User talk:One Salient Oversight

Chick Publications

I feel you are making inaccurate claims against me and ask that you examine the history to determine that for yourself. Rather than removing information from Chick Publications, I have been trying to add back the full edition rather than the slimmed down one. I want to show Chick Publications for what it is: some right information, some questionable (e.g., Jesuits started Islam and Communism).10001 04:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cyclone Ingrid

I know you were only joking in your edit summary on Cyclone Ingrid, but there are some who would find such a comment a little insensitive. Sorry to sound thin-skinned or anything, it's more the cyclone area's inhabitants that I'm thinking of. It's a minor point. Lacrimosus 01:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Solana

We are into an edit war, Cumbey and I. She just reverted the article to her inaccurate version, Ferdinand González, misplacing of the Barcelona Conference (now up for deletion) etc. I think because she has made no attempt to clear up her mistakes that this is vandalism.--SqueakBox 03:40, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Get your mates together and we'll try to get her banned. Get in touch with an adminstrator and head for the arbitration committee. --One Salient Oversight 04:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

She is still trasghing the Solana site. --SqueakBox 10:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I have been put here for supposed 3RR violation. I am stating it was only reparing vandalism. Please help!--SqueakBox 16:15, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey has now engaged in an identical edit war at [1] (http://www.global-elite.org/wiki/index.php/Javier%2C_Solana). Any help would be much appreciated. In doing so she went back on agreeing to know more edit wars.--SqueakBox 17:27, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Aris Katsaris is fine, and I welcome his edits; even if tricky he is the sort I want to have at Solana. On the other hand Cumbey has used a sockpuppet in her wikielite edit war. See here (http://www.global-elite.org/wiki/index.php?title=Javier_Solana&action=history). I am convinced she isn't behind the Solana vandalisms (Rev quites, little horn insertions, etc). I have urged her by emailto start an article on him as the beast. Something like Javier Solabna is the Antichrist conspiracy theory. Far from opposing such an article I would get incvolved. It could explain why some people think he is the beast, recommendation 666 etc, and why others think it is an American right wing conspiracy theory. But Cumbey is just spitting mad right now, more obsessed with me than with writing an encyclopedia. --SqueakBox 21:23, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey left It is requested that visitors from Wikipedia including but not limited to 'Squeakbox' respect the territorial integrity of Wikipedia to have its own separate content and not be limited to the Squeakbox World View! this on the article on Solana, Javier here (http://www.global-elite.org/wiki/index.php/Solana%2C_Javier). It is another wiki project, but all the admins seem asleep. Why not sign up and join in? --SqueakBox 00:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey was very stupid with her latest escapade as she first removed and then vandalised a GFU agreement they had forced her to sign as the article came from wikipedia. Noone there right now, but they will go spare. So no need to get involved, it is under control. Not only juvenile but stupid enough to get caught. See Talk:Javier Solana/Solana vandalism and POV#Is Cumbey using sockpuppets

BTW it was Rastafarianism that turned me away from Christianity, age 18. It didn't sit that well with me so didn't last, but I would choose a Rastafarian over a Christian interpreation of the Bioble any day. --SqueakBox 01:48, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting SB. I've been waiting to talk to you for a while about non-Cumbey things. Can you tell me more about your experience at the Battle of the Beanfields? Is your story of that incident anywhere on the internet? I'm sure it would be very interesting to read. --One Salient Oversight 02:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now Cumbey is shoutiong my name out at wikielite. i have deleted it but take a look. hard to figure out what is really going on. --SqueakBox 03:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cumbey has made another personal attack against me at Talk:Javier Solana--SqueakBox 04:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oversight - I am preparing to write an RfC concerning Cumbey and her recent attack on you and SB. Could you either find me on IRC or leave me a message at my talk page? KC9CQJ 07:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask you to drop me a line. SB and I are going active with the RfC on Cumbey and your certification will be needed to solidify the RfC. KC9CQJ 09:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your help here during my little "trouble". If ever you are in the region of Newcastle, Australia, you can always pop in for a free Thai Peanut Curry and a bed! One Salient Oversight 10:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the curry offer! Likewise, if you're ever in the vicinity of York, UK, I could at least offer, er, fish and chips?? Thanks for all your good work on Christian topics. I try, for the most part, to steer clear of these areas myself (for fear of getting stressed). We should have a chat sometime about charismatic issues. In the last 7 years, I've gone from attending a Vineyard church, via a charismatic-evangelical Anglican church, through to an independant evangelical church (reformed and cessationist)...but I'm still not sure what I think about the issue. Best regards, anyway. — Matt Crypto 13:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey threats

These threats were received by email. User:Cumbey claims SqueakBox is hacking into the wiki database. She is going to demand the hard discs from Jimbo Wales so she can get me put down for a long time because of my alleged hacking. She accuses me of having a stash of janja (sic) she means ganja, in my possession, and that she is going to tell the Honduran police about it. She is going to write to Jimbo demanding he reinstate her version of this article. She is very unhappy with the new contributors. She thinks they work for me and I work for Solana.--SqueakBox 14:51, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I am taking Cumbey to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation; if she doesn't cooperate I will go to arbitration. Comments would be appreciated. I am not going to accept her threats to me and my family via email and at wikipedia. --SqueakBox 20:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Operation Eagle Claw

I served with the Marine Detachment USS CORAL SEA along with the USS NIMITZ and their battle groups. They didn't tell us anything but we knew something was up. Battle stripes were painted on the wings of our aircraft to differentiate ours from theirs. Aircraft were loaded with munitions and pilots were sleeping in their cockpits while groundcrews slept underneath them for immediate response. Things were hectic.

One morning, I was shaving in the bathroom with others, and the General quarters call started and it was not a drill. I think we stayed that way for six or seven hours. Then our Captain came onboard to tell us that the mission failed in Iran. We were disappointed.

Our ship was to help the Nimitz provide fighter escort in and out of Iran. They were expecting the Iranians to attack the ships at sea. Nothing happened. That's my story.WHEELER 15:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not reblocked

Hi there, thought I'd explain the reason why I haven't reblocked User:220.233.86.223: the reason I blocked him originally was because of the "Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Personal_attacks which place users in danger" provision. His somewhat ominous posting of your personal details and implied threats (not to mention legal threats) convinced me (and User:Ta bu shi da yu) that this was appropriate. However, the user has since apologised for his actions, has avoided POV editing, and seems to be willing to discuss changes on the Talk: page first. I think it's worth giving him a second chance, and I also don't think there's still a mandate for blocking him under the provision mentioned above.

I should also ask you, did you nominate yourself for adminship so that you can ban users like this on your own? You should be aware that it's highly inappropriate for admins to ban users with whom they're involved in a dispute. — Matt Crypto 17:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matt. When he re-posted he had yet another go at me on the Talk Page and so I got frustrated again.

There is no doubt that my nomination for adminship has come because of my experience with this user. His actions almost convinced me to abandon Wikipedia. When he returned and began to attack me again the other day I thought "What the hell is going on here? I thought he had been banned." He wrote this after returning from being banned:

OSO Why dont you stick to facts and figures, This is supposed to be an encyclopedia type article not a putdown platform. you do seem to be the only one pushing the cult group barrow, and yet you do not know, nor have you researched the truth. I acknowledge your prowess at article grammatical editing, but rebuke your one sided effort at trying to prove that the Potters house is a cultic and manipulative group. I question your motives in this wikipedia article. Are you putting your emotions before the truth? --Truth over Relationship 13:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (from Talk:Potter's House Christian Fellowship"

Given that the situation had suddenly resurfaced, and that you had not replied to my query about why he was back, I decided that this sort of thing should not happen again. Rather than having to cry to others, I thought "Why not apply for adminship so that I can deal with these sorts of problems myself?"

Users at Wikipedia who get hurt by trolls like TOR tend to leave after a while. User:SqueakBox is going through his own online hell trying to battle the Javier Solana is an antichrist cadre and is also getting fed up with things as well.

I don't want users to leave Wikipedia because of a few trolls. I believe in mediation and reasonableness when dealing with editorial conflict. I admit that I "lost it" with TOR because his attack was intensely personal and I still question his restoration considering that he has again chosen to attack me.

I want to be able to have the power to instantly ban people who deserve to be banned instantly (as you instantly banned TOR). I want to be able to help honest and hardworking users mediate with one another. I believe that I have the right attitude and an objective mindset to match.

Question: If TOR had posted your personal details on Wikipedia, would YOU have banned him straight away? I see nothing inappropriate in that. Banning people you are having editorial disputes with, yes. Banning people who threaten and abuse you, no. As far as I can tell, instant banning is appropriate for any user who threatens another.

I'm sick and tired of feeling powerless. I'm sick and tired of watching good users getting pummelled by trolls. Rather than leaving Wikipedia or leaving messages in "requests for mediation" that are totally ignored (another sour experience of mine), I want to be able to help those who in a similar situation. -- One Salient Oversight 21:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand your frustration at problem users. In the past, I have voted for policies that would allow admins to summarily block users for trolling or personal attacks, but those proposed policies did not (unfortunately) acquire the consensus of the community. As an admin, I am not willing to exceed the limits of what I am permitted to do by Wikipedia policy (even when I think it might be a good idea) — I don't think that's right. If TOR had posted my details, I would have referred him to other admins.

Regarding your RfA: if you were an admin, would you be willing to stick to the guidelines of Wikipedia policy when it comes to blocking users, even if that means not banning users who deserve to be banned? — Matt Crypto 05:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If a person can't be banned according to the guidelines of Wikipedia policy then they don't deserve to be banned. If I were an admin who flouted the rules - even those that annoyed me - I should deserve to be "de-admined" straight away. I'm not interested in being an administrator that breaks the rules. --One Salient Oversight 10:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tasmanian cricketer

Hello. Please note that there's no need to write [[Tasmania|Tasmanian]] [[cricket|cricketer]], since if you write [[Tasmania]]n [[cricket]]er, the reader will see the whole word, not just the part in square brackets, as a clickable link, which will link to the article whose title is inside the brackets. Michael Hardy 22:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS: Also, there's no reason to capitalize the initial c in cricketer. Michael Hardy 22:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

list of religious topics

From time to time I have been amazed to see which articles do not appear in the list of religious topics. The most extreme case was a long article titled Easter. More recently a fairly susbtantial article titled Stations of the Cross. I clicked on one of the religious articles linked to from your user page, and then on "what links here", and it wasn't on the list of religious topics. Could you add things to the list that should be there and are not? Michael Hardy 21:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I've added quite a few as a result - not all because I don't think many of the articles are broad enough to be included (eg articles about religious individuals). --One Salient Oversight 23:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blog

Look at Cumbey's blog here (http://www.cumbey.blogspot.com/) and my response Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cumbey or 68.61.150.80. I think we need to take her to the arbcom for this and get her banned. I will check, but I have certainly heard Jimbo say he will not tolerate personal attacks on the web of people for working at wikipedia, --SqueakBox 16:13, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You could be right. I just wrote a comment at her blog spot explaining what we are doing - not that it will do any good but at least I was conciliatory. My problem is, and always has been, HOW DO WE COMPLAIN EFFECTIVELY? It appears that Wikipedia is getting so big that policing is falling through the cracks and abusers are not dealt with according to Wikipedia procedures. I've had this problem before - I had a dispute on an unrelated article with another contributor and I asked for mediation. No one came along - not one. I almost left Wikipedia that day because I NEEDED someone to help me.

And to make matters worse, I decided to self-nominate for adminship so that I could at least help people like yourself at the bottom level and become one of those who police user behaviour. Although I had more people for than against, no "consensus" was reached and I wasn't allowed to be an admin. Really frustrating. It seems as though Wikipedia is becoming mroe anarchic - if so it will become its death. --One Salient Oversight 00:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This (http://fulfilledprophecy.com/contents_menu.html) is good background on Cumbey. I thought you might be interested. I had a grim encounter myself with a POV pushing father's rights guy involved with some cyberstalking site accusing me of cyberstalking him. It turns out he was someone else's sockpuppet. Makes me think this kind of nut is an American not a Christian phenomena. People want to promote their POV's at wikipedia because it is so poular. Fine to promote what we are interested in in an encyclopedic manner, but not fine to hijack wikipedia with POV. I think this problem will get worse. Have you seen User:Sam Spade/Detective agency?

Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

Fischer-Tropsch synthesis obviously needs to be merged with Fischer-Tropsch process. But why propose a rename?

It's a simple merge too, since there isn't a lot on Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. No need to ask permission. Just copy over the material that isn't already in Fischer-Tropsch process, change Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to a redirect page, and you're done. ---Isaac R 00:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:BUGAUP.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:BUGAUP.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright works like this: If we have not explicity received a licence for the image from the coypright holder, it is copyrighted and thus unusable by Wikipedia (fair use is another kettle of fish). Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:12, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:One_Salient_Oversight"