Revision as of 16:05, 20 October 2005

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (21 July 2005 to 14 October 2005):

Breach of Good Faith

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 Misplaced Pages. Therefore, because no compromise was made the page should remain as is. Davidpdx 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I used a good faith opportuntity to revert after vandalism. I fear that the entire subject may be too much to work on at one time, so I'll give you point by point challenges, the first being, please cite me a credible source that states a "direct link to large scale banking fraud." Or let the person that wrote it cite it, if you can't find it, and give it here.Johnski 07:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to hault a compromise discussion. The article that was reverted after the vandalism was the "alternative article" that you were proposing in the talk page, which had no consensus. This in itself shows a lack of good faith. Davidpdx 07:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

So you'd rather see a reversion war than deal with a compromise? Cordially,Johnski 08:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it comes to, yes. And for the record, any reverts you make will be considered vandalism since there is no consensus and therefore the previous version must remain until a consensus is reached. You have refused to follow Misplaced Pages rules time and time again and instead write your own rules. That's not how it works. It was you that reverted the article to the "alternate version" with no consensus, showing a lack of good faith. Therefore, it is vandalism pure and simple. I've warned you, I will report vandalism. You can choose to look at it any way you want, but I'm not willing to work on an compromise any longer. Davidpdx 10:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

David, This shows me that you really never had any interest in a compromise, and it is clear that you really never looked closely enough to understand the points I made. Especially since you are not willing to answer my first email to you. I counted at least 7 different IP addresses and User names that showed tendency towards the versions that I worked on. So it isn't vandalism, especially when I've moved closer to other versions in working towards a compromise.

If no one can answer my first challenge, I'll remove that part from the version that you have approved, then move to the next point. Perhaps this is the method that should have been used in the beginning. CordiallyJohnski 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

First, you are absoutely mistaken that I approved anything. I tried to work with you in good faith, but you did in fact revert the page to your version. That is the honest truth. How about admitting that?

Second, I have stated I am not willing to work with you, therefore why would I respond to your email? This was a conversation we had a month ago in which you never responded. You would not respond to my prompts for proof as to certain claims you were making. In addition, your good buddy Samspade was insulting. Why would I work with either of you now?

Third, you are now claiming seven people support the version that you are pushing? I really think you should stop taking acid, it's really making you have delusions. In fact, there are TWO people (you and Samspade) that are pushing for the revisions. There are at lease three people that oppose any changes. Either way there is no consensus. If you would actually bother to read the rules, you would see that this means that the previous version must remain unless a consensus can be reached.

Fourth, it's not just me that is claiming your reverts are vandalism. If you want to take issue with the fact I'm calling it vandalism, you had better be prepared to deal with others as well as myself. I have in fact listed you and Samspade as vandalising this article. If it is reverted, then myself or someone else will be more then happy to ask for you to be banned. Davidpdx 12:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I already admitted that the one I reverted was the alternate version and never denied that, and I never said that you approved that alternate version. My reference to the one you approved, is the one you keep reverting back to. Do you not approve the one you keep reverting back to? Now, look, you are the one with the insults, claiming that I use acid, when in fact, I've never been brave enough to even try it, not once. My spititual faith from childhood till now prohibits such abuse. Perhaps if I did try it I would not be writing about this subject at all. Here are the more than 7 that I found, one of which at times was a duplication of myself when I used an IP address, 67.124.49.20, 63.164.145.198, 71.130.204.74, 66.245.247.37, 208.57.91.27, Rriter, Samspade aka SamuelSpade, 68.123.207.17, 202.162.71.63 with the last being the least supportive but showed in the past that he/she moves in the same direction, i.e. adding another country that may recognize DOM, etc. There are others that edited at related articles that also seemed to bend towards my editions that I did not list here, and mostly having User names, not just IP addresses. SincerelyJohnski 17:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are sadly mistaken. I did not approve the current article. If there is no concensus, then the current article must remain. Despite how many diffrent ip's or usernames you have, there is NO CONSENSUS! Davidpdx 02:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again you are not reading what I've written, as I never claimed you approved it. I only have one user name and have only used one IP address, but despite how many friends that will revert for you, there is NO CONSENSUS on Gene's version either. I'm only removing the bias by bringing balance to the article. What is your problem with that? CordiallyJohnski 08:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You are truly clueless, yes you did claim that I approved it. You also have reverted this article several times. The version is not Gene's nor mine it is the version that stands as of now. Yes, by default it has consensus, because nothing else has been agreed upon. Your edits continue only to do one thing, push the idea that DOM is legitimate. 11:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Unsigned by Davidpdx

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)

Quoted from the micronation talk page about Gene Poole's possible agenda

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. Misplaced Pages 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

Readers should note that the above statement is a deliberately misleading speculation, originally posted on an unrelated talk page, which has has no relevance to this discussion. --Gene_poole 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting from Misplaced Pages - "be bold in editing pages that are biased"

Quoting from Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Reported Vandalism

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)

3RR

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)

article that may be biased

Should this be added as a category?:

This article may be unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.

.

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)

Violation of 3RR Rule

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)

Monothesistic Religion

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)