Revision as of 12:11, 28 April 2005

• Talk:Javier Solana/Solana vandalism and POV
• Talk:Javier Solana/Archive 1
• Talk:Javier Solana/Archive 2

Old Discussion

Vandalism

I've looked at the "666" edits on this article and it appears to me that, for some editors, there is a clear intent to vandalize the Solana entry and the user pages of those who get in their way , ,,,,,,,,. I will indefinitely block those involved in all such vandalism. In view of this extended campaign of coordinated vandalism I will issue no further warnings and heed no appeals. The users blocked are:

• 68.62.169.14 (talk · contributions)
• 66.0.239.178 (talk · contributions)
• 65.4.6.98 (talk · contributions)
• 65.4.16.211 (talk · contributions)
• 65.4.16.57 (talk · contributions)
• 68.159.142.227 (talk · contributions)
• 68.159.157.232 (talk · contributions)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

68.159.142.227 (talk · contribs) is a Michigan IP according to my locator, as are 68.159.157.232 (talk · contribs) and 68.159.146.54 (talk · contribs) --SqueakBox 01:56, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE leave the vprotect tag in place on the main page for a while. I think that everyone needs to chill out and leave it alone for a few days, at least. KC9CQJ 09:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

One thing I tried with great success on Ward Churchill, which has had similar problems and also had to be protected, is to create a sandbox article that people can use to try out edits. I've made a copy of the current version at Javier Solana/Temp. Feel free to fool around with it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sharon

It was claimed Sharon refused to meet Solana on 20 July, but here he meets him on the 22nd. Mistake or propaganda? --SqueakBox 05:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Persistent vandals

While the vandal(s) are unlikely to stop at least we can temporarily stop this page being the ventre of their targets. I am unhappy about the fictional Javier Madariaga being a redirect rather than a speedy deletion candidate. Please put it on your watchlists. Having discovered the inaccuracy of the Sharon refuses to meet Solana text I suspect many of the edits need checking for accuracy, --SqueakBox 14:50, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey

This, pointed out by Cumbey, is somebody's sick idea of revenge for the good work I have done here. It seems the stakes are rising, --SqueakBox 03:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

NO, LIKE I TOLD CUMBEY, it's a mirror of Misplaced Pages. Someone is dumping Misplaced Pages SQL tables into their datasets and that's where it's coming from. KC9CQJ 09:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My (SB) view

What may be my views on Javier Solana can be found here and here. I don't believe my views on Solana are found in the article here. It certainly is not a pro-EU rant but was a pro US anti EU rant, in my opinion. I think the dispute between Cumbey and I is much more political than religious (I am not in this article for religious reasons), and my own alleged Rastafarian, and therefore African centred, views have nothing to do with this article. I am claiming that I am writing from a politically neutral point of view and that Cumbey is not. I do admit to being pro Spain ( a country I have lived in) and pro the EU. Thanks for the mediation offer. It would have been great a couple of weeks back but now it seems too late and we just have to wait and see what happens on the Rfc (I withdrew my request for mediation. Eventually the spell check etc will need to be done for when the article enters the Featured article of the week competition, which will give us a lot of feedback on how the article appears in the eyes of others. Having found the false info that Sharon refused to meet Solana last July I totally agree that all the info in the article needs sourcing, --SqueakBox 16:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I, of course, pronounce tomato like all other British people, which is much more like the way the Spanish speakers pronounce it than is the American version, --SqueakBox 16:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey Response to SqueakBox's latest

Well, SqueakBox in addition to having his 'consensus' gang behind him over here, bewails that he cannot control the rest of the World Wide Web in general and my own blogspot in particular. "Stop trashing Misplaced Pages? I have never trashed it. SqueakBox has and continues to do so. He has substantially trashed Misplaced Pages's reputation in the process. SqueakBox practices a form of on line McCarthyism, but of course, he gets to erase freely. That is "editing" -- correcting is "vandalism." Well, the world can certainly sleep better with SqueakBox's form of on line McCarthyism with his "IP locator" combined with his lack of geographical and demographic knowlege. Let's see, the Detroit metropolitan area has approximately 3.5 million residents. Most of these people have their own opinions. A large number of them are regularly on line. Allen Park, Michigan is approximately 50 miles, maybe more from my home and probably 40 from my office. It is in southern Wayne County. I am in northern Oakland County. I wish we had wireless coverage that broad, but to the best of my present knowledge, it does not exist. If it does exist, it has not yet come to Michigan! Of course, when your map is a globe in the Honduras, everything up here looks real close together. That is why SqueakBox even assigned those with opinions of their own happening to differ from his to be as well -- they were from Toronto! Of course, "as close as that is" per SqueakBox's version of geographical literacy. I note with a great deal of interest -- and I will be commenting on this on my own blog as well (www.cumbey.blogspot.com) -- Squeakbox has two interesting blogs of his own: "www.SqueakBox is never wrong.blogspot.com" and "www.Squeakbox is always right.com" -- Absolutely charming! At any rate, I have given the Misplaced Pages editors repeated notice that the Allen Park IP is not me and is unknown to me; any Reston, Virginia IP is not me, and is unknown to me; and I haven't been to Toronto in approximately 8 years -- it is a LONG TRIP from Michigan." Such nonsense. SqueakBox is destroying the reputation of Misplaced Pages. Nobody can look at this nonsense, combined with his supporting chorus of Amens for the equally uninformed Misplaced Pages gang. My numbers are listed in Michigan. Unlike SqueakBox, I don't hide behind "sockpuppets" or pseudonyms. Nobody with any sense is going to go through hours on kangaroo judges and juries or take hours to rebut complaints for 'facts' existing only in SqueakBox's virtual world.

It's evidently ok for Squeakbox to label "trivia" and to put links to my work -- it's not ok to put links to what shows SqueakBox's very pronounced biases (pro New Age, pro Haile Selassie is god.) -- the only thing which exceeds SqueakBox's audacity is George Felos who straightfacedly condemns Christian sanctity to life beliefs while shamelessly evangelizing his New Age ones.

SqueakBox has turned Misplaced Pages into a joke! Want the truth? Visit www.cumbey.blogspot.com. In addition to looking at straight versions of the Solana article, you will see SqueakBox's various rantings and ravings on my board, combined with his promotion of his blogsites, "www.Squeakbox is always right.blogspot.com" and www.SqueakBox is never wrong.blogspot.com".

So interesting. So trivial. SqueakBox's support system at Misplaced Pages is only relevant for those living in a "Virtual" and not a real world! Constance E. Cumbey, cumbey@gmail.com

SqueakBox Response and Cumbey's Reply to SqueakBox Response and'Challenge'

I have never labelled Cumbey's work trivia, nor can she prove that I have. If you think I have, show us the diff? Otherwise don't repeat the allegation. No, it is not alright to vandalise Haile Selassie as you did in this diff: . I have not done anything remotely similar. Any continuation of vandalism may result in you being blocked. There is never any reason to place users in encyclopedic text. If you weren't at Reston someone impersonating you was. Given the history of this case it is incomprehensible that Cumbey still only signs in when she feels like it, and then blames others for trying to sort through the mess, without ever helping. My IP locator locates me 50 miles from where I actually am, why not you too? Actually I get my geography from Misplaced Pages. How am I destroying the reputation of wikipedia? Please explain or desist from making this wild accusation. In my opinion that is rich coming from you who, yes, have weakened the reputation of wikipedia with your unencyclopedic edits, making people paranoid about Solana's growing powers. . Charming. An encyclopedia is not meant to manipulate people's thinking. My biases have nothing to do with wikipedia. Cumbey refuses to engage in debate about my edits. I justified my edits on the talk page and that is that. She does not explain in detail what she thinks is wrong with the article. There is no edit war as I am virtually alone editing this article. What is your real problem, Cumbey? --SqueakBox 14:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Cumbey doesn't want to spend any time rebutting my edits with contentual dispute here on this talk page. If she wants to talk about the edits I have done or am doing I am happy to engage. e.g. if she wants the WEU to be called a 10 member organisation she could explain her reasons here, and we could have a debate. Same with 666 recommendations et al. If she just atrtacks and rants I will ignore her. There are no edit wars going on here, merely NPOV edits and vandalism edits, --SqueakBox 16:26, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal to SqueakBox's WEU not a ten nation federation challenge:

TIME OUT, SQUEAKBOX AND THE REST OF THE EDITORIAL GANG/CREW/CO-CONSPIRATORS? WHATEVER HERE:

I don't have a lof of time to rebut either SqueakBox's ignorance and/or disinformation, whichever it is and only God knows, but since he challenged me to prove that the WEU was a ten member organization, which he did in the paragraph above, here it is and I will also feel very free to put this 'challenge' on my board. See References below from a very ordinary google.com search:

European Defence - Western European Union (WEU) WEU logo, WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (WEU) ... There are ten member states, six associate member states and five observer states presently in the WEU. ... www.european-defence.co.uk/directory/weu.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Assembly of the Western European Union (WEU) ... of the Assembly of the Western European Union, which was founded in 1955. In addition to the WEU’s ten member states, they include associate members, ... - 5k - Cached - Similar pages

Guide to the Amsterdam Treaty ... and implemented at the EU’s request by the Western European Union (WEU), ... Any decision requires the positive votes of at least ten Member States ... www.europeanmovement.ie/am_gd9.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Documento sin título ... were invited to join the Western European Union (WEU) established by Belgium, ... The WEU, including ten Member States which signed the Brussels Treaty ... www.investing-in-europe.com/en/html/histo_2.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

The NATO-Russia Archive - New European Security Architecture ... The Western European Union (WEU) was first established as a mutual assistance ... of its ten member states, all of which are both NATO and EU members. ... www.bits.de/NRANEU/EuropeanSecurity.htm - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

You misunderstood me. I know the WEU is a 10 member organisation. My point is why do we have to include this information in the Solana article, when their is a link to WEU, and the reader can find the information out there. it would actually be more useful to inform the reader that the EU contains 25 members, but this kind of information is not normally put in articles about the politician itself. Just telling me it has 10 members is no argument for the inclusion of this fact in the text. --SqueakBox 19:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

antichrist allegations

Well unless the wind changes it looks very unlikely that Javier Solana Antichrist allegations will survive it's Vfd. I personally argued that as this Solana article is not very long we should include everything about Solana here. As the consensus here appears to be to mentiom nothing on the beast subject, i belñieve the allegations article should be deleted. Having noticed myself how the opposition to the EU constitution in the States goes far wider than just beast believers and is held by many who do not take on any mystical aspects in their opposition, I note Solana has commented on this opposition himself here, without mentioning biblical prophecy, (I got the link from Cumbey's blog - please note I am not against including her material when it is good quality). I think we can assume we are including beast believers in this sentence about the neocon US opposition, and therefore we do not need any mention of him as the Beast in the article, indeed with the Vfd looking the way it is Misplaced Pages may be stating it does not want Solana beast belief in it's pages. --SqueakBox 14:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Time out

Ok guys here is the deal. You have been battling over edits for forever now. You want your version to be the article, well its not going to happen as one of you will revert the others. I believe you both want to contribute. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I am proposing myself as a mediator. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few words of advice:

Methodology

While you are not obligated to follow below items I highly recomend you do. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Establish what you agree on

Although this may sound stupid or useless, common ground is first step in diplomacy. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discuss parts SLOWLY one by one

I say tomata you say tomato. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:NPOV dictates neither sides views to be present in the article. This is the very heart of wikipedia --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Information must be verifiable meaning I need to be able to access this information from a reputable source if necesary. I am not saying you are lieing but I need to be convinced of facts. You do want to convince people reading this article right? If they cant check your facts they will not believe it. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final clean up

This is where we do spell checks grammer checks, rephrasing sentences and all other good stuff. --Cool Cat 10:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working to a Solution

We are working on a solution to the current edit war surrounding all three of the articles. This is entirely a misunderstanding between all parties involved, and instead of looking at ALL the diffs, some folks are only looking at one or two. Let me reassure everyone that this is a total misunderstanding, and for that reason, I request that the edit warriors within this article and Javier Solana Antichrist allegations take a time out and wait for a resolution. Thanks. KC9CQJ 09:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE

• Do not discuss the conduct of other wikipedia users, while that may be true/false, it does not help us improve the article.

• Present your cases in a clear form, not cryptic. Use bullets. Cite reputable sources. Actual webpages rather than personal pages so we all know what is in your head.

• I am not here to prove this case one way or another. I am indiferent regarding topic. I can help only if you allow me to. --Cool Cat 10:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request

Kc9cqj has asked me to stop editing this article. This is a ridiculous request that I want him to withdraw. As long as I can edit this article i will, and I will not allow Cumbey shennanigans to stop me. If Cumbey wants to debate edits she is free to do so. I am not responsible for her behavoiur, and will not take the blamne for it either. I don't want the help of anyone if it ios going to make this situation worse. Can people please leave me alone to get on editing, --SqueakBox 15:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Can Kc9cqj please back up his edit warrior allegations with some facts, or withdraw tthe comments, as I deeply resent my edits to this article being labelled edit warring when clearly nothing of the sort is happening. I advise everyone to get on with this article as normal. All edits that are not vandalism are welcome, --SqueakBox 21:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

May I remind - as a complete outsider - everybody that remaining civil is not only good for ones health, but is also much more likely to convince people yet outside the debate of ones own position? The article's history certainly is a triffle restless, and the tone on the talk page at least in parts somewhat improvable. KC9 is only trying to help, as far as I can see it, and it won't be very helpful to hit him. -- AlexR 00:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. I just feel aggrieved that I am being asked to stop editing this article when I am putting a huge amount of effort into making it a good article, and Cumbey is not editing it at all. KC9 may have been trying to help, but it appears to me that he is helping Cumbey and not me in asking us both to stop editing here, as she is not doing so anyway. I feel very angry that I have been asked to stop editing this article, but agree that civility is important. I was also referring to whatever is going on around the Coolcat situation, which I do not even begin to understand, --SqueakBox 00:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've already talked to SqueakBox tonight, and will talk to him more later. My intended effect was to give folks some breathing space, and not to shut anyone up. I apologize if this seemed to be the case, publicly to SqueakBox and to the users of this resource. I can appreciate the efforts that he has placed within this article, and my intention is only to make this article better by using the best available material. KC9CQJ 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, --SqueakBox 02:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

--Cool Cat 11:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)== Unacceptable refactoring of talk ==

I have reverted a massive refactoring of this talk page by User:Coolcat. Such aggressive editing of other user's posts is unacceptable. — Davenbelle 18:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Right You havent bothered reading what I did. There is nothing unacceptable. I was requested to join this talk in an atempt to hel parties discuss matters, removing my comments prevents my ability to achive things. --Cool Cat 11:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tampering of talk page

Someone has been tampering with my comments, changing 10 to 10 members. I haven't the time to cjheck who. However small and well intentioned these may have been, please leave what I have written intact, typos et al, --SqueakBox 23:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I say dont worry too much about the article, we can discuss it and once we reach a concensius we can keep the article on the version we agree upon, of course the aarticle will be developed but any "tampering" or pov after the discussion will not be in the article, please just for now ignore outside interference.

New beginning

I am reintroducing the mediation procedure. Its 100% optional, someone removed it as if it was a disease --Cool Cat 12:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a suggested mediation procedure.

Method

1. Initial assessment. Complete...
2. Assessment
3. Neutralisation
4. Edit
5. Feedback -- if good go to step 6, otherwise, to step 2
6. Final clean up

During all discussion a civil tone should be maintained. The Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy should be respected, with no insults or accusations. I will not be making any edits to the article on my own aside from spelling and grammar. We will start this from scratch, meaning all past hostilities will be forgotten. Please provide your arguments in bullet format and sign each. In order not to get involved in a "revert war", allow me to make the changes based on what we agree here. I will stay neutral in the article itself.

• <-- Bullet.

Please, refrain from "you are wrong, we are right"-type arguments: use a more productive "I see your point, but this is what I think, how about rephrasing it as...". Insisting on a single, unaltered version does not help.

Please say what, in your opinion, is POV or what isn't factual in the article in the format below:

Categories

Argument (italic non indented)

• View Pro Argument (bullet with no indenting)

• View Against Argument (bullet with one indenting)

• View neither for nor against (bullet with two indenting)

• Consensus (Bold, italic non indented text)

Colours

This is how it appears in the article:

This is a randomly generated string.

This is how I recommend suggesting a change in article:

• This is a randomly generated string. (material to be removed red in color <font color=red>string</font>)
• This is a randomly generated text. (material to be removed green in color <font color=green>string</font>)

While you are not obligated to use this format, for the sake of clarity I highly recommend it.