Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 25 October 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.

Re: Deletion

You need to create the discussion page. Click on the link to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aidan Coughlan either here or on the page, and then enter {{subst:afd2|pg=Aidan Coughlan|text=Whatever reason you had to delete the page should go here.}} and save the page. Then add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aidan Coughlan}} to the same page you've edited before. Which part of this was confusing, BTW? JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ecclesiastical state

Dear Davidpdx, I had received your message regarding Ecclesiastical state. I did not vote delete. Instead, I voted comment and suggest that there is a duplicate article which can be redirected. --Hurricane111 21:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Davidpdx, I received your message and I concur... My vote has been changed to redirect with a suggested lock.--Isotope23 13:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The submitter of an AFD request doesn't decide when they close. I think they stay up for a minimum of five to seven days or so, and then whenever an admin gets around to looking at them he or she decides the consensus, acts, and closes the discussion. Jdavidb 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

DOM

Hi David, took your advice and signed up under Johnski. I've started a subject of Micronation under Dominion of Melchizedek which you can take a look at and let me know what you think so far. Thank you Johnski 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, David, I'm not sure what parts you want me to prove, so could we take one point at a time? You can look at the talk page of Dominion of Melchizedek and see where I posted a version that I worked from the latest version that was posted there, and compare it to Gene Poole's last version, and let me know the first point you think I should prove. Let's take it one point at a time, otherwise, I'm not sure where to start or what you think needs proving.Johnski 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Davidpdx, I'm disappointed that you couldn't see any of the points I made. Did you sincerely try to understand what I sincerely tried to point out to you? Perhaps you were so prejudiced when you started, it was hard to honestly look at my points or believe any of the evidence I provided. Please at least try to respond to what I wrote in reponse to your last questions. If everything I've written turned out to be true, would that change your thinking? You think that I'm trying to prove that DOM is good? No, just that the article only tells one side of the story and is inacurate, and totally ignores the other side. Is it wrong to to try to bring balance to the article?Johnski 06:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

John, It goes far beyond seeing the points that you are making. I'm willing to, but again as I've said countless times the rules regarding sighting creditable sources need to be followed. Should someone break the rules simply to have a fair and balanced article as you are stating. No, they shouldn't. And even if I did, someone else would come along and point out the lack of creditable proof and pull the claim out of the article (rightfully so).

I've left you some link to the guidelines Misplaced Pages uses. I also asked for the links that SamSpade was talking about (SBS, ect) on the DOM page. If you could leave a message with those on my talk page, I'll look at them. Davidpdx 10/8/05 1:34 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: You claim to be teaching English as a second language but you spell "citing" as "sighting". You also claimed to be willing to see the points made by Johnski but made not one effort to bend an inch his way over a period of the weeks he made many arguments for many reasonable small changes. He even withheld making reversions for more than a week at your request, giving you time to make any compromise. As an observer, it seems that you had no intention of any compromise, or you are Gene Poole, or he writes emails that you publish as your own work. If you are really an English teacher, please show that you were sincere by honestly looking at the "Just the facts" attempt to continue where Johnski failed on the Dominion of Melchizedek talk page. It only deals with the opening line of the article. I think by taking one sentence at a time, "line upon line, precept upon precetp," we have a better opportunity to reach a consensus. KAJ 21:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

re Ecclesiastical State

Hi David. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. Regarding the AfD of Ecclesiastical state, by my reading, there were six editors who were in favor of deleting the article and nine who were not (any recommendation other than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep). Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. And assuming that those editors who recommended deletion would support redirection, there does seem to be a consensus for redirection. However, such a decision is a normal editorial decision and doesn't involve AfD. If you want to redirect the page, you could propose the redirection on the talk page first, or you could be bold and simply redirect, in either case, citing the AfD discussion as justification. Does that make sense? Have I answered you questions? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or your have other questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

David I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 01:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Taongi

I think it is much easier to deal with this seperately because it is a much smaller issue than the entire Melchizedek story. Therefore, over here please consider that this version appears to be perfectly factual and balanced, because it has claimed as part of its sovereign territory Taongi and DOM clearly is an entity, aspiring to statehood, that has a history of licensing banks that defaud investors. This gives the counter balance in a polite way, that "The only basis for this claim seems to be related to a 'sovereign master lease' granted by the Iroijlaplap of Taongi Atoll." There is no dispute over whether or not the Iroijlaplap granted such a lease, only the fact as to the meaning of the lease, which should be left for readers to decide without opinions of our writers inserting stuff.SamuelSpade 22:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Left this message for you at Taongi talk.SamuelSpade 18:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi was seen on SBS TV saying that he "granted Melchizedek a 50 year master sovereign lease over Taongi." The only dispute is over the significance of that lease. The way this is written now clearly lets the reader decide the significance of that instead of a Wikipedian making his or her opinion of its meaning, so please revert to the compromise version that is clearly factual and balanced. If you don't revert it, you can be sure someone else will. This is clearly a smaller issue than the entire article about Melchizedek. While the entire article of Melchizedek may never be resolved and end up a reversion war, this issue is small enough to resolve now.SamuelSpade 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC) When I wrote, "the way it is written now" meant the last version I posted, not the reverted one you placed on the Bokak article.SamuelSpade 20:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I agree with Sam, but really don't have the time to go though every link I've show here and there, and I've seen others point to, and put it all toghether for you at this time, but will try to find time in the future. I didn't see the link you said I could find the rules you referenced. I don't know how the web site of Quatloos, or Angelfire, etc., are any more authoritative than what has been show to you, but you accept those without question. I think there are a few hard headed people out there that either have an agenda, or just don't want to see anything but what they want to see.Johnski 03:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The truth is there is NO consensus. Because the two of you claim this trash is true, doesn't not make it so. It is absolutely ridiclous to claim consensus. I have posted on BOTH your your talk pages about consensus on Misplaced Pages and neither one of you seem to care about it. I will continue to revert the page back to the one that was last agreed upon and report all reverts by both you as vandalism. If you want a revert war, simply bring it on. It is not only myself that disagrees with what you are posting, there are others who have made comments on the DOM page regarding the lack of proof you base your article on. I will be posting this on both of your talk pages in order to make sure you see this message. Davidpdx 11:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You and Jdavidb have totally missed the point of what I am trying to do with the Melchizedek article, as I've backed off the original position and only tried to make a compromise using stuff that there is consensus on, just rewriting it to tone it down. I didn't revert it just to revert it but because there was vandalism on the version that you seem to approve. You can also see I've reverted from vandalism on the Enenkio and New Utopia pages without making any changes to those articles.Johnski 06:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There was vandalism by someone else, which was reverted, that is true. But I do not agree upon the alternate version that you had posted on the talk page. If you simply reverted back to the version that was there then that is fine. I looked at the current article and to me it looked like the article you posted was the "alternate version" that was posted by you. If it was that version that you posted, I would remind you that there was no consensus. Hopefully that clears up the issue.

Please be aware that that I am not the only one watching this page. There are two or three other people that are monitoring articles in terms of what is posted. Certainly these people agree with me that the things you are posting do not have enough proof behind them to merit changing the articles. You can disagree with any of us as much as you want, but I doubt it will change any of our opinions. Davidpdx 06:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your email

Hi David,

You promised to post your email address but I don't remember seeing it. I think I could clear up some of the points a lot easier and faster if we could use email.Johnski 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did post me email address. If you go back and look at an old version of your talk page you'll find it. I only left it there for a few days because of the possiblity of spammers getting it. However, I would suggest reading the DOM talk page before you do that. It probably will clear up where I stand at this point.

To put it bluntly, I've asked for web links or other methods of proof in terms of specific points you claim in the compromise article discussion. Both you and Samspade claim you've showed me that proof. When I've asked for those, they could just as well be put on my user talk page. In one instance, Samspade even went as far as insulting me on the DOM talk page. Both of you have reverted articles and lack a good faith effort in the discussion. Therefore, I have archived the discussion and posted my reasoning for withdrawing from discussions on a compromise article. Davidpdx 07:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

David, Please check your incoming email from me. As I finally found your email address that you left me back when.Johnski 09:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page as well as the DOM talk page, I am finished working on a compromise. Davidpdx 10:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Helpful links

Here are some helpful links regarding policies on using sources on Misplaced Pages:

Misplaced Pages:Cite sources Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources Misplaced Pages:No original research Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

I have posted new comments on the DOM talk page again. Most likely I won't get around to putting comments again until Friday or so. Davidpdx 10/5/05 13:30 (UTC)

David, thank you for these helpful references. Even though you have personally attacked me, I will try to be friendly towards you. I apologize for anything that I've written that may have offened you.Johnski 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

that both supporters and opponents can agree.

David, I haven't given up on you yet, and I've read again stuff that you suggested, and found that it wholly supports what I'm trying to achieve here. This is from the founder of Misplaced Pages:

The original formulation of NPOV

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.--Jimbo Wales, Misplaced Pages founder

(Unsigned by Johnski)

Category deletion

I answered your question at WP:HD and removed the AfD glue for it. It should now be a clean slate for you to follow the process I gave a link to at the help deak. --GraemeL 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

afd

Hi - seems something is missing in your listing here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Solkope and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 18. Please fix, thanks - Vsmith 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I know the AFD instructions can be very complicated, so don't worry. For your reference, the instructions are found at {{AfDFooter}}. Titoxd 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to be able to go along with the AfDs; but one result of an AfD can be public consensus on an NPOV article - which can be better than deletion. Septentrionalis 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sock

David: Thanks for your note. I'm going to stay out of it inasmuch as possible. -- Essjay · Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

IP numbers

Hi,

No, I haven't worked with any developers at all, sorry, except once when my password stopped working because of a bug. The quickest way to contact some of them or ask for referrals might be on IRC; see Misplaced Pages:IRC channels. Tempshill 23:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Yes I have noticed the signs of sock pupetry. And while I was briefly taken in my his concern for consensus I have seen thru that too. Calling him a vandel, however, does seem to me incorrect and worse it may lead to the casual observer thinking it is he that is the reasonable one. Which is not to say that, if I had for a longer period been debating with someone who thinks an obvious hoax should be given serious consideration, I might not now be using the v-word.Dejvid 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, however there is no other means in which to describe his behavior. Most importantly, I am glad your aware of the situation. Thanks for your continued help. Davidpdx 09:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Solkope

Davidpdx, could you please look at the sourcing ont the Solkope talk page and discuss this either in the article talk (or my user talk page if you would prefer) before reverting again? You've already pulled the text you find objectionable 4 times so I would prefer to discuss your objections to it and/or the sourcing of the claims before we get into an edit war over this. To be clear, I think the DoM claim is complete bunk and would never stand up to a legal challenge (mostly because there is no clear history of title from the purported "sovereign owner"), but the fact that documents purporting ownership of the islet were produced in a court case is interesting and the claim of ownership is probably the most notable thing to happen on Solkope in the past 50 years. Please detail what your objections are; perhaps there is wording that could be used that you would find more acceptible.--Isotope23 16:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

First, thanks for writing back. You don't have to post this conversation on the Talk page for that article, we can have it here and on my Talk page if you would prefer.

I agree with you that DoM is not legitimate and that the docs I posted are not legal. What I'm trying to portray here is the fact that DoM has purported to own the island of Solkope and this (as well as their other actions on Rotuma) have created press, particularly on Rotuma itself. In fact, the DoM representative on Rotuma was actually barred from returning to the island by the ruling council for all the stuff he pulled. What I'm trying to come up with is a way to portray the fact that the DoM has laid claim to this islet, but also portray the fact that this claim has never been substantiated materially. The primary reason I even included it in the article is because it is possibly the most notable feature of the island: that it is claimed by a supposed micronation. I agree with you that it is most likely a hoax, but (and this is just my opinion) some hoaxes have enough notability to merit some mention. Piltdown Man is an example (and one farm more notable than this). I'm not in anyway trying to legitimize any claims on Solkope, I'm just trying to write an article that contains all the information there is about this islet.

I have not looked at the full edit history of you, Johnski, et al, but I've gotten a bit of the flavor of it, so I understand your reluctance and suspicion regarding anything to do with DoM. I'm by no means asking you to work with anyone on this to come to a consensus. I'm just trying to come up with a fair and neutral wording here. I'm open to any suggestions and you can always use "email this user" in the toolbox if you don't want to get into another needless argument with people.

Regards, --Isotope23 02:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks Davidpdx... oh and concerning David Even Pedley, even after my rewrite, my delete vote still stands. If it survives AfD or the consensus is merge, I will certainly attempt to condense and merge into DoM main article. After that, I think I'm done with DoM for a while... I think I'll just go back to rooting out band vanity pages.--Isotope23 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me Davidpdx... I'll toss it up and see what happens.--Isotope23 14:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page

Please visit my talk page, User:KAJ made changes to the article and I'm trying to reach consensus (just easier to keep the discussion on that page).--Isotope23 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reponse to your message

Davidpdx, while I understand your point, I have a couple of issues with refering to DoM with the "fraud" terminology in the context of the Solkope article. Primarily because it just isn't necessary to do so. Let me make an anology (feel free to groan now)... an apple is a fruit, but you don't see everyone appending the word "apple" with "fruit" everytime it appears in a wikipedia article. By wikilinking apple, it allows the interested reader to follow up and learn more about the referenced entity. The first sentence of the DoM article clearly lays out the fraud claim (well at least how it stands right now... but that is entirely another issue). It's just not necessary to append every mention of an entity with an adjective if it is clearly labeled in the entities parent article. Calling DoM a fraud in the context of the Solkope article comes pretty close to WP:POINT, even if it is 100% a true statement (and I am inclined to agree with you that it is). Whether it is 2 people who object or 200, it appears more to be a statement designed for incitement, just as "diplomatically recongnized" appears to be on the flipside. I'm opposed to using either terminology in the context of this article. Linking DoM allows any reader to go and read a much fuller discussion of all the issues surrounding DoM. I favor wording like "purports" because claims have been made, but not substantiated. This is my position. Heh, I'm starting to understand what it must be like to mediate North Korea/U.S. (et al.) multilateral talks.--Isotope23 19:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Isotope23: Forgive me if you are a woman. I remember you love music, but not your gender. You really made me laugh as if Davidpdx and I are like diplomats from two countries fighting and you, a diplomat from a third country. I hope that breaks the ice between us and relations can become a little friendlier as they thaw from your help with this subject! It seems we are both learning from your help. KAJ 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)