| Revision as of 11:32, 2 January 2006 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:23, 11 January 2006 edit undoJohnski (talk | contribs)346 edits →Accurancy & Balancing question for El CNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| :While discussing it is fine, please keep in mind there is still an arbitration hearing going on at the moment. ] 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | :While discussing it is fine, please keep in mind there is still an arbitration hearing going on at the moment. ] 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Dear Davidpdx, I did bring up these issues with El C (not that I have a problem with El C) on his talk page. There are enough votes to finalize the arbcom, so why shouldn't these issues be dealt with now, and how do you see the arbcom affecting these unresolved issues? Sincerely, ] 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:23, 11 January 2006
Previous discussions:
- Archive 1 (21 July 2005 to 14 October 2005)
- Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 2 November 2005)
- Archive 3 (3 November 2005 to 31 December 2005)
Accurancy & Balancing question for El C
Suggested addition to the SEC statement:
- When brining a lawsuit against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. . Subsequently, when the SEC settled that case, it wrote that the "Dominion of Melchizedek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."
Suggested addition to the OCC former employee's statement:
- In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999, John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, stated: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.
- Also, shouldn't the WP quote be made accurate so that the article doesn't falsely claim that the WP "opined" that CAR would "probably" recognize, when it only wrote that "you get the feeling" that it would recognize. Seems that this inaccuracy is both an insult to the WP and to CAR. EDM suggested the quote should be corrected or totally removed, but Gene_Poole thinks the inaccurate version makes smoother reading, so he wants it to remain inaccurate. What do you think? Sincerely, Johnski 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- My first question is where did El C supposedly bring up this question? To my knowledge, he hasn't been very active in editing this article at all the last few months. He removed the NPOV notice on the page, but that's all I'm aware of. Feel free to look at the article history, in the last three months that's the only edit he's made.
- In terms of the talk page, it goes back almost 4 months since he's made a contribution on this article. Again, please feel free to check for yourself. If you have a problem with a specific user, why are you not sending that person a message?
- While discussing it is fine, please keep in mind there is still an arbitration hearing going on at the moment. Davidpdx 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Davidpdx, I did bring up these issues with El C (not that I have a problem with El C) on his talk page. There are enough votes to finalize the arbcom, so why shouldn't these issues be dealt with now, and how do you see the arbcom affecting these unresolved issues? Sincerely, Johnski 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)