigated OITC and who knows that it is real and neither a fraud nor otherwise criminal. Your other author just repeats falsehoods and stories written without access to real information. OITC is very real.Classification protocols are intended to prevent unauthorized access, and this frustrates many writers who think that they deserve such information.He,however, knowingly ignores all countering information, as such his own behavior is now quite possibly criminally slanderous. Other boards, such as Redcat's Precious Metals, have had posters with high level access obtain verification of a letter written by The General Counsel of the US Treasury, which supports OITC reality.

128.59.153.160 intentionally deleted sources supporting the information provided by Waffelknocker. I believe that permiting this misinformation campaign to persist is defamatory and I will recommend that litigation is initiated. Executor-usa

Since you want to remove my writings, I see no reason for your disinformation to remain.


[edit] OITC Fraud and Intimidation Attempt

The so called "disinformation campaign", in the eyes of the OITC people, was started by the Daily Telegraph of London, when they discovered a suppossed bid for MG Rover made by the OITC was written in letterhead with a fake Bankong number.[1] Thereafter, the Financial Times of London made public that the United Nations denied any link or endorsement for the OITC and that the supposed "charter number" was nothing but a fake.[2]


Other well-known newspapers and media from Fiji, Australia and Ecuador have reported on the OITC. Everyone of them has pointed out that their activities are highly suspicious and some have not refrained from calling the OITC a scam[3] and a hoax.[4] The same has been the opinion of the Fiji Police.[5]


Again, all the sources in the original article are verifiable and link to governmental and media sites of prestige. The OITC people, on the other hand, are unable to present even one link that may give some credence to their claims. Their sources are nothing but an incoherent list of names and a series of bizarre claims. This is not suprising, taking into account that in their dealings in the UK they presented themselves as being created by the "Governments of the World of Legal Decadency".[6]


As we have done before, we dare the OITC and its people to come with some verifiable source. As time goes by, more and more people are aware of their activities. We - concerned citizens whose only interest is the truth - will continue to monitor their activities. They would like to delete this article to be able to continue acting in a vacuum of documentation about them. We want to keep this article available because, as in other cases, we believe true and verifiable information will enable people around the world to make an informed decision about the OITC and their "offers".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.215.205.163.html"