User talk:One Salient Oversight/ - archive 3

THIS IS NOT A CASUAL DISCCUSION AREANA. IT IS NOT A PLACE TO TALK ABOUT THAI CURRY EITHER. What is the point of Wikipedia?? Eh?? Watch yourself or You will be blocked. --Fatigue League 10:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How odd. — Matt Crypto 13:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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]. 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. 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. 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 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 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)

Bill Clinton

I wholeheartedly agree with your scepticism about Bill Clinton being a born-again Christian - neither his public policy nor his private life give the remotest indication of his being one, and I have always considered his born-again testimony more than doubtful. Nevertheless, there was an article in the Challenge Weekly (a New Zealand evangelical newspaper) about the time of his first election (1992), quoting him as claiming to have "accepted Christ" at an altar call at the age of nine. As one of my spiritual mentors put it, "converted at nine and backslid at nine and a half, by the look of it." If this was a Christian website, I would object to Clinton's name being on such a list, but seeing it's an NPOV encyclopedia, I think the only NPOV approach is to list individuals on a self-definition basis, whether we agree with it or not. David Cannon 11:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of List of born-again Christian laypeople

Hi there! User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is busy vandalizing the List of born-again Christian laypeople. I've already used up my 3 reverts for the day, and as an "interested" sysop I cannot block him or protect the page without violating policy. Could you have a look at what's going on? Thanks!David Cannon 23:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

regarding the charasmatic criticism article

You seem reasonable and open to criticism of your article. I removed the POV tag and RFC info. I made a lot of changes but I supported each one with scholarship, facts, figures or merely hinted that you needed to do more research in order to make some of your claims.

ken 19:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Lulu again

Hi there! Would you object if I protected the List of born-again Christian laypeople page? It seems I can't do ANYTHING with it now, without Lulu threatening me (in his latest note on my talk page - he says he'll get the page locked and "other action might be appropriate too." What's your advice? David Cannon 11:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

Hi, good work in spotting that horrid attack page recreation. However, next time you see an attack page, or something else that clearly fits one of the speedy deletion criteria (WP:CSD), remember you can just place a {{d}} or {{db|'whatever reason you have'}} on it. It's less work than sending to afd - and generaly will result in a faster deletion - providing it fits the criteria. Thanks again. --Doc (?) 12:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Holiday special

I see you're interested in The Star Wars Holiday Special. You might want to check out the vast additions, expansions, and cleanup work I've made to it over the last couple of months. The Wookieepedian 00:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Music samples

You've uploaded a bunch of music samples with the {{don't know}} tag. You might want to see Template:Music sample. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 00:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most liked classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ed Wood screenshots

Hi, just a friendly warning, the screenshots on Ed Wood (film) are cool, but they will probably be removed shortly. Wikipedia's license only permits "a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film" - in other words, each one should be there for a specific reason, not just for the sake of it. If you want to upload large amounts of images for an article, Wikimedia Commons is a better destination.

re:Category:Wikipedians by D&D Alignment

I noticed you are categorized as a Wikipedian by alignment. If you are in to userboxes, there are now infoboxes available using a standard template. See the alignment category page for details. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

McGrath photo

Hi Neil,

Great photo of Glenn McGrath, well done! Just to let you know that I've replaced it with a cropped version in his article, to make the face bigger; but feel free to revert it if you prefer your version. (I've left the full version in Australian cricket team).

Sorry you had a wet day at the Test. It was looking like it could turn into an exciting match, but I'm afraid it's just going to be a dull draw now.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

An Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

A.J.A. 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Baron Munchausen images

Hi One —

after leaving a message at Talk:The Adventures of Baron Munchausen a few days ago, I'm listing a bunch of the screenshots from that article at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 January 17. There are just too many of them. If you disagree, let me know; if you want to change which images are being deleted, feel free to change them at the deletion page (and change the {ifd} templates on the images).

— Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi OSO, thanks for the greeting, so that you know I live in Harriet St. What street are you in? You have an interesting bio there. I spent almost all of my schooling at a local school, just down the road, where I got most of my exposure to fundamentalist charismatic and pentecostal christianity, and then went on to found the Newcastle Anti-Fundamentalist Movement (we're actually looking for a new name). I'm a committed christian (i actually go to a baptist church) which is why altar calls and excluding non-christians and the christian superiority mentality are so abhorrent to me. Anyway, we could go on and on about it, but thanks for the welcome.Sumthingweird 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi OSO, I have an email sitting in my drafts box waiting to go out but one_salient_oversight@yahoo.com is an invalid address, apparently. Is there a mistake in the address? Sumthingweird 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's one_salient_oversight@yahoo.com.au - I forgot to put the .au

Check out the new page and make any changes/additions you feel necessary. Cheers Sumthingweird 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the page and your comments. I'll see if I can get more info on the page. With regards to referencing, there are a limited number of things I can do. I have a soft copy of the survey results on this computer and a hard copy at home, only a limited number of other people have a soft copy including a few people on the school executive. Basically what it boils down to is that I could either post a URL reference to the survey (and therefore post the survey results on the internet, which would create problems of its own), or I could simply add a non-Web reference (if this is standard protocol) to the survey results, which would mean including my name in the reference (since I authored the results). I would have to confirm that this is not self-referencing since otherwise the fact would not be referenced, and I am also wary of posting my name as a reference on that topic on a Wikipedia page. However, as the article shows, there is no claim of student abuse. With regards to staff abuse, I have no evidence or references apart from your own testimony as yet, but I would assume that such facts can be mentioned even if the reference is not published. If I had to reference those facts otherwise, I would have to track down documents from the Department of Education or the Independent Education Union which would be near impossible since those documents are quite likely confidential (although the DEST document would be easily available under Freedom of Information and the Union would probably have little problems providing the information they have). In any case I have left that section very short as you can see so that you can put verifiable information on it yourself. Somebody also asked me whether publishing the information meant risking legal action and I did think about that before authoring the page. I have heard that defamation suits can be easily defended if it can be proved that the information is true, and certainly there is no unprovable information on that page. In any case I think that since over a thousand students and at least as many parents have a vested interest in the operation of the school, not to mention the staff, presenting that information is very easily justifiable. Let me know what you think and your recommendations with regards to referencing.Sumthingweird 14:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, have you seen the new updates to the page? It's interesting what was removed/left. Perhaps it's because the employment information wasn't comprehensive - it's true that you're much more qualified than me to write that. Have you got a GFDL image yet? No great urgency but it's a good idea. Thanks for your help Sumthingweird 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Techncial d[sic]efinitions!

Hello. I think you're using too many capitals in section headings. "Technical Definitions", with a capital "D", is not correct; it should be "Technical definitions". See Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 00:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Millennium (TV Series) links

Hello there...

Could you please disambiguate your Millennium (TV series) links? Some of them go to the correct page Millennium (TV series) and others go to a redirect page Millennium (television series). I have gotten rid of all of the other links to the redirect on non-userpages, and your userpage is the last to have the redirect link on it.

TIA!

Lady Aleena 09:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Extensions for Mozilla Firefox

1. An IRC chat that you can have open in one of the tabs.
   • ChatZilla allows this. -- Sy / ^(talk) 15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
2. An embedded .pdf reader that doesn't require you to open a new program when you click on pdf files.
   • You're misconfigured. PCLinuxOS includes this functionality by default in its Firefox install, so it must be possible. -- Sy / ^(talk) 15:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

Since it looks like you made the article, I thought you might like to know, we're proposing that it's name be changed, it looks like all the old editors just stopped editing awhile ago, and since you did create it after all, I thought you might want to have a say in this. Homestarmy 20:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Like Homestarmy said above please take a look at this. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The voteing for renaming this article has gone into a second round. I would like to ask you to continue to vote and stay involved in the discussion. Thanks --T-rex 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The final round of voting is in progress. Your opinion would be welcome. Best, Tex 00:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Geoff Bullock / Hillsong Church

Hi Neil! I've (belatedly) doctored the article in question - temporarily deleted it, then restored it, minus the edit that contained Geoff's e-mail. If I've missed anything else, please let me know.

I'm temporarily in "slow mode" on Wikipedia, as my work and private life are both busier than usual. But I am still checking my watchlist daily, making the odd edit here and there whenever I can, and look forward to getting back into full swing. God bless you. David Cannon 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ

OSO, there is a most peculiar thing going on at the VfD page of "baptism in the name of Jesus". I stumbled across the article today and voted for deletion (as I believe it is mainly an argumentative essay and contains information that is already in the baptism article anyway). But upon closer examination, alot of the "keep" voters are sock-puppets. I'm not entirely sure what can be done about this. Can you help?

Page here VfD here

Thanks, Jaems 10:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting. Just to follow up, there has been some more oddities. The user Pastor Linus has many sock puppets (I believe) and one of them, Rfamily, has voted more than once and has changed the nomination to keep. Now obviously nobody is going to fall for this, but it's very irritating. Is there something that can be done? Thanks, Jaems 00:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

RMS Leinster & U-123

Re your 'contradiction' - The textbooks referenced in the Leinster article all say that the U123 is presumed to have struck a mine at the western end of the 'great barrage'. An explosion was heard on October 18. These books refer to editing of u-boat records by Admiral Arno Spindeler. ClemMcGann 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:01 Leave Them All Behind.ogg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:01 Leave Them All Behind.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.Rossrs 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Hillsong_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hillsong_logo.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:konquest

I posted a reply as Talk:Konquest--Adam1213 Talk + 02:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Konquest online

I added a link to Konquest to my online PHP copy of konquest. --Adam1213 Talk + 04:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The link was removed by someone because they thought it looked like spam, please have a look at my php version of konquest and decide if the link should go back [2] --Adam1213 Talk + 12:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:AU Dollars.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AU Dollars.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. - Sherool (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ted Haggard

It looks like you created the Ted Haggard article, and mentioned that he was a believer in the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit concept. We're having trouble citing evidence for this, and some editors have questioned it. Could you help out in the discussion at Talk:Ted_Haggard#theology section please? — Coelacan | talk 05:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:EdWood-07.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EdWood-07.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Potters House arcticle thank you

I just wanted to thank you for adding to the section "criticism of the church". I'm at a loss as to the quality of the facts and evidence used in paragraph 2. Currently there is debate on this very issue as I've discussed on the talk page. I just hope that eventually the section would be stated closely to the facts as they are today and not according to someone's opinion. Thank you.Darrenss 06:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages

I found you are using the fair use images listed below on your user page. As per Rule #9 of the fair use image rules, you will need to remove those image. You can link to them, but not display them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

If you don't understand why this is nessecary, you can ask the administrator Durin. He is better at explaining the problem than I am. You could also go to the policy portion of the village pump and ask there.

The list

Image:Kubuntu Logo.svg

I will probably check back in a day or so to verify the images were either removed or converted into links. If you need help making the change, let me know. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== The deletion of the "Christianity" tag. You seem to be liking the Potter's House to a local church. The Potter's House is an international fellowship consiting of over 100,000 people and 1400 churches in over 100 nations. Perhaps insted of degrading sites by taking such tags off, why not add the tag to the Jesus Movement and Anglican Diocese of Sydney. What warrents this tag to be included except your distaste for the church? Is there a Wiki guideline that says only churches over one million can have that tag? Is not 100,000 enough? Potters house 06:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Potters House again ID scams??

Hi sorry you got caught up in this rar rar potters house business. Honestly its so frustrating talking to this potters house user, he just won't engage any discussion in any meanful way but insteads he wants to blame me for everything screaming some kind of stupid accusation that I'm out to get him. How childish. I read the potters house archive that you are quite good at judging the credibility of sites to measure their realibility.

If you have time could you check this out. The multiple ID scams on the [3] page in the "criticism section" is nothing more than a practical joke, thats all. The accusation cannot further be proven or indeed is not important or even relevant to the potters house article itself. 2 ex-members decided to start a yahoo group pretenting to be members of the potters house. They created several yahoo names (to make it more believable) and away they went. They were so good at playing the potters house member that several or more "real" potters house members joined the group and were fooled. The user [4] was one of those that fell for the joke. Now:

1.How does that relate to the potters house?

2.How does that rate as a "scam" or "fraud"?

3.Was the intent in any way illegal?

4.Is it even relevant to the potters house article?

5.How does that effect all the rest of everyone that are officially objecting to the potters house?

6.Can it be proven today outside of user potters house own private links?

7.Can critic numbers be verified from this information?

8.Does this prove anything bearing the testimony on other critics or ex-members?

9.Who really cares?

I have opened this issue up for discussion [5] because it is so stupid and meaningless why does it even effect the "criticism of the church"? It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.Darrenss 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Potters house articles

BTW, do you know how many potters house articles are on wikipedia started by user potters house? There are 9 now, 6 of which where started within a week ago by the same user.

Darrenss 10:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Probably an attempt at Astroturfing. I'm leaving the Potter's House discussion for the moment. I feel too threatened by these guys. 2 years ago one of them posted my name, address and phone number here at Wikipedia and pretty much threatened me. --One Salient Oversight 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Individual churches and biographies of individual people. I suppose the Catholic, Anglican, AOG, Baptist churches are all only permitted to have one page? I mean check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican Shall I delete the list at the bottom of that page? As a friend of the Sydney Anglican Church you would know that the Sydney Church cannot be fully expressed in one single article on worldwide Anglicanism. Darrenss is not into contributing to wikipedia but in slandering the Potter's House. For whatever reason is irrelivant here, but just look through his history, all he seems to do is attack me and cause trouble. He is not trying to aid or help, but attempting to degrade two aspects of wikipedia, the Potter's House articles and the testimony of someone who activly contributes. P.S. an apology would also be nice for the accusations, but as believers in Christ we should try and forgive and move on. Potters house 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_of_Australia for example. Potters house 10:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the potters house to the anglican is laughable. The anglican church has millions of members and hundreds of years of history. Writing articles for churches of 30 unoffical memebrs hardly rates as being news worthy, how many are you going to do?Darrenss 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about from this user potters house. I used to attend the potters house for 5 years. This guy Nick Sayers goes to the potters house Lismore (which is why he made an article on his own church and tweed heads potters house was planted from the lismore church) he and I have been talking for months on the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thecrackedpots/ site. Previously Nick was writing on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slamthedoor_on_the_pottershouse/ but was booted out for unruly behavior. But there is nothing to worry about his bark is worse than his bite. His main accusation might be that someone opposes the potters house because they "hate" pentecostals or because they "hate" Jesus. I myself had a pastor who told me I must submit to his authority even if he was wrong, the pastor also called my 15 year old neice up to the front of the church and forced her to pray a sinners prayer. Stuff like that never gets told and as long as ex-members say nothing it will continue to be that way. Just thought you should know a little bit of background.Darrenss 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:John316.jpg

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:John316.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

03:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Calvinism

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect note

Hello, One Salient Oversight. I've placed a tag on Fucking Ridiculous Eating Device, as it seems to fit Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion R3, concerning redirects for implausible typos. The name you chose is a little more than a typo, but still is not something people are likely to search for. If you would like, you may contest the deletion by adding a {{hangon}} tag beneath the deletion notice and providing an explanation for it's usefulness on the talk page. Thank you. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Baptist

Hi there,

I am sorry to have replaced your photo on Template:Baptist so quickly. I only just realized that you did it today. My intent was to make it more iconic and less personal-specific. (If I can say that, being somewhat of an iconoclast, myself). More importantly, I added some things to the template to fill it out a bit. Let me know what you think. Brian0324 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there could be a more symbolic representation. I have been looking, but if you find something, just give it a try. Agreed that the current picture is not Baptist - specific. Although I have noticed that most Catholic imagery seems to show the sprinkling (Gustave Dore) - rather than Jesus waist-deep in the water - implying immersion.

See the discussion on the template. Could you clarify the Prima scriptura debate for me? I'm not aware of Baptists knowingly accepting any authority alongside Scripture like other denominations- even if it is declared to be the "prime" authority.Brian0324 14:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've actually added a section to the Baptist page that should help:

Historically, Baptists have emphasized the sole authority of the Scriptures, or sola scriptura, and therefore believe that the Bible is the only authoritative source of God's truth. Chapter one of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states: The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience... This view contrasts with the role of Apostolic tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, direct revelation in charismatic circles, and personal philosophy as in Liberal Christianity. Any view that cannot be tied to scriptural exposition is generally considered to be based on human traditions rather than God's leading, and though they may be accurate, such views are never to be elevated to or above the authority of Scripture. Each person is responsible before God for his or her own understanding of the Bible and is encouraged to work out their own salvation. A common "proof text" for this idea is found in Philippians 2:12 [2]. Sola scriptura is likely to be practiced by Reformed Baptist churches and many churches within the Southern Baptist Convention. In more recent times, many Baptists worldwide have changed their position to Prima scriptura, whereby Scripture is given high authority, but with other allowable ways of guidance. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, for example, states: The Fellowship believes in the divine inspiration of the Bible and its authority in the lives of Christians, who are free to follow and interpret it under the Lordship of Christ. Christians are responsible under God for their interpretation of Scripture.[3] The American Baptist Churches USA has a similar stance: Holy Scripture always has been for us the most authoritative guide to knowing and serving the triune God... As the divinely-inspired word of God, the Bible for us reveals our faith and its mandated practice.[4] --One Salient Oversight 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bapunion anim.gif

In that case, SVGisation is still a murky dark area, as the {{logo}} template that is currently on it explicitly says that low-resolution use is fair use. If the church were to release the logo to the public domain or under a free license, then things would be different. Alternatively, if the church is just looking for a vector version of the logo for their own use, contact me privately and we can sort something out. Stannered 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

World Prayer Center

A tag has been placed on World Prayer Center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Reformed Calvinism, Evangelical Lutheranism

Where do you get your information from? You somehow got these two switched in a totally ahistorical way. Cromwell, Knox, Huguenots, Dutch, Palatines and Swiss are the Reformed (Calvinist) areas. Germany and Scandinavia are the Evangelicals (Lutheran). Both the Anabaptists and Baptists were allied with Calvinists, but alienated from Lutherans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.8.21 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Um... I think you're arguing with someone else. I have no idea what you're referring to. Please give links. --One Salient Oversight 05:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles "Tex" Watson

Although Tex and Suzan LaBerge (Leno LaBianca's stepdaughter) have become friendly over the years, they have NEVER been married. The photograph from which you (likely) sourced this information is of Tex, Suzan and Tex's (now ex-) wife Kristin. The marriage photo is clearly from the 1980's (dig the hair) and is equally clearly of Tex and Kristin. If you have an independent link that details the alleged Watson-LaBerge nuptuals, please send it to me.

Please be careful before posting such an obviously outrageous story in Wikipedia. BassPlyr23 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Talk

Fair enough. --One Salient Oversight 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)