Revision as of 10:49, 15 November 2005 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 edits →Arbitration← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:28, 16 November 2005 edit undoGene Poole (talk | contribs)7,821 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
==]== | ==]== | ||
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 ] - 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. --] 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | 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 ] - 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. --] 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
: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. --] 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
==I'm on wiki-vacation== | ==I'm on wiki-vacation== |
Revision as of 03:28, 16 November 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
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)
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)
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: )
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 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)
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)