| Revision as of 06:54, 9 March 2006 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:39, 9 March 2006 edit undoDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 edits Archieved Talk PageNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| == Melchizedek nonsense == | |||
| I have removed the Melchizedek nonsense from this page. This is an uninhabited sovereign territory of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and they haven't given it away to anyone. Furthermore, nobody from "Melchizedek" has ever set foot there, nor are they ever likely to, and hence they have no way of asserting their "claim". Indeed, the fact that they "claim" it is totally meaningless. They might as well "claim" the moon. --] 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Centauri, The only reason that most people know about Taongi is because of the lease that Melchizedek has over it, from Taongi's Paramount Chief. Melchizedek's claim to Taongi has been mentioned in several credible news sources, and is in the Wiki article about Melchizedek, a micronation. Micronations are one of the 500 most popular topics in Misplaced Pages. We don't know if any Melchizedekian has ever set foot on Taongi, and it really doesn't matter either way. You have been accused of being a sock-puppet of Gene Poole and as you both use "nonsense" so often that encourages me to believe the argument. Having a claim to the moon is a far fetched comparision. And a lease from a Iroijlaplpa is not meaningless. Sincerely, ] 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have had disagreements and heated arguments with Centauri, but I agree with him on the Melchizedek issue. I have added this page to my watchlist and will revert on sight any Melchizedek content added to this article. ] 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Centauri, despite what anyone says, I don't believe what's being said in terms of you being both people. I'd encourage you to continue to watch the pages regardless of the accusations Johnski or others come up with. As I've said, I'm going to take a more passive role and get back to editing some articles that I want to improve and/or create. That doesn't mean I won't be watching him though. ] 03:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The paragraph that begins "A Wikipedian article about the ]..." cannot be placed into this article because it is a violation of the guidelines in ]. ] (] • ]) 22:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The paragraph is also clearly not approved by the consensus of the editors on this article, as only one has attempted to insert it, but several have reverted. It has definitely not won consensus on the talk page. Consensus on the talk page is necessary when you insert something and it is reverted: the reversion indicates that consensus does not yet exist and you should discuss your change and obtain consensus on the talk page before inserting it again. | |||
| Johnski, this edit warring has got to stop. The three revert rule is not a license to make three reverts per day. You are consistently making as many reverts as you possibly can so that you violate the spirit of the law while not violating the letter. That's unacceptable. I'm going to look into where I can report you for this. | |||
| If you want to have any hope of exerting any influence over these articles, you had better listen up and start confining yourself to proposing changes on the talk page and waiting for consensus before editing articles. Otherwise you are going to be reverted by multiple editors as long as you are here and will ultimately find yourself blocked because of edit warring. You can and will be blocked for edit warring even if you have never technically violated the three revert rule. | |||
| I want to encourage you to read completely through ] and ] before proceeding. I also want to point you to the sentence in ] which states, "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Misplaced Pages community." As far as I can tell you are, so far, a single-purpose account holder here at Misplaced Pages. ] (] • ]) 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Mr. JDavidb et al: Melchizedek's claim to this Atoll has be covered by international media both in print and tele. It is worthy of mention. The text is from the DOM article that there is consensus for. If it can't be said that it is quoting from Misplaced Pages, just take the word Misplaced Pages out.] 06:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::KAJohnski, this claim has not been demonstrated to the consensus of editors of any article and any alleged documentation within Misplaced Pages only exists due to edit warring and not following the rules. Misplaced Pages is not a source. Sources used in Misplaced Pages can be a source, but of course they are open to examination and questioning. As mentioned ad infinitum, the alleged claims appear ludicrous to every Misplaced Pages editor so far other than all your sockpuppets that exist only to promote DOM. ] (] • ]) 17:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Johnski I don't know where you get the idea that there is any consensus on either articles for your garbage, but there is not. I would warn you that this IS going to mediation and we will make it known about the various sockpuppets. If you revert, we will push to have your access to Misplaced Pages limited. I would take these threats very seriously. ] 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mr. Davids: It appears you have never taken the time to read or study a subject for which you claim to be experts. The parts that are quoted come from the article about Melchizedek that you and your supporters have repeatedly reverted to, and Gene Poole, et al have edited to their liking, are those portions. The real reason, as I see it, is that you just don't like the subject, so you want to remove it from Misplaced Pages. To me, the subject is interesting, and famous enough like other subjects to be covered in all of its notorious aspects. Melchizedek claims Clipperton, but I don't see that that is worth including in the Clipperton article, because that claim doesn't rise to the fame of Taongi and Solkope, nor are there leases involved.] 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Johnski, I never once claimed to be an expert on DOM. You are wrong, I have read some about DOM and I do honestly believe it is a fraud. I have no problem with their being articles on the issue on Misplaced Pages, but they must (as the rules state) have the sources to back them up. You have repeatedly made claims that did not have the sources or used bogus sources (such as the blog) to try to prove points. In addition, you have reverted pages without consensus, lied about having consensus, misrepresented the rules of Misplaced Pages to push your own agenda and so on. If you want to continue to sit on your high horse and scream foul, that's fine. However, myself and others are not going to allow you to hijack Misplaced Pages to further your own cause. That's not why Misplaced Pages is here. ] 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mr. Davidpdx: Please don't address me as Johnski. I haven't lied about anything, have not misrepresented the rule on Misplaced Pages. However, you have done both. No matter how many times you say it, it won't make me Johnski. I only have one user name, KAJ. I still doubt you understand what it is that is going on here about this subject. You are nothing but a broken record on the subject of DOM and seem to have nothing to offer, with the exception of Solkope, which you did seem to make an honest attempt to resolve. Thank you for that much!] 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The truth of the matter is you have reverted this article as well as others a number of times without consensus and have not admitted you were dead wrong in doing so. Do you want to talk about good faith? How about admitting it? Yes, I have read about the subject. The reason I sound like a broken record is because myself and others are standing our ground and we are no longer going to allow you to revert articles because you disagree with them. As to your accusation that I lied, please tell me what lie you think I told? ] 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It is you that is reverting articles that you don't agree with merely because you don't want to hear or see anything about DOM, which is the issue that makes this article most worth having in Misplaced Pages, as has gotten the most news for Taongi that I can find. I quoted from the article about DOM that you claim has consensus, that you repeatedy reverted to, but you can't accept that, and lie that there is no consensus for the facts quoted about the Iroijlaplap lease to DOM. Another lie is that you claim that I am a sock-puppet. It may not be intentional that you lied, but when I have more time, I'll try to find the other lies I've noticed in the past.] 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm glad your claiming self-rightously that you've never committed an act in bad faith. That should be pretty easy to counter since you, Johnski, have reverted many articles including the DOM article (60+) and yes this IS ON RECORD. Maybe you should just go put your head in the toilet and flush it. That's about how clueless you are about your own behavior. 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Mr. Davidpdx: Are you ready to humble yourself and admit that you "comitted" any acts in bad faith. It is really funny you calling me "self-rightous" when you are the one that has been saying that you are the only one right and everything that I and those that I agree with are either puppet-masters, sock-puppets or are never right about anything. I've seen efforts to bend your way, but nothing coming from you, with the exception of Solkope, which you are now taking back. Your behavior has been less that that hoped for in Wikipedians according to ]. Perhaps I should examine myself, but I doubt that I've been self-righteous. It has been pointed out to you that you shouldn't call a good faith edit/reversion attempts vandalism, but in your self-righteousness you continue in that behavior. In mean words, you have called into question my intelligence, but I have tried to be civil towards you. Nevertheless, I admit that I have not always followed the highest standards of Wikiquette. Your many false and mean accusations make you the self-righteous one.] 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The pot calling the kettle black? As I said, I'm not the one that is on record reverting the DOM article 60 times. Are you claiming those are all "good-faith" edits? You just don't get it do you? ] 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Arbitration == | |||
| Note: The request for arbitration has been removed from this page. The updated version of this document can be found here: . This was done to save space on this talk page as well as to keep the primary discussion on the main DOM page. If you have any questions about this, please put a note on my ]. ] 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::This looks good. I don't think it's a good idea to list "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" as separate users, since there is a belief that these two people are the same user (e.g. ); however I have dealt with this editor before, so go ahead and add my name to the list. ], 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::This looks good to me, although it is actually ], not ]. I would also include a list of all the other articles he has vandalized or created to promote his agenda - it's quite long. --] 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, I fixed the user name and added the additional articles he has been involved in. Hopefully the the mediation case will go forward soon. ] 02:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Note the above has been updated based on recommendation of those making the complaint. ] 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Nonsense! Don't call me sockpuppet. All of my edits and reverts were in good faith. ] 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Almost all of your edits have been to add DOM content when other users do not want the content in question. When a new editor appears out of the blue and takes sides in a controversial edit, we assume the editor is a sockpuppet; even if it is a separate person, it is still considered a sockpuppet. ] 06:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::As I said on the DOM page, all we ask is that you follow the rules of consensus. The truth is your didn't have consensus, yet you still reverted articles. That is not good faith. If you agree to follow the rules, there is no arbitration and the pressures off. The ball is in your court. ] 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Editing During Arbitration == | |||
| Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should wait for the outcome of the arbitration case before anything else is done. I would hope this is just merely common sense, but I guess I have to say it. | |||
| If either ], ] or ] are edited again, I will ask for a TRO and/or page protect against editing. Honestly, I shouldn't have to do this, but if it becomes necessary I will. ] 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This is a reminder, the Arbitration case is still yet to be decided. This page has been unprotected by systops, however it is still possible to protect again if it is reverted. ] 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration == | == Arbitration == | ||
Revision as of 12:39, 9 March 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bokak Atoll article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
Previous discussions:
Arbitration
Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. Davidpdx