Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:43, 24 December 2005

Please post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.
My time zone is GMT +9:00. Please keep this in mind if leaving time-sensitive comments.

Archive 1: September 17th to October 31st 2005

Archive 2: November 1st to December 31st 2005

Johnski

Thanks for your message. His vandalism is certainly reaching epic proportions. I am happy to support any disciplinary process against him. --Centauri 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I also am willing to completely support any action performed against this user; I will sign any WP:RFC you place against him. Samboy 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

kim jong il

thanks for your recent comments on the talk page. in case you missed it, there is an actual poll on this issue, & your vote there would be appreciated. Talk:Kim Jong-il#Poll Appleby 16:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Section headings on talk pages

I noticed you were changing some section headings on talk pages to have headlines with one = sign instead of two. If you click the "+" button at the top of a talk page (which used to be labelled "add a comment" and is one of the most common ways of starting a new discussion) you get a == level heading, so in general it's best to keep them all the same or the tables of contents get thrown off and new comments look like they are subheadings of those.

I have no idea why == is the default instead of =. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this to your attention again. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Solkope

I noticed that you were the last person to edit Solkope, yet you did not remove the DOM content. Why did you keep this content? Samboy 08:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to remove the content, go ahead. This was something I was doing to lay down the law in terms of the junk Johnski puts in the articles. I didn't remove all the content, but edited it back to a version I had added to the article as a something Isotope and I agreed would be a good alternative. I have no problem with it being removed. Be ready to be attacked by Johnski after he logs on. Davidpdx 08:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I am sorry that I suggested your case would not be suitable for mediation. I said that I didn't feel mediation would be useful because I had seen the comment higher on this page about vandalism. When you list someone as having multiple sockpuppets, it doesn't bode well for mediation. Mediation is about resolving differences, not punishment. I couldn't see your dispute being helped by mediation. RFC seems a better course of action. Best wishes, ] 10:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree; WP:RFC time. I don't like the word punishment; I like to assume good faith and assume the editor in question may make positive contributions to Misplaced Pages once they let go of their DOM obsession. Samboy 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Johnski

Yeah, I've seen the "we had consensus" stunt pulled before, by Johnski and others, and I'll be ready to point out he doesn't have it if and when appropriate. (In fact, I pointed that out preemptively this time. :) ) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words. I'm asking you to look at the article Karitane Shoal; it is really bad form for one editor to directly do a revert war with another editor (see Misplaced Pages:One-revert rule. Samboy 21:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to call me sockpuppet? You dudes might want to read more carefully. Just looked at Taongi talk and what Johnski wrote is that there is concensus on the DoM article about Taongi's Iroijlaplap granting a lease to it. Where has he or I ever claim other consensus on points that there is no consensus for? Put up or shut up!SamuelSpade 04:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your passive agressive behavior is noted. It's strange when one of you disappear, the other one suddenly shows up. Then suddenly new sockpuppets appear. There is in fact proof that you have constantly reverted articles against consensus, exactly in the same manner as Johnski. Putting the sockpuppet issue aside for a moment, that is still inappropriate. Although you have not done it near as much as other "user id's" it is still inexcusable. Like Johnski, et. al., you have not shown good faith when you revert articles without consensus. That is exactly why this is going forward in terms of arbitration. I would say the same back to you, "put up or shut up!" Davidpdx 06:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, I'm sorry that you are so angry with my efforts to edit for a better article about DOM. Checked the Martha Stewart article and it says she maintained her innocence. Are you going to go and change that article and remove that fact? Probably not, as you'll most likely use the consensus word, right? Good luck on your research. Even if you can't believe it, I wish the best for you and hope that we can work out our differences. Sincerely, Johnski 07:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Misplaced Pages articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Misplaced Pages currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks GP, I will take a look at it in the next day or so. I wanted to make sure you saw that I have threatened to file for arbitration against Johnski and his fembots (ok, bad Austin Powers joke). Anyway, please take a look at it on the DOM page. If you have any comments, feel free to leave them on my talk pages as always. Davidpdx 06:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existence of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Samboy, I understand your concern. Certainly your problem with Gene Poole is exactly the same problem I have with Johnski and all his sockpuppets. It is frustrating to feel that way. I don't really have much knowledge of the "micronations" in general, except that I've tried to learn as much as I can about DOM. I appreciate your stance.

My goal is to try not to get involved in the dispute. At the same time I would like to try to persuade both of you to put your diffrences aside to work for a common cause, which is to get this problem with DOM taken care of. It's a balancing act. I really want to go forward with mediation against Johnski/KAJ/Samuelspade/etc. and show him we mean business in terms of his reverting articles against consensus.

I hope you can appreciate my take on this. I think together we can stop this nonsense and maybe get the people responsible banned for awhile. Thanks for listening. Davidpdx 11:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Davidpdx. I'm more than happy to support any arbitration against Johnski. Thanks for letting me know. Concerning Samboy, you should be aware that he has longstanding personal "issues" with me, because he and 1 or 2 other editors believe that all micronations should be deleted from Misplaced Pages, and I and many other editors disagree. The fact that he has failed to convince any other editors of his POV in more than a year of trying has been a source of constant frustration to him, and this has had the effect of severely impairing his rational judgement on the subject. It's best to just ignore any provocation or inflammatory comments from him, and just focus on the problem at hand. Sorry to have to air this dirty laundry on your talk page, but I don't like being lied about by people with a highly selective view of reality. --Gene_poole 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Minerva

Hello. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the above article, as we seem to have the same problem there as with Dominion of Melchizedek - namely, one editor who seems to be a member of the group adding POV promotional content (most of which is either wrong or unverifiable), and reverting like crazy anything that disagrees with him. --Gene_poole 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm on wiki-vacation

Just letting you know that I'm on Wiki-vacation until MaraDNS 1.2 is released. GOod luck with our DOM vandal. Samboy 10:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP quote in DOM article

I feel that the use of the Washington Post quote is fine as it is. The purpose of the statement is to offer the opinion that the Central African Republic would recognise the state of denial if it has a letterhead. Adding "you get the feeling that..." to the quoted section is unneccesarily verbose, and changes nothing. It's just another of Johnski's red herrings. --Gene_poole 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. The version I've read was from the DOM site but it did look as they did no more that adding inline comments. That they considered it a ruse is pretty explicit. What do you see as the problem.Dejvid 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, that's just one of the things he's complaining about quite a bit. It seems small and I thought perhaps we could try to compromise on that one thing to prevent any more reverts for the time being. I'm trying to get everyone to leave the article alone while arbitration is decided. Maybe it's a stupid idea. I know that one person has already expressed displeasure at the idea, which makes me wonder if the group consensus will be the same reaction.

I'll wait to hear back from some others, but by your statement I'm taking it your ok with that. Which would you prefer, leaving it out or just putting in the rest of the statement. Please let me know. Davidpdx 08:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, Thank you for finally taking an interest in solving this problem of the WP's statement being misrepresented by Gene. He doesn't understand the difference between "you get the feeling" and "probably". It seems that Dejvid is stuck on the point about the word, "ruse" and isn't aware that we are on another part of the article. The ruse thing still bother's me because the actual article didn't say it IS A RUSE, but that it MAY MERELY BE A RUSE. There again the WP is being falsely quoted. The title of an article doesn't necessary make a statement of fact, nor does it necessarily give an opinion, as it may just be a title written to catch the readers attention, so that he or she will be drawn into reading the entire article. The problem remains that Forbes didn't call it "a ruse", and the WP also, wrote that it "may be the ultimate post modern state." Writing a fair and balanced article requires that if an article gives two opposite opinions, that you use both, not just one. You can certainly come to the conclusion that DOM is a ruse after reading the article, but you can also come to a different take, taking into consideration all of the different opinions and facts stated in the WP article. In any case, the article here should be somewhat like the WP article, giving different views, instead of just one sided, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusions. Sincerely, Johnski 09:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited at this point. I may have jumped the gun at offering this as a solution. At best, it seems like I'm getting a lackluster response in terms of a consensus. If I could put together a group of at least four people (five including you and myself), that would agree this should be changed, I'd do it. At this point, if I did make the change I feel it's going to cause the situation to blow up and get worse.

Honestly, looking at the arbitration page, it appears that the case is going to be heard and pretty soon. Last time I looked it was 3/1/0 which means one more vote is needed to hear the case. There is one other case in line ahead of us, so I think that by the end of the week this is going to go forward. Right now, I'm asking for a cease fire. As I said, I've left messages with several other people and I'm not hearing anyone that is wild about the idea. I wish I could have come up with something. Davidpdx 13:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have someone in authority let us know where we have gone wrong and help get us on the right course. It would be better if we could figure it out on our own. It seems like we were close to doing that, but I just realized that our inability to work together may have more to do with Gene's influence in this matter than our different ideas of how the rules work. If you see something that is clearly wrong, i.e. mis-characterization of the WP article, I think the rules tell us to boldy edit. It dawns on me that Gene is a bit of a bully, and if you be the one to boldy edit, he might back down. Right now you only have one person against correcting an error, and more than one in favor of it. Sincerely, Johnski 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not blame Gene for the lack of consensus, others have not answered messages left on their talk page or questioned why we should change it. At least one is "away" for awhile. I know you don't want to hear this, but there are some serious things that do need to be worked out in arbitration. I'm not going to go into the reasons, because it's pointless, second because it's repetitive (in fact they have been said over and over again). At this point, it's the only thing I can say. I do believe we are close to getting some movement on the arbitration case. It is logical to wait a few days and see what happens. Davidpdx 10:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

(note to all users: Please leave any questions or comments about the arbitration case under this heading. If you are looking for where the arbitration case is located you can click here: )

SpadeSam

Already done, David. SlimVirgin 19:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Jbregehr

Please consider reverting the weird changes that this user is making to the DoM article so that I don't violate 3RR. Thanks. -EDM 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

EDM, will do. I'll keep a close eye on it. Davidpdx 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be better if you didn't edit directly in my comments on people's talk pages, please. Supplement or clarify if you want, but independently; I'd rather have things that I sign be my own words rather than my words, edited. Thanks. -EDM 05:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

(note to all users: Please leave any questions or comments about the arbitration case under this heading. If you are looking for where the arbitration case is located you can click here: )

My evidence has finally been compiled and submitted. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Hi; You may have already figured this out, but you may want to post links to the diffs, as for example this one. It took me a while to figure out, so I thought I might save you some time. Tom Harrison 02:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the advice. I'm working on the links. It's going to take quite a bit of time however. Especially since I'm covering two months of edits. Not sure how to show evidence for some of the things I'm trying to prove, but I'm learning. If you have any more tips, I'd appreciate it. Thanks... Davidpdx 02:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help with evidence, but I may be a bit slow due to external comittments leading up to xmas. --Gene_poole 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll try to get some evidence together later in the week. --Centauri 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like there's yet another Johnski sockpuppet/meatpuppet to now contend with: Immigrationissues.--Gene_poole 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

GP, yeah I noticed that. I didn't say much other then to point out the arbitration. I'm not sure what we should do at this point. What do you think? Davidpdx 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Embarrassing admission

You left a note on my Talk Page a while back: it wan't until now, while refactoring the page, that I noticed that you said I was a plaintiff in an Arbitration, and that my names was being used in it. Unfortunately, the link you left goes straight to the main Request for Arbitration page, so now I have no idea which case you're referring to. Which one is it? --Calton | Talk 06:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am on Misplaced Pages vacation

Hello there. I can not help with this arbitration until MaraDNS 1.2.00 is released. I am on a self-imposed Wiki-vacation; I will be able to help if you still need help after MaraDNS 1.2.00 is released. In the meantime, please look at my user page to see if I'm still on vacation before leaving comments on my talk page.

Thank you. Samboy 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pft!

I just now saw this. Oh brother. I love the concocted "I was just happening to read this" explanation. :)

I'm also just now looking at some of the other evidence presented by Johnski, et al. Amazes me how they are unable to stick to what the case is about:

1. What did Johnski do?
2. What does Misplaced Pages policy say about it?
3. If Johnski violated any policies, has he retracted his actions or does he still stand by them and intend to do them in the future?

Most of what they say has to do with:

1. What did Davidpdx do?
2. What did other people say to or about Davidpdx?

Utterly irrelevant... sigh ... Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang in there

Hi, David; hang in there. The arbcom is not easily fooled or misled, nor do they often fail to see clearly when someone like Johnski has been up to mischief. They may or may not ever accept that any sockpuppetry was going on, but that was never the issue; they will see the real issue of Johnski's behavior and, I trust, respond appropriately. I also trust that they will not be distracted by the exceedingly bizarre (and yet commonplace in these proceedings) reasoning offered by the other side attempting to turn the case into an accusation against you when they are the ones who have failed to behave themselves.

It's a busy time of year, and I know most of us live lives that are far too busy. I hope that my lateness in posting evidence and everybody else's absence did not give you the feeling that you stood alone. You are not alone. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to mention that the text of the "Wikilante" article is available to the arbcom, as I'm pretty sure they're all admins. In my evidence I linked to the undelete page where they could view each revision. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Roberts

If you notice, your first change to the article was fine and has now been restored. Since then you made two "minor" changes, which, in fact duplicated the article: and . FireFox 14:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism. In case you are not aware, this duplication of articles is really serious and is screwing up Misplaced Pages, basically. See Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical). Thanks, FireFox 14:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem! simply integrate the changes and I think the article will be great. I noticed the error on recent changes and fixed it then quickly broke it down into the different sections which makes scanning the article easier. -- SusanLarson 14:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bluebot

I do believe you, but it is meant to do what it did, someone asked me too, see the links in its edit summary. p.s. could you not leave messages on the user page. Martin 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oregon gubernatorial election, 2006

Thanks for pointing out Oregon gubernatorial election, 2006 and working on Oregon politics stuff. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time to contribute to the wiki these days.--Clipdude 08:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

More Melchizedek nonsense

Hi. I wonder if you could keep an eye on the Melchizedek entry in the micronation article. I've just edited it to remove the weasel wording the Johnski previously inserted there in an attempt to confuse things, and of course he keeps reverting my change. I've already reverted it 3 times today. I've added a comment at the bottom of the discussion page concerning this. --Gene_poole 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, why don't you show here that you can be fair and balanced? Here is a chance to show that you can stand up to a bully. BTW, I never said you were spineless. I did say that you cowarded to Gene when you let him get away with (or enforced) his mis-quoting the WP. Sincerely, Johnski 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing to say, other then what is being said at arbitration. Yes, you did call me spineless. Davidpdx 01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you think that saying that you cowarded to Gene makes you spineless, I apologize. Certainly you would show more spine if you showed us your ip address and helped me correct a mis-quote, etc. Sincerely, Johnski 01:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said many times, I don't have to reveal my IP address. If you thought about it enough I'm sure you could figure it out, but I'm not going to do your investigative work. I have no sockpuppets or meatpuppets. There is going to be a finding of fact against you. You can argue all you want about it, but it will happen. Thanks for calling me spineless yet again.

By the way, the entry of DOM on the micronation page has been there for almost a year. If you go back into the history of the page, you'll see it probably wasn't put there by GP, but someone else. It wasn't until July 31st when you began removing it on a regular basis that it became a problem. Feel free to look for yourself, I'm not lying.

This is my last reply to you, anything else needs to be on the record in arbitration. Davidpdx 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I never called you spineless, and apologize again if that is what you thought I meant. If you read it, I'm not trying to remove the entry on the micronation article just reverting to the version that has been there for long time, and that Gene hold off on adding his POV until after the arbitration is finished, or cite credible sources for his POV. Doesn't that seem logical to you? If you don't agree with this I'll have to assume that you are Gene in disguise. Sincerely, Johnski 01:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Dear Davidpdx, Despite our difference, I want to wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happier New Year! Cordially, Johnski 07:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)