![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive page, do not edit it in any way!
Archive October 15th-December 31st 2005
In terms of a compromise, there has been nothing agreed upon. Yet Johnski and Samspade continue to revert this page (and others) to reflect a minority opinion. In short, this is POV pushing and also a breach of good faith on negociating. The fact is that neither Johnski or Samspade are willing to provide the proof they say exsists to confirm the facts that they are claiming.
The compromise section was a waste of time (as Genepoole stated). I'm no longer willing to find a compromise with those who wish to POV push and not follow the rules of Wikipedia. Therefore, because no compromise was made the page should remain as is. Davidpdx 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, I really don't want to fight with you and you seem sincerely disturbed by me and my efforts to neutralize the bias on this article. However, I really don't like accusations that I sincerely belive to be baseless. If I wrote that you approved it, please point me to that statement so I can correct such an error right there. If you believe that the unbiased account that has become more balanced through mine and other's efforts, makes DOM look legitimate, perhaps you are the one that is on acid? And the last two editions were posted by people other than myself. Sincerely, Johnski 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out here that Gene_poole is actually a member of a micronation - Atlantium - and has been using this page to promote their agenda, deleting the micronations less serious than them under the argument that they are "not notable". When protests are made, he gets his buddies in to claim that micronationalists from the simulationist sector have a conflict of interest, whilst failing to point out that he too is a micronationalist. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that is also applicable where deletions are made in order to keep a sector of micronationalism off the wiki in order to promote a secessionist agenda. --Graius 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Talk:Micronation
Quoting from Wikipedia's position on bias below gives me the courage to be "bold" and I again ask for help:
The most important lesson More important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal. Be bold in editing pages that are biased, be bold in asking for help, and do not be alarmed when others edit your articles.
Realize you may have a POV you're not aware of, that you might have learned something wrong or that you might be misremembering it. Consider that even when an article has struck everyone who has read it so far as neutral, others arriving with a different POV may still have a good reason to change it. Often even a neutral article can be made still more neutral.
Regard bias as a problem with the article, not with the people who wrote it. Taking the opposite tack just makes people stubborn and makes you look bad. Teach, don't attack. For users you can't reason with and who seem determined to violate NPOV policy, enlist the help of the Wikipedia mediators. Just never forget to give discussion an honest try. Once they are given a little courtesy and respect, you might be surprised how many Wikipedians turn out to be not so biased after all.
Vandalism in progress was listed for this page, due to reverts that had no consensus Davidpdx 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, lost track of time, but on the other hand, does the 3RR include versions that have been changed, or if they are identical over that 24 hour period? Johnski 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, I admit I reverted too much in 24 hours, losing track of time, but just read on the 3RR page, "First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it." Fortunately, I don't think I went this far, but appologize for so many reverts. Perhaps this will end up with my request for dispute resolution. Johnski 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Should this be added as a category?:
.
The short answer is no. You are in fact the only one that has a problem with this article. Davidpdx 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I came here from the request for comment. I see no need for the bias tag. It looks to me like a very few editors are trying to promote a viewpoint by reverting the page to their preferred version. This is getting close to persistent vandalism. To the extent that there are legitimate disagreements about editing choices, I suggest starting with the version of 20 Oct by Gene Poole and taking it a paragraph at a time, only making changes that are supported by consensus. Tom harrison 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Johnski/207.47.122.10 you have violated the 3RR rule by reverting this page more then 4 times in 24 hours. Davidpdx 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
While supporters of Melchizedek assert that it is an "ecclesiastical sovereignty," similar to Vatican City, and while its flag incorporates Christian, Jewish and Islamic symbols, Melchizedek intentionally possesses no established church although its citizens and monotheistic adherents are both called "Melchizedekians".
Implied by Melchizedek Bible's Introduction and Glossary. KAJ 15:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading again, The Glossary, called "Key of David", it is more inclusive:
"MELCHIZEDEKIAN: A citizen of the Dominion of Melchizedek; a spiritualized,
sovereign person of peace and righteousness (Hebrews 7 & Revelation 1); 'As
(a man) thinketh in his heart (that he is a Melchizedekian), so is he' (Proverbs 23:7)"
KAJ
16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have now documented and reported the sockpuppets used by user:Johnski: user:SamuelSpade, user:KAL user:207.47.122.10.
Accordingly, I will report violations of the 3RR rule if he continues to use them in an attempt to revert this page as well as others. Davidpdx 10:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
If we can get an IP check performed I'll block for 3RR violations. Jdavidb (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Harrison: took a day off to think (and further study the subject), and agree with you to take a point at a time, the first being the opening line:
"The Dominion of Melchizedek is a micronation known for being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world."
There are four problems with this line. The first is that I've used every source available to me including Nexis Lexis to find a legitimate source for this statement, and can only find the opposite, being that no direct link can be found. It seems more likely that the Wikipedian author of that statement wants it to be true, not that it is true, or published in any reputable source.
Looking through the history of the Talk page, someone there asked for evidence of this "fact" and there was no reply.
The only fact that I can find is that Melchizedek is known for the frauds that have been linked to the banks it has licensed. An example of the difference would be that of the banks that Saipan licensed. Saipan banks, including Merchant Bank, the one that the Pedlies were involved in, had allegations of fraud brought against them. However, if the publicity that those banks gained from those allegations, affected Saipan, it wouldn't make Saipan known for being directly linked to those frauds, unless the government of Saipan was running the fraudulent banks in question. In the case of Melchizedek banks, the government of Melchizedek, including its founders have never be arrested or charged with any frauds having to do with any of the banks they licenced. Even in the civil case of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against a lawyer in New York, neither Melchizedek nor any of its officals were sued in that case. In other cases, the U.S. S.E.C. has sued micronations and thier founders, such as "Prince Lazarus" of "New Utopia".
Second, Melchizedek, according to reliable sources, including the Washington Post has been diplomatically recognized by a world government, yet the opening line in the micronation article states that micronations have not been recognized by any world governments. Because of this conflict it seems that either the micronation article needs to be changed to indicate one exception, or change the Melchizedek opening line to "entity". There should be no objection to this because a micronation can also be an entity. Melchizedek has been recognized as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" which would be the best definition because it is a published fact according to reputable news media. As a middle ground, saying that Melchizedek is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood, seems reasonable.
Third, Melchizedek claims to be "an ecclesiastical government" and "an ecclesiastical sovereignty", therefore it is at least aspiring to be such, if not already there.
Fourth, the opening line gives any reader the caveat emptor, due to the word "fraud" appearing there highlighted. So the argument that giving a factual, fair and balanced account about Melchizedek will give credibility to it, doesn't hold up, especially since the center of the article quotes someone as saying that the entire Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud.
This is my recommended text for the first line:
"The Dominion of Melchizedek is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood, and is known for the licensing of banks that fraudulently operated in many parts of the world."
Please feel free to find a middle ground or completely new opening line. KAJ 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The archieve page is NOT to be edited. All new comments need to be put on the current page. I have and will continue to revert the archieve page if it is vandalized. Davidpdx 01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
A convincing case can be made that sock puppets or meat puppets have been used here in the past. That has been disruptive; If there is any more of it, I think the next step has to be formal action.
It's not my place to insist that other editors agree to anything; But there are conditions that need to exist, just for any of us to be able to work here. I think some of those conditions are:
I may have moved too fast in suggesting edits before there was a consensus. The first thing I think we need to know is, do people think there should be any changes at all right now? Or would it be better to let everything stabilize for a while? I would appreciate it if everyone interested would reply with their opinion. Thanks, Tom harrison 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Given the recent aggressive editing, I don't see any possibility that work can continue here. Rather than having an edit war, I suggest that whoever is interested persue dispute resolution at a more formal level. In particular, the charges of sock and/or meat puppetry need to be resolved. I suggest that the page be left alone in its present form (18:16, 26 October 2005) as the least objectionable to the most people. Maybe some time in the future it can be the basis for continued work. Tom harrison 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems that Melchizedek should be shown as being unique in that it is the only microation known to be diplomatically recognized by a world government.
The Dominion of Melchizedek is the first micronation to have been diplomatically recognized by any world governemnt.
Then move on to the stuff about its banks being linked to worldwide fraud. KAJ 17:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Gene, Hello Wikifacts, While you both wish to improve the article, you should consider the 3RR. Cordially, Johnski 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that you expressed interest in helping with this article. The Slim Virgin protected the DOM article after a round of rapid fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts broke out. In the past all I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see it isn't easy to get consensus on this article. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is a fraud, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser, KAJ, tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here?
Here is the proposed text:
According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." [7] However, the only official website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that " licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [8]
The last sentence in the above paragraph is the only addition to the current paragraph proposed. Can anyone give a valid reason why it wouldn't be best to quote from the US OCC's official website to give balance to the article? Sincerely, Johnski 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
What say to unprotection? There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion here. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I've unlocked this because the discussion seems to have dried up. Please try to reach a compromise between your positions. Any apparent sock puppet accounts are likely to be blocked by the way. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
In related news, User:Jayjg protected Bakok Atoll for us yesterday after I sought his advice. Johnski just takes the fight to other articles. I've issued an ultimatum to Johnski over on that talk page, though I don't know if he's seen it; Johnski is in violation of several policies, and we are not going to let this go on forever. We will take it through dispute resolution if we have to. Protected or not, Johnski will not be allowed to use these articles as his playground. Jayjg also said he'd support blocking Johnski for gaming the three revert rule. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: Please fix the second archieved page as it is only a duplication of the first. KAJ 03:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
US OCC balancing act
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that you expressed interest in helping with this article. The Slim Virgin protected the DOM article after a round of rapid fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts broke out. In the past all I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see it isn't easy to get consensus on this article. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is a fraud, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser, KAJ, tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here?
Here is the proposed text:
According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." [9] However, the only official website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that " licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [10]
The last sentence in the above paragraph is the only addition to the current paragraph proposed. Can anyone give a valid reason why it wouldn't be best to quote from the US OCC's official website to give balance to the article? Sincerely, Johnski 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[ [11]] doesn't work. Also, this is an attempt to take the complete NON-recognition of DOM by that website and pretend it is somehow in contrast to the official who also said that it isn't recognized. If that were to be inserted, it should instead read
In this way it would be clear that these two facts both reinforce the claim that DOM is a fraud rather than implying that pointing out DOM's non-recognized status somehow refutes it.
Note that you don't yet have consensus for this change. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Dominion of Melchizedek and related pages
There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the above page 60+ times in the last two months.
Johnski is strongly believed to be an active member of Dominion of Melchizedek, as he possesses an intimate familiarity with details of court cases and other historical matters pertaining to it that few, if any, outsiders would be privy to. As a primary source and should not be contributing to any articles on this subject, in accordance with Wikipedia general editing principles.
He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, and that the prior version is biased. He has also used numerous sock puppets to revert the above page, and to introduce Melchizedek-related promotional content into many other articles as well, including: Bokak Atoll, Karitane Shoal, Solkope, Rotuma, Clipperton Island, Antarctica, Micronation, Fictional country, Bible, Melchizedek, Melchizedekian, Ecclesiastical state and David Even Pedley.
When challenged by other editors Johnski selectively quotes media reports out of context in order to put a positive spin on consistently extremely negative reportage about Melchizedek. He consistently seeks to insert these out-of-context quotations into the above articles to provide what he alledges is "balanced" reportage, and has attempted to delete quotations which show Melchizedek in a negative light.
Johnski does not follow the rules of Wikipedia and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda. Additionally, his presumed association with a group known for defrauding people in many parts of the world of millions of dollars is a negative reflection on Wikipedia, and should be curtailed.
Users complaning about Johnski's behavior:
Making a Complaint against the following:
Davidpdx 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Note the above has been updated based on recommendation of those making the complaint. Davidpdx 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Note the document above is the most recent updated version of the complaint. The versions shown on the Bokak Atoll page may not reflect recent changes. Davidpdx 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, being "a curious neutral" both sides appear to be abusing each other equally. Can someone totally neutral rewrite the article with comments on "X states" and "Y states" which should resolve the matter (as far as us curious neutrals are concerned).
As an update, the case for arbitration has gone forward. If you would like to contribute or look at the case you can go here: [16] Davidpdx 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: No need to bet since I've already returned to the last edition hoping that you will actually look at the changes I made, which were not a simple reversion. Myself and Johnski have put most of this stuff on the talk page, and you've only played games with us, never showing any interest in compromise or reaching factual, fair and balanced article. I'm just asking you to look carefully at the changes, and let me know what you have problems with and why. Consensus is just a word you use for blocking my honest attempts at a more factual balanced article. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. There is no consensus for the article you keep reverting to, and hopefully artibration will reveal your stubborness to work for a better article. KAJ 11:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm neither a member of the Dominion of Melchizedek nor a victim of any of its alleged activities and I have no axe to grind. Obviously there is a lot of history to the various versions of this article which I haven't been involved in, haven't read, and, frankly, don't intend to. I've gone through and made wording and sequence changes purely with the intention of bringing a newcomer or outsider's perspective to this article. Though I have reordered the sections, I have neither added nor deleted any substantive information, except for fixing the name and pseudonyms of Mark Logan Pedley. The version I worked off of was Davidpdx's last version of 9 November 2005, which was, according to its edit summary, a version that was live at a time this page was protected. I hope regular editors of this article (on both sides) will perceive these changes as both NPOV and stylistic improvements. If not, I'm sure someone will revert and no harm done. - EDM 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it is important to point out that "The Pedleys were each convicted and imprisoned for various frauds unrelated to Melchizedek during the 1980s, for which they maintained their innocence." Otherwise the reader would be led to think that the fraud convictions were connected to Melchizedek, and since they maintained their "innocence", that gives balance. I think I read somewhere that two of the Pedley cases were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And there was a Sacramento Bee article around 15 years ago, that quoted a then U.S. Marshal that the Pedley case was politically motivated, which could classify the Pedley's as political prisoners at one extreme of the argument. Also, it is enough to say "multiple fraud convictions" since I can't find where they were both convicted of land fraud, or share fraud.
Should be "All of these territories, except for Karitane", as Karitane is not claimed by any other government.
Should be were "already claimed by, or dependencies of recognized states" as Rotuma is an semi autonomous dependency, not as possession, and Solkope is apparently uninhabited. This took place in 2000 so the opening in the 1990s isn't 100% accurate.
It is said that possession is 9/10th of the law, so if these islands are uninhabited, with the exception of Malpelo, how can they be possessions?
Should say, "None of these claims appear to be recognized by any established government" as we haven't taken a poll of all of the nations, and the DOM web site displays copies of treaties of peace and recognition with recognized governments that incorporated reference to Antarctica and the islands of Melchizedek. What other islands could they be referring to?
The reason that I believe that it is wrong to say that the Washington Post and Forbes call it a ruse, is that while the article in the WP was entitled the "Ruse that Roared" the article itself had two opinions, that it "MAY merely be a ruse" and it "MAY be the ultimate post-modern state." And Forbes has called it "dubious" but never used the word, "ruse". Balance requires, fairness and being factual for each issue, doesn't it?
Regarding the over 300 would-be investors that have lost money in purported investments, isn't it important that those operations were never run by the government of Melchizedek or the Pedley's but only by the banks it licensed, which is a huge difference? Even the media has pick up on this point.
From a legal standpoint should the part about the SEC include both the beginning and end of that case, namely:
In the opening of a civil action against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. [17]. After the SEC settled that case, instead of referring to DOM as "non-existent", it wrote, the "Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments." [18]
Shouldn't this statement below by Shockey be balanced with the only official statement from the US OCC Director where it only calls Melchizedek a "non-recognized sovereignty that licensed Caribbean Bank of Commerce"?:
According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." [19] The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website only refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that " licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [20]
Regarding Gillespie, shouldn't it be pointed out that the arrests were never followed by convictions and that the DOM web site points out that Gillespie was not authorized to sell citizenship or jobs?
BTW, I can't find where DOM was ever sued, or where any official of DOM was ever arrested or convicted of any crime while acting on behalf of DOM.
Regarding the article in the Washington Post noting that The Dominion of Melchizedek was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, if you leave out "you get the feeling", it gives the reader the false impression that it is more than a "feeling" which the WP probably wouldn't like being falsely quoted about a UN member state. There is a big difference between saying that something would probably happen than getting the feeling that something might happen. If it was that easy to get a letter of official and formal diplomatic recognition from CAR, you can be sure that other micronations would have followed with such a letter.
I can't find any source that has called DOM a hoax in the past decade, so why do we "See also: Hoax". The WP concluded that DOM "is no gag", although France need not worry since DOM would not sweep the Olympics.
Gene, DOM's currency was quoted on Bloomberg according to Forbes, and CBS. CBS website said something like "DOM claims to be an ecclesiastical sovereignty based on the old testament, but it has received more recognition as a "tax haven." and I believe, if memory serves, their currency is either called "Dominion Dollars" or "Melchizedek Dollars". Why did you change "established" to "created"? And BTW, Context Magazine pointed to the 1950s as the time when it was founded. I believe conceived in the 1950s is a logical way to point to its origins. However, it wasn't really founded or formally established until its constitution was signed in 1991.
There are a few other issues, but this is more than enough for now. Sincerely, Johnski 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/10/60II/main182244.shtml
it made the regular fraud claims (which we all know about) but it also pointed out:
I am going to stay away from further editing to this article until the arbitration is concluded. - EDM 05:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that this article is cleaned up and looking a lot better, I think it's time to reopen the idea of a rfc in terms of merging David Even Pedley into this article. My thought is that despite anyone's opinion about DOM, it would enhance the article and also get rid of an unneeded second article.
Before I go through with the rfc, I'd like to open the floor for comments or concerns about this idea. Davidpdx 07:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think at this point we should table this conversation until the arbitration case is decided. Davidpdx 01:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This is another fair warning about reverting without consensus. The article may have been changed a bit in the past few days (which I had nothing to do with), but that doesn't mean your changes have consensus. I again warn you, if you start a revert war, I will go forward with filing an arbitration claim. You can groan and moan all you want about whether or not the article if "fair and balanced" in your opinion, but it does not change the fact you are reverting without consensus. Davidpdx 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The section on "origin" actually doesn't contain any information at all about the origin of the dominion. How was it founded, who by, where is a map, what's its history, how is it alleged to be a sovreign state, what responses have other countries given via political channels to this, have any other countries not accepted its sovreignty? FT2 11:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
There is confusion of the difference between defacto recognition and dejure recognition. Defacto recognition can be as simple as a statement from one government about another government, or an act. There are many levels of this type of recognition. We only need to quote credible sources, and let the reader decide. Since the DOM itself is the subject of the article, its official web site can also be quoted. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
No, We only need to quote credible sources, and the position of DOM is also important since the story is about DOM, so their web site can be quoted as well. Some of it is in there, but it isn't complete enough or fully balanced, and parts are not factual, such as the quote from Washington Post using the word, "probably" when it should be "you get the feeling". I haven't been trying to add new content so much as make it more accurate and balanced with the stuff that is there. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
copied by: KAJ 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should be 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 Dominion of Melchizedek, Solkope or Bokak Atoll 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. Davidpdx 13:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Immigrationissues2002 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Centauri. Thanks for the reply. Who are these criminals, what crimes are they doing and what is a sockpuppet ? Sorry for the many questions but if they are criminals, shouldn´t that be dealt with by the relevant authorities. I have spent the past few days specifically investigating the dominion, their website and officers and to be quite frank, I have found absolutely NOTHING to indicate that any official of the dominion has ever been convicted or even tried for any criminal activity related to the dominion. I have read that some individuals were convicted before, during and after the formation of the dominion, but not anyone officially acting on their behalf. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue, but to me it sounds quite biassed to say the things that you have above. In my opinion you are making it sound as though the officials of the dominion are responsable for the actions of the owners of the banks and other businesses that have registered with them and have commited crimes...that would be like saying that President Bush is responsable for Enron...hardly a valid statement. Anyway, you probably have a reason for saying what you did, I would like to hear it, on here or to my private e-mail address.
Hi Davipdx. Thanks for your reply. I shall certainly look in here from time to time to see the outcome of this issue.
Immigrationissues 05:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Since it's obvious that editors taken to arbitration refuse to stop reverting this article, then the next step is an injunction. This only adds fuel to the fire in terms of your behavior. Davidpdx 04:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. -- Billpg 23:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This is an archive page, do not edit it in any way!
Archive October 15th-December 31st 2005
In terms of a compromise, there has been nothing agreed upon. Yet Johnski and Samspade continue to revert this page (and others) to reflect a minority opinion. In short, this is POV pushing and also a breach of good faith on negociating. The fact is that neither Johnski or Samspade are willing to provide the proof they say exsists to confirm the facts that they are claiming.
The compromise section was a waste of time (as Genepoole stated). I'm no longer willing to find a compromise with those who wish to POV push and not follow the rules of Wikipedia. Therefore, because no compromise was made the page should remain as is. Davidpdx 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, I really don't want to fight with you and you seem sincerely disturbed by me and my efforts to neutralize the bias on this article. However, I really don't like accusations that I sincerely belive to be baseless. If I wrote that you approved it, please point me to that statement so I can correct such an error right there. If you believe that the unbiased account that has become more balanced through mine and other's efforts, makes DOM look legitimate, perhaps you are the one that is on acid? And the last two editions were posted by people other than myself. Sincerely, Johnski 21:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out here that Gene_poole is actually a member of a micronation - Atlantium - and has been using this page to promote their agenda, deleting the micronations less serious than them under the argument that they are "not notable". When protests are made, he gets his buddies in to claim that micronationalists from the simulationist sector have a conflict of interest, whilst failing to point out that he too is a micronationalist. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that is also applicable where deletions are made in order to keep a sector of micronationalism off the wiki in order to promote a secessionist agenda. --Graius 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Talk:Micronation
Quoting from Wikipedia's position on bias below gives me the courage to be "bold" and I again ask for help:
The most important lesson More important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal. Be bold in editing pages that are biased, be bold in asking for help, and do not be alarmed when others edit your articles.
Realize you may have a POV you're not aware of, that you might have learned something wrong or that you might be misremembering it. Consider that even when an article has struck everyone who has read it so far as neutral, others arriving with a different POV may still have a good reason to change it. Often even a neutral article can be made still more neutral.
Regard bias as a problem with the article, not with the people who wrote it. Taking the opposite tack just makes people stubborn and makes you look bad. Teach, don't attack. For users you can't reason with and who seem determined to violate NPOV policy, enlist the help of the Wikipedia mediators. Just never forget to give discussion an honest try. Once they are given a little courtesy and respect, you might be surprised how many Wikipedians turn out to be not so biased after all.
Vandalism in progress was listed for this page, due to reverts that had no consensus Davidpdx 03:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, lost track of time, but on the other hand, does the 3RR include versions that have been changed, or if they are identical over that 24 hour period? Johnski 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Davidpdx, I admit I reverted too much in 24 hours, losing track of time, but just read on the 3RR page, "First, check if you actually did make a fourth revert in 24 hours or very close to it." Fortunately, I don't think I went this far, but appologize for so many reverts. Perhaps this will end up with my request for dispute resolution. Johnski 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Should this be added as a category?:
.
The short answer is no. You are in fact the only one that has a problem with this article. Davidpdx 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I came here from the request for comment. I see no need for the bias tag. It looks to me like a very few editors are trying to promote a viewpoint by reverting the page to their preferred version. This is getting close to persistent vandalism. To the extent that there are legitimate disagreements about editing choices, I suggest starting with the version of 20 Oct by Gene Poole and taking it a paragraph at a time, only making changes that are supported by consensus. Tom harrison 00:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Johnski/207.47.122.10 you have violated the 3RR rule by reverting this page more then 4 times in 24 hours. Davidpdx 02:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
While supporters of Melchizedek assert that it is an "ecclesiastical sovereignty," similar to Vatican City, and while its flag incorporates Christian, Jewish and Islamic symbols, Melchizedek intentionally possesses no established church although its citizens and monotheistic adherents are both called "Melchizedekians".
Implied by Melchizedek Bible's Introduction and Glossary. KAJ 15:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
After reading again, The Glossary, called "Key of David", it is more inclusive:
"MELCHIZEDEKIAN: A citizen of the Dominion of Melchizedek; a spiritualized,
sovereign person of peace and righteousness (Hebrews 7 & Revelation 1); 'As
(a man) thinketh in his heart (that he is a Melchizedekian), so is he' (Proverbs 23:7)"
KAJ
16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have now documented and reported the sockpuppets used by user:Johnski: user:SamuelSpade, user:KAL user:207.47.122.10.
Accordingly, I will report violations of the 3RR rule if he continues to use them in an attempt to revert this page as well as others. Davidpdx 10:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
If we can get an IP check performed I'll block for 3RR violations. Jdavidb (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Harrison: took a day off to think (and further study the subject), and agree with you to take a point at a time, the first being the opening line:
"The Dominion of Melchizedek is a micronation known for being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world."
There are four problems with this line. The first is that I've used every source available to me including Nexis Lexis to find a legitimate source for this statement, and can only find the opposite, being that no direct link can be found. It seems more likely that the Wikipedian author of that statement wants it to be true, not that it is true, or published in any reputable source.
Looking through the history of the Talk page, someone there asked for evidence of this "fact" and there was no reply.
The only fact that I can find is that Melchizedek is known for the frauds that have been linked to the banks it has licensed. An example of the difference would be that of the banks that Saipan licensed. Saipan banks, including Merchant Bank, the one that the Pedlies were involved in, had allegations of fraud brought against them. However, if the publicity that those banks gained from those allegations, affected Saipan, it wouldn't make Saipan known for being directly linked to those frauds, unless the government of Saipan was running the fraudulent banks in question. In the case of Melchizedek banks, the government of Melchizedek, including its founders have never be arrested or charged with any frauds having to do with any of the banks they licenced. Even in the civil case of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission against a lawyer in New York, neither Melchizedek nor any of its officals were sued in that case. In other cases, the U.S. S.E.C. has sued micronations and thier founders, such as "Prince Lazarus" of "New Utopia".
Second, Melchizedek, according to reliable sources, including the Washington Post has been diplomatically recognized by a world government, yet the opening line in the micronation article states that micronations have not been recognized by any world governments. Because of this conflict it seems that either the micronation article needs to be changed to indicate one exception, or change the Melchizedek opening line to "entity". There should be no objection to this because a micronation can also be an entity. Melchizedek has been recognized as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" which would be the best definition because it is a published fact according to reputable news media. As a middle ground, saying that Melchizedek is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood, seems reasonable.
Third, Melchizedek claims to be "an ecclesiastical government" and "an ecclesiastical sovereignty", therefore it is at least aspiring to be such, if not already there.
Fourth, the opening line gives any reader the caveat emptor, due to the word "fraud" appearing there highlighted. So the argument that giving a factual, fair and balanced account about Melchizedek will give credibility to it, doesn't hold up, especially since the center of the article quotes someone as saying that the entire Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud.
This is my recommended text for the first line:
"The Dominion of Melchizedek is an entity aspiring to ecclesiastical statehood, and is known for the licensing of banks that fraudulently operated in many parts of the world."
Please feel free to find a middle ground or completely new opening line. KAJ 19:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The archieve page is NOT to be edited. All new comments need to be put on the current page. I have and will continue to revert the archieve page if it is vandalized. Davidpdx 01:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
A convincing case can be made that sock puppets or meat puppets have been used here in the past. That has been disruptive; If there is any more of it, I think the next step has to be formal action.
It's not my place to insist that other editors agree to anything; But there are conditions that need to exist, just for any of us to be able to work here. I think some of those conditions are:
I may have moved too fast in suggesting edits before there was a consensus. The first thing I think we need to know is, do people think there should be any changes at all right now? Or would it be better to let everything stabilize for a while? I would appreciate it if everyone interested would reply with their opinion. Thanks, Tom harrison 18:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Given the recent aggressive editing, I don't see any possibility that work can continue here. Rather than having an edit war, I suggest that whoever is interested persue dispute resolution at a more formal level. In particular, the charges of sock and/or meat puppetry need to be resolved. I suggest that the page be left alone in its present form (18:16, 26 October 2005) as the least objectionable to the most people. Maybe some time in the future it can be the basis for continued work. Tom harrison 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems that Melchizedek should be shown as being unique in that it is the only microation known to be diplomatically recognized by a world government.
The Dominion of Melchizedek is the first micronation to have been diplomatically recognized by any world governemnt.
Then move on to the stuff about its banks being linked to worldwide fraud. KAJ 17:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello Gene, Hello Wikifacts, While you both wish to improve the article, you should consider the 3RR. Cordially, Johnski 06:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that you expressed interest in helping with this article. The Slim Virgin protected the DOM article after a round of rapid fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts broke out. In the past all I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see it isn't easy to get consensus on this article. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is a fraud, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser, KAJ, tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here?
Here is the proposed text:
According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." [7] However, the only official website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that " licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [8]
The last sentence in the above paragraph is the only addition to the current paragraph proposed. Can anyone give a valid reason why it wouldn't be best to quote from the US OCC's official website to give balance to the article? Sincerely, Johnski 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
What say to unprotection? There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion here. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I've unlocked this because the discussion seems to have dried up. Please try to reach a compromise between your positions. Any apparent sock puppet accounts are likely to be blocked by the way. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
In related news, User:Jayjg protected Bakok Atoll for us yesterday after I sought his advice. Johnski just takes the fight to other articles. I've issued an ultimatum to Johnski over on that talk page, though I don't know if he's seen it; Johnski is in violation of several policies, and we are not going to let this go on forever. We will take it through dispute resolution if we have to. Protected or not, Johnski will not be allowed to use these articles as his playground. Jayjg also said he'd support blocking Johnski for gaming the three revert rule. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: Please fix the second archieved page as it is only a duplication of the first. KAJ 03:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
US OCC balancing act
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that you expressed interest in helping with this article. The Slim Virgin protected the DOM article after a round of rapid fire fighting between Gene Poole and Wiki-facts broke out. In the past all I've tried to do is take from credible sources using parts that have some consensus and balancing some areas with the other side of the story. I gave up on that, and just started posting POV check at the top of Gene's article. That POV check is even considered vandalism by some that claim I have sock-puppets. As you can see it isn't easy to get consensus on this article. I'll give you an example of something that needs balancing as I see it. An employee of the US OCC has been quoted as saying that DOM is a fraud, whereas the offical web site of the US OCC only refers to DOM as an "unrecognized soverignty" that licensed a bank that may be operating without permission in the USA, so I and another wikiuser, KAJ, tried to get consensus (even boldly editing) to add this fact, as a "however" following the employee's quoted statement. Am I way off base here?
Here is the proposed text:
According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." [9] However, the only official website of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that " licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [10]
The last sentence in the above paragraph is the only addition to the current paragraph proposed. Can anyone give a valid reason why it wouldn't be best to quote from the US OCC's official website to give balance to the article? Sincerely, Johnski 08:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[ [11]] doesn't work. Also, this is an attempt to take the complete NON-recognition of DOM by that website and pretend it is somehow in contrast to the official who also said that it isn't recognized. If that were to be inserted, it should instead read
In this way it would be clear that these two facts both reinforce the claim that DOM is a fraud rather than implying that pointing out DOM's non-recognized status somehow refutes it.
Note that you don't yet have consensus for this change. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Dominion of Melchizedek and related pages
There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the above page 60+ times in the last two months.
Johnski is strongly believed to be an active member of Dominion of Melchizedek, as he possesses an intimate familiarity with details of court cases and other historical matters pertaining to it that few, if any, outsiders would be privy to. As a primary source and should not be contributing to any articles on this subject, in accordance with Wikipedia general editing principles.
He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, and that the prior version is biased. He has also used numerous sock puppets to revert the above page, and to introduce Melchizedek-related promotional content into many other articles as well, including: Bokak Atoll, Karitane Shoal, Solkope, Rotuma, Clipperton Island, Antarctica, Micronation, Fictional country, Bible, Melchizedek, Melchizedekian, Ecclesiastical state and David Even Pedley.
When challenged by other editors Johnski selectively quotes media reports out of context in order to put a positive spin on consistently extremely negative reportage about Melchizedek. He consistently seeks to insert these out-of-context quotations into the above articles to provide what he alledges is "balanced" reportage, and has attempted to delete quotations which show Melchizedek in a negative light.
Johnski does not follow the rules of Wikipedia and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda. Additionally, his presumed association with a group known for defrauding people in many parts of the world of millions of dollars is a negative reflection on Wikipedia, and should be curtailed.
Users complaning about Johnski's behavior:
Making a Complaint against the following:
Davidpdx 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Note the above has been updated based on recommendation of those making the complaint. Davidpdx 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Note the document above is the most recent updated version of the complaint. The versions shown on the Bokak Atoll page may not reflect recent changes. Davidpdx 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, being "a curious neutral" both sides appear to be abusing each other equally. Can someone totally neutral rewrite the article with comments on "X states" and "Y states" which should resolve the matter (as far as us curious neutrals are concerned).
As an update, the case for arbitration has gone forward. If you would like to contribute or look at the case you can go here: [16] Davidpdx 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: No need to bet since I've already returned to the last edition hoping that you will actually look at the changes I made, which were not a simple reversion. Myself and Johnski have put most of this stuff on the talk page, and you've only played games with us, never showing any interest in compromise or reaching factual, fair and balanced article. I'm just asking you to look carefully at the changes, and let me know what you have problems with and why. Consensus is just a word you use for blocking my honest attempts at a more factual balanced article. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. There is no consensus for the article you keep reverting to, and hopefully artibration will reveal your stubborness to work for a better article. KAJ 11:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm neither a member of the Dominion of Melchizedek nor a victim of any of its alleged activities and I have no axe to grind. Obviously there is a lot of history to the various versions of this article which I haven't been involved in, haven't read, and, frankly, don't intend to. I've gone through and made wording and sequence changes purely with the intention of bringing a newcomer or outsider's perspective to this article. Though I have reordered the sections, I have neither added nor deleted any substantive information, except for fixing the name and pseudonyms of Mark Logan Pedley. The version I worked off of was Davidpdx's last version of 9 November 2005, which was, according to its edit summary, a version that was live at a time this page was protected. I hope regular editors of this article (on both sides) will perceive these changes as both NPOV and stylistic improvements. If not, I'm sure someone will revert and no harm done. - EDM 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it is important to point out that "The Pedleys were each convicted and imprisoned for various frauds unrelated to Melchizedek during the 1980s, for which they maintained their innocence." Otherwise the reader would be led to think that the fraud convictions were connected to Melchizedek, and since they maintained their "innocence", that gives balance. I think I read somewhere that two of the Pedley cases were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And there was a Sacramento Bee article around 15 years ago, that quoted a then U.S. Marshal that the Pedley case was politically motivated, which could classify the Pedley's as political prisoners at one extreme of the argument. Also, it is enough to say "multiple fraud convictions" since I can't find where they were both convicted of land fraud, or share fraud.
Should be "All of these territories, except for Karitane", as Karitane is not claimed by any other government.
Should be were "already claimed by, or dependencies of recognized states" as Rotuma is an semi autonomous dependency, not as possession, and Solkope is apparently uninhabited. This took place in 2000 so the opening in the 1990s isn't 100% accurate.
It is said that possession is 9/10th of the law, so if these islands are uninhabited, with the exception of Malpelo, how can they be possessions?
Should say, "None of these claims appear to be recognized by any established government" as we haven't taken a poll of all of the nations, and the DOM web site displays copies of treaties of peace and recognition with recognized governments that incorporated reference to Antarctica and the islands of Melchizedek. What other islands could they be referring to?
The reason that I believe that it is wrong to say that the Washington Post and Forbes call it a ruse, is that while the article in the WP was entitled the "Ruse that Roared" the article itself had two opinions, that it "MAY merely be a ruse" and it "MAY be the ultimate post-modern state." And Forbes has called it "dubious" but never used the word, "ruse". Balance requires, fairness and being factual for each issue, doesn't it?
Regarding the over 300 would-be investors that have lost money in purported investments, isn't it important that those operations were never run by the government of Melchizedek or the Pedley's but only by the banks it licensed, which is a huge difference? Even the media has pick up on this point.
From a legal standpoint should the part about the SEC include both the beginning and end of that case, namely:
In the opening of a civil action against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. [17]. After the SEC settled that case, instead of referring to DOM as "non-existent", it wrote, the "Dominion of Melchizidek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments." [18]
Shouldn't this statement below by Shockey be balanced with the only official statement from the US OCC Director where it only calls Melchizedek a "non-recognized sovereignty that licensed Caribbean Bank of Commerce"?:
According to John Shockey, former special assistant, U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, in an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999: "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." [19] The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website only refers to Melchizedek as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that " licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. [20]
Regarding Gillespie, shouldn't it be pointed out that the arrests were never followed by convictions and that the DOM web site points out that Gillespie was not authorized to sell citizenship or jobs?
BTW, I can't find where DOM was ever sued, or where any official of DOM was ever arrested or convicted of any crime while acting on behalf of DOM.
Regarding the article in the Washington Post noting that The Dominion of Melchizedek was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, if you leave out "you get the feeling", it gives the reader the false impression that it is more than a "feeling" which the WP probably wouldn't like being falsely quoted about a UN member state. There is a big difference between saying that something would probably happen than getting the feeling that something might happen. If it was that easy to get a letter of official and formal diplomatic recognition from CAR, you can be sure that other micronations would have followed with such a letter.
I can't find any source that has called DOM a hoax in the past decade, so why do we "See also: Hoax". The WP concluded that DOM "is no gag", although France need not worry since DOM would not sweep the Olympics.
Gene, DOM's currency was quoted on Bloomberg according to Forbes, and CBS. CBS website said something like "DOM claims to be an ecclesiastical sovereignty based on the old testament, but it has received more recognition as a "tax haven." and I believe, if memory serves, their currency is either called "Dominion Dollars" or "Melchizedek Dollars". Why did you change "established" to "created"? And BTW, Context Magazine pointed to the 1950s as the time when it was founded. I believe conceived in the 1950s is a logical way to point to its origins. However, it wasn't really founded or formally established until its constitution was signed in 1991.
There are a few other issues, but this is more than enough for now. Sincerely, Johnski 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/10/60II/main182244.shtml
it made the regular fraud claims (which we all know about) but it also pointed out:
I am going to stay away from further editing to this article until the arbitration is concluded. - EDM 05:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that this article is cleaned up and looking a lot better, I think it's time to reopen the idea of a rfc in terms of merging David Even Pedley into this article. My thought is that despite anyone's opinion about DOM, it would enhance the article and also get rid of an unneeded second article.
Before I go through with the rfc, I'd like to open the floor for comments or concerns about this idea. Davidpdx 07:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I think at this point we should table this conversation until the arbitration case is decided. Davidpdx 01:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
This is another fair warning about reverting without consensus. The article may have been changed a bit in the past few days (which I had nothing to do with), but that doesn't mean your changes have consensus. I again warn you, if you start a revert war, I will go forward with filing an arbitration claim. You can groan and moan all you want about whether or not the article if "fair and balanced" in your opinion, but it does not change the fact you are reverting without consensus. Davidpdx 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The section on "origin" actually doesn't contain any information at all about the origin of the dominion. How was it founded, who by, where is a map, what's its history, how is it alleged to be a sovreign state, what responses have other countries given via political channels to this, have any other countries not accepted its sovreignty? FT2 11:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
There is confusion of the difference between defacto recognition and dejure recognition. Defacto recognition can be as simple as a statement from one government about another government, or an act. There are many levels of this type of recognition. We only need to quote credible sources, and let the reader decide. Since the DOM itself is the subject of the article, its official web site can also be quoted. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
No, We only need to quote credible sources, and the position of DOM is also important since the story is about DOM, so their web site can be quoted as well. Some of it is in there, but it isn't complete enough or fully balanced, and parts are not factual, such as the quote from Washington Post using the word, "probably" when it should be "you get the feeling". I haven't been trying to add new content so much as make it more accurate and balanced with the stuff that is there. Johnski 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
copied by: KAJ 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should be 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 Dominion of Melchizedek, Solkope or Bokak Atoll 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. Davidpdx 13:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Immigrationissues2002 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Centauri. Thanks for the reply. Who are these criminals, what crimes are they doing and what is a sockpuppet ? Sorry for the many questions but if they are criminals, shouldn´t that be dealt with by the relevant authorities. I have spent the past few days specifically investigating the dominion, their website and officers and to be quite frank, I have found absolutely NOTHING to indicate that any official of the dominion has ever been convicted or even tried for any criminal activity related to the dominion. I have read that some individuals were convicted before, during and after the formation of the dominion, but not anyone officially acting on their behalf. I am trying to keep an open mind on the issue, but to me it sounds quite biassed to say the things that you have above. In my opinion you are making it sound as though the officials of the dominion are responsable for the actions of the owners of the banks and other businesses that have registered with them and have commited crimes...that would be like saying that President Bush is responsable for Enron...hardly a valid statement. Anyway, you probably have a reason for saying what you did, I would like to hear it, on here or to my private e-mail address.
Hi Davipdx. Thanks for your reply. I shall certainly look in here from time to time to see the outcome of this issue.
Immigrationissues 05:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Since it's obvious that editors taken to arbitration refuse to stop reverting this article, then the next step is an injunction. This only adds fuel to the fire in terms of your behavior. Davidpdx 04:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. -- Billpg 23:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)