Talk:Javier Solana/Archive 2

New article on Solana as Antichrist is required

In the limited amount of research that I have just done on google I think it is probably time to create the Is Javier Solana the Antichrist? article. Certainly end-time prophets like Hal Lindsey have mentioned it. I think there should be a short section within the Javier Solana article that deals with the antichrist issue - say about 2-4 sentences. But added to this section should be Main article: Is Javier Solana the Antichrist?.

I am basing this suggestion not as a way of preventing further dissention or conflict of editing this article, but upon my belief that there are now quite a few people out there who do believe that Solana is the Antichrist - which does deserve mention at Wikipedia.

The creation of this new article will not, however, mean that things will be smooth for those who believe that JS is the antichrist. The articles will certainly be edited by myself and others to ensure npov, good research and, most importantly, a run-down of reasons why he is NOT the antichrist. External links to sites that assert that JS is the antichrist will be balanced by articles that criticize such a belief.

--One Salient Oversight 23:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the name. I don't think we can have an article that is a question. I have thought about writing a Constance Cumbey article, as she seems to be the creator of this idea, and also has a history of combatting New Age beliefs, and putting the Beast theory there (bio's often cover far more info than just the individual, and info not treated elsewhere, eg many politicians. I certainly will contribute to a Javier Solana Beast Conspiracy (or whatever) article; it will be interesting to see if someone else puts a Vfd on it, but I would guess not; gotta be better than some of the articles on these pages, --SqueakBox 23:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the Antichrist article. That could stand some substantial expansion before it's exactly crying out to be an article on its own, though. Alai 01:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't make the title of it a question, because that implies Wikipedia is there to answer it. If you want to make an article of it, the title needs to be something like "Belief in Javier Solana as the Antichrist" or "Javier Solana-as-Antichrist theory". Or something. Aris Katsaris 01:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

We can put in a last paragraph giving the precious 666 document link that appears to be at the heart of this movement, --SqueakBox 02:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It would not do to put this information in the Antichrist article because that particular article is more of a summary of the Biblical and historical ideas of who and what the antichrist is. What is needed is an article by itself. Hal Lindsey has even managed to speak about it, and he is an end-times prophet with at least 1000 times more public exposure than Constance Cumbey. This alone leads me to believe that there should be a separate article.

I'm fine with the name change. How about Javier Solana is the Antichrist (theory)?

--One Salient Oversight 07:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At this point, no separate article is required, I think. Just insert one (1) sentence into this article linking to the Number of the Beast article. Until the section there is expanded substantially, there will be no reason to fork the article. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there is enough information that Cumbey and the others have been inserting at Javier Solana that demands a separate article. Again, the Number of the Beast (numerology) article is too broad to deal with the specific nature of their contributions here. I have contributed to both the Antichrist article and the Number of the Beast article - they contain the history and reasoning behind why so many people have been identified as the antichrist (which includes the Catholic Pope, Adolf Hitler and Henry Kissinger among others). They DO NOT, however, deal with specific individuals in a detailed manner.

I'll be honest. I think their beliefs are wrong. More than that, I think their contributions to the Javier Solana article are not helpful in the slightest. Nevertheless, it appears that this belief - as silly as it sounds - is gaining credence amongst Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians. This fact alone means that a separate article is required.

And the fact is that I will be heavily involved in the re-writing of the separate article to make sure that it is written properly and contains lots of reasons why some Christians would reject this notion.

--One Salient Oversight 08:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fine -- is there any (printed) book exposing the theory? In that case, I would name the article after the book. Failing that, I would avoid question marks and brackets in the title. What about Javier Solana Antichrist allegations? dab (ᛏ) 09:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your title is probably the best proposed so far. A google hit for "Javier Solana" + Antichrist has around 1660 hits. "Henry Kissinger" + Antichrist has around 7210 hits. "Bill Clinton" + Antichrist, unsurprisingly, has around 63,600 hits. I think the belief that Javier Solana is the antichrist has been filtering through the Fundamentalist community for some time now. I don't know of any books on the subject though. I'm sure Constance Cumbey could notify us of any! --One Salient Oversight 13:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

well, this might mean that the Wikipedia article could actually spawn belief of "JS Anticrist" among fundamentalist wackos. This is certainly not the point of an encyclopedia. We have to be extra careful not to gsuggest a greater weight than the notion has already, in the milieu receptive to such ideas. dab (ᛏ) 13:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's true that "Javier Solana" + "Harry Potter" only (only!) gets 249 Google hits, and "Javier Solana" + Sauron gets 50 ("Javier Solana" + "fifth Beatle" gets none...), but "Javier Solana" + "Jesus Christ" gets 543 (and "Javier Solana" + Messiah gets another 457), which surely demands a Wikipedia article. Moreover "Javier Solana" + "Spanish politician" only gets 32 hits, so we should surely strike that from the article.

Or we could forget about Google, which tells us what's mentioned on the Internet rather than what's important and true in the real world — and the Internet is to kooks and loons what honey-pots (or even mummy flies) are to flies). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you will note that none of the "Harry Potter" hits actually claim Solana is Harry Potter :o) On one occasion JS seems to have said he is "less famous than Harry Potter". But this is beside the point. We agree that the beasly parts should not be in this article. Somebody writes a "JS Antichrist" article, you take it to VfD. We can link to the Number of the Beast article already, and to a future JS Antichrist article if it survives, but we won't dwell on the topic here. dab (ᛏ) 09:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that I've come across a book arguing that Solana is in fact Sauron; personally I think that he's Harry Potter. Shouldn't we have articles explaining and discussing these claims? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be delighted to! ah, the joys of Wikipedia. Maybe we should have a List of people believed to be Sauron. I also think the phrasing "some Christians reject the notion of Solana being the Antichrist" is brilliant. Let's go, OSO, this may turn out to be the next April Fools featured article :o) dab (ᛏ) 10:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My current favourite page is Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool. You can quite easily submit these article titles there! The "Millionth topic pool" is a bit of fun and seems to reflect some of the Wikipedia zeitgeist. BTW is my grammer wrong? --One Salient Oversight 13:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

cool, I will suggest the Sauron title... can't see anything wrong with your grammar (just your orthography is slightly off;) dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

removed protection

I have removed the protection and included the statement already on Antichrist, as seems to be the consensus above. This is my first involvement with this article. The reference should be as brief as possible, any further beast stuff should be added either to Antichrist or to a new Javier Solana Antichrist allegations (which may end up on VfD). dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana Antichrist allegations has been created. --One Salient Oversight 13:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference here looks great, but obviously will need careful monitoring, --SqueakBox 14:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

as any article :) protection is considered harmful, and should really only be used as a last resort to cool down edit wars. Controversial changes should be explained on the Talk page, or they are fair game to revert. dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles

I hope to put this article in for Wikipedia:Featured articles. It will need a lot of work first. It needs some wikifying and a huge amount of content addition, as his political careers lack detail. I think to enter, and maybe to win, would be an act of defiance against those who vandalise this site, --SqueakBox 17:52, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

New edits

I don't believe my new additions are controversial, or my changing my own edits, but the following may be controversial, --SqueakBox 20:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The 1999 Albright quote was in the wrong place before the Russia agreement. The external link of a US assessment of him becoming NATO boss moved out of Student and Phycisist section; if anywhere in the text it should have been in the opening to the <NATO section but have put it with the other external links. I have removed the subsectuion entitled Barcelona Process and European neighbourhood Policy because it is unnecessary as the section on Spanish politics isn't long enough to demand sub-sections. I removed the description of the Barcelona process because it was straying from the point (Solana) and should be described at Barcelona Conference. Removed reference to dark Horse candidate but will replace if it can be sourced. I tytped in dark horse Javier Solana-this article came out top followed by dark horse speculation for the job Barroso got. Removed his job came as a surprise to many until it can be sourced. Prominent removed from opponent of NATO until it can be sourced. I removed This included the decision about whether or not military action should occur because in my opinion it was a repeat of the previous sentence ??On January 30, 1999, he was given the authority to make all military decisions over NATO's Balkan operations. Madeline Albright, then US Secretary of State said, "Solana has had the power since January 30, 1999. We are speaking with one voice through him". removed because it is anecdotal and doesn't feel appropriate in a concise encyclopedia entry. he was given the authority to make military decisions over NATO's Balkan operations. has said it already and we don't need to emphasise it. --SqueakBox 19:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

On January 30, 1999, Solana was given the authority to make military decisions in the Balkans Can this please be sourced; I have changed it wioth more specific information re Kosovo, --SqueakBox 20:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

In July 2004 he was appointed for a second five-year term as EU Secretary-General and High Representative for the CFSP. Removed from second paragraph and put in EU section

under its new proposed constitution. Removed from second paragraph as it is stated below, and is unnecessary in the opening now one paragraph, --SqueakBox 22:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Given Solana's own apparent pro European integration views i feel it is relevant to say his grandfather was a militant European integrationist, --SqueakBox 16:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey's Haile Selassie edit

In my opinion They also note with interest the extraordinary work by anti-Christians (i.e. Haile Selassie as God followers) on some prominent internet resources to erase what they consider evidences that 'fundamentalist Christians', written by Cumbey, is no more than a veiled personal attack against me in the article itself. Will Cumbey please source her claim that Rastafarians have the slightest interest in the claim that Solana is the Beast, and failing that will she never put anything about Selassie or his followers in the Solana article again. In my opinion if she does it again it should be treated and reported as vandalism. Using this wonderful encyclopedia to make her point is absolutely beyond the pale. The reality is that I am doing my best to give a balanced and informative article about Solana in the face of personal harrassment by Cumbey. I note she agrees with me about the 10 horn prophecy, ie that it was placing her originakl thesis in the article. Original theses are not allowed in wikipedia. Go write somewhere else, stop trashing wikipedia, it deserves better. I did not choose to write the trivia section but I do support the name trivia for it, --SqueakBox 16:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Umm...revert trolls, vandals and personal attacks, label it as "all of the above" in your revert summary...if someone raises opposition, bring it to the talk page - I think there is enough consensus here that you should feel free to remove that stuff with nothing more than an edit summary. Now if you want to bring a further case against Cumbey (did you ever end up bringing an RfC against her?), that's another story. If I can help with that in any way, let me know. Until you are challenged, feel free to remove that stuff - just don't break the 3RR - it's better to err on the side of caution even if it is vandalism. And thanks for all the hard work keeping nonsense out of the article. Guettarda 17:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

69.209.162.4 is from Allen Park, Michigan, according to my IP locator, which makes it another address of Cumbey's in my opinion, and based on the nature of the edit, even though this number has only ever edited wikipedia once. I certainly will treat it as Cumbey if she reverts 4 times. I also note that in spite of asking her to source her claims that followers of Haile Selassie (called Rastafarians) are involved in the Solana Beast allegations she ignored my request and reverted to the Selassie version without so much as leaving a sentence here to explain why, SqueakBox 20:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cumbey has now taken to throwing insults at Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, here by inserting User:SqueakBox in the text, --SqueakBox 16:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Repetition

The opening paragraph said that Solana is the Secretary-General of both the Council of the European Union and Western European Union twice. I have removed one of them for ease of reading, --SqueakBox 23:46, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC). Same with the 2 dates of birth.

czar

When pumping Javier Solana and czar into google search here all I get is references to him looking for an anti-terrorist czar. replaced with foreign policy chief, --SqueakBox 16:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Budget

I cannot find a source other than wiki and it's versions for the claim that he has a 26 billion euro budget [1]. Please source, --SqueakBox 01:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Strange that straight after winning her barnstar Cumbey deleted this page Here and removed the text from here, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Cumbey. Please don't delete this page as it contains, amongst other things, explanations of some of the recent edits I have been making. In the spirit of openness they should not be deleted, --SqueakBox 23:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Off site comments

Cumbey here has writen a blog including info about my and User:One Salient Oversight's work here at wikipedia. This may be a case for the arbcom. Jimbo has stated this sort of behaviour will not be accepted. I think she needs blockiong, possibly on a permanent basis. her blog includes a link to here which was on my User page, and partially identifies me, --SqueakBox 16:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Socialist international

Can anyone confirm or deny that it was the Socialist International Conference that Solana attended in 76/77? --SqueakBox 19:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rfc

Theree is now a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumbey page re her work here, --SqueakBox 19:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of the Beast to Solana

==Relevance of the Beast to Solana==NOT

BELOW IS ANOTHER OF SQUEAKBOX'S LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS by CONSTANCE E. CUMBEY: I have absolutely no control over what others put on their board. What Mr. Van Nattan writes are his own thoughts. My book was the standard reference of the 1980s on the New Age Movement. I disagree with Mr. Van Nattan on many items, including what I consider Catholic bashing. For anything written by him to be imputed to me is untrue and unfair. This is as logical as SqueakBox imputing to me every IP address disagreeing with SqueakBox from anywhere in Michigan (i.e. Allen Park, Michigan, where I have probably been maybe 3 to 4 times in my career as a lawyer and no other contact -- certainly I have no IP address emanating from Allen Park, Michigan. The Detroit metropolitan area has at least 3.5 million residents. Equally ridiculous is the SqueakBox attempted and libelous imputation to me of IP's from Reston, Virgina (have never been there and as far as I know, know nobody there), and his biggest stretch was that if it came from Toronto, it had to be Cumbey as that is "so close to Detroit". Clearly his major was not USA geography. As far as "original research" -- my research on Solana was all culled and distilled from other works. Synthesizing this is what encyclopedic research is about. I don't know what SqueakBox is talking about as original research. Does he mean I went to Solana's house and office and took physical measurements. This is idiotic and he has turned Wikipedia into an idiotic circus. I'm happy that he has nothing better to do with HIS time. As for me, I must practice law for an honest living!

This article indicates that Solana being the Beast is her original idea. Which she then subtly placed in this article. Original research is not allowed in wikipedia. Please stop trying to promote your original idea here Cumbey, --SqueakBox 00:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

there is a difference, it is certainly admissible to present your own research on Wikipedia, provided it was published elsewhere, earlier. If there is a widespread belief that JS is "the beast" among crackpot christians, I think it would be ok to make a note of that here. Of course not that he "is" the beast, but that some people seem to think so. This is only an option, however, if these allegations have any notability. Just a webpage is obviously not enough. In the case at hand, in any case, it looks more than a net kook idea than anything like a widespread notion. dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Solana has been placed at Number of the Beast (numerology) (by me with a bizarre admonishment of unprofessionality by Cumbey for having done so) and Antichrist already. Maybe one day someone will write an article here at wikipedia on the subject. I have no objection linking him to the 2 above articles through a sentence at the bottom of the article. Of course Cumbey didn't present her belief that he is the Beast here; she tried, in my opinion, to place evidences in the article that would confirm his candidacy of the Beast, and the disturbing evidence of his growing powers to get othe Christians paranoid about him and the EU, which is an original concept from what I can see. I have found the Christian material about his beastliness is interesting to read as it has helped me edit Cumbey's thesis out of the article. I removed the 10 of the 10 nation Western European Union after reading that that is a critical part of some 10 horn prophecy. I certainly believe that these Christian beast believers should be resisted when they try to taint the political content of the article. I actually have written quite a lot about Haile Selassie as a symbol for God (the Rastas). What I have not done there is to try and twist the content about his life and politics to make it look as if he really is God, whereas this is what I perceive that Cumbey has done with Solana. No serious political commentator takes the Solana as Beast idea seriously, and as we are here to reflect what is going nor should we when dealing with the political content of his life, --SqueakBox 19:28, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

well of course, it is insincere to tweak the article to conform with the idea rather than coming up front with it. The belief that JS is the beast is no more wacky than the belief that the pope is infallible, or that G W Bush has a mission from God, so if people believe that, we can write about it. Write about it honestly, not make oblique allusions, that is, of course. dab (ᛏ) 20:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The place to write about his beastliness, I think, is in the articles I mentioned. I don't believe the idea has yet gained enough momentum to warrant a section in this article yet in the way that Selassie does deserve that treatement; for instance in a Google search on his name there is nothing about him as the Beast, which is certainly in contrast to Selassie. But there could certainly be some expansion in the Beasrt article. I tried to draw Cumbey in that direction but she wasn't interested. I agree with Dbachmann that we must write honestly, and feel that generally Cumbey did not do so when editing Solana up to the end of February. Also that we must not try to prove our beliefs here whatever they are, but we can of course present them (if they are sourced and not just say a belief that Boddhi my dog is God) in a balanced way, --SqueakBox 20:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Honest opinion, most of the "original research" seems to be fundamentalist, religious right, rhetoric written by Cumbey or company. I read the Solana article after protection and it seems to be valid and fair. I agree with Squeak, if this Mark of the Beast stuff is going to be discussed, it ought to be somewhere else and not in the Solana article itself. BTW, whomever wrote most of the "Solana is Beast" pages needs to learn how to lay things out properly in HTML - they need a design class :-) -Jeremiah Cook 00:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) I recant my comment after reading the history of the article. Now I'm not sure what to believe. KC9CQJ 09:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edits that appear to be from Reston, Virginia

All I know for sure is that this appears to be from Cumbey (if not it is from someone claiming to be her), and according to my IP locator (which I find pretty good) this IP address comes from Reston, Virginia, as do a number of others edits from the article. The fact that she has not been to Allen Park is not likely to be relevant. My own IP address is located about 40 miles from where I am. Allen Park may be where a server is located for other places close by. --SqueakBox 23:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting article reference

I just found a pre-SqueakBox reference to this wikipedia article on a forum page, and thought people might be interested in reading it. It is the second entry here. What intrigues me is the reference to Solana having too much power; what I have elsewhere described as the megalomania thesis. This reader has taken it very seriously. In my opinion Solana having too much power is a POV, as was written by Cumbey, though a balanced NPOV and more profound analysis of the power he has may well be appropriate. This reference is a reminder that people do read and believe what they read at wikipedia, which is why it is so vital for us to give a balanced account of Solana here. --SqueakBox 01:57, Apr 15, 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 Wikipedia. Someone is dumping Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? I have never trashed it. SqueakBox has and continues to do so. He has substantially trashed Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Nobody can look at this nonsense, combined with his supporting chorus of Amens for the equally uninformed Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: [2]. 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 Wikipedia. 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. [3]. 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, ... [4] - 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 ... [5]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 ... [6]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. ... [7]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 Wikipedia may be stating it does not want Solana beast belief in it's pages. --SqueakBox 14:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)