Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 17 January 2006

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (21 July 2005 to 14 October 2005)
• Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 2 November 2005)
• Archive 3 (3 November 2005 to 31 December 2005)

Italic text== Accurancy & Balancing question for El C ==

Suggested addition to the SEC statement:

• When brining a lawsuit against a New York lawyer, the Dominion of Melchizedek was described as "non-existent" by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. . Subsequently, when the SEC settled that case, it wrote that the "Dominion of Melchizedek has a website promoting itself as a sovereign entity, recognized by certain governments."

Suggested addition to the OCC former employee's statement:

• In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999, John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, stated: "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." The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce.

• Also, shouldn't the WP quote be made accurate so that the article doesn't falsely claim that the WP "opined" that CAR would "probably" recognize, when it only wrote that "you get the feeling" that it would recognize. Seems that this inaccuracy is both an insult to the WP and to CAR. EDM suggested the quote should be corrected or totally removed, but Gene_Poole thinks the inaccurate version makes smoother reading, so he wants it to remain inaccurate. What do you think? Sincerely, Johnski 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I'm afraid I find that addition too detached for our purposes here. Of course, from the vantage point of the SEC's interests, they find it prudent not to call those governments "corrupt," not to acknowledge that the CAR is rather crudely under the domination of French imperialism (with direct presence of and intervention by French troops, clearly the decisive military force in the country), that their leadership is shameless enough to so vulgarly be bought off to procliam nonesensical titles, and so on. The document dosen't even mention the CAR. But I am. Anyway, unlike former officials, it dosen't make sense for them to qualify these governments, and conversely, it dosen't make sense for us to include it as "less vocal" of the DoM. In short, we can't simply add such a sanitizing excerpt, noted as an aside, i.e. outside of what otherwise are considered pertinent diplomatic circles, as per recognition. El_C 12:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear El C, No problem on the delay, but I think you have mixed up the three issues. The first issue is to only balance the SEC's statement currently in the article, with their follow up statement that the SEC made at the conclusion of their case. The second is the US OCC being less vocal than their former employee, and as it stands now only their former employee is quoted in the current article, but not the US OCC's official web site regarding DOM. The third is the fact that the Washington Post article didn't "opine" that CAR would "recognize the state of denial if it had a letterhead" as the current article about DOM now falsely proclaims, but the actual article only said that "you get the feeling" that CAR would recognize the state of denial if it had a letter head. Why is it so hard to have Misplaced Pages quote the Washington Post accurately? And why shouldn't the article be balanced with what the US OCC actually wrote about DOM? And why shouldn't the SEC mention of DOM in their case against that NY lawyer be balanced with their statement at the settlement of that same case? Sincerely, Johnski 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the response. Perhaps it would be best to deal with one issue/proposal at a time, specifically citing what is there versus what you wish to supplant/supplument it with. Because at the moment that isn't entirely clear. Regards, El_C 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. El C, I hope you don't mind me helping with this subject. I would suggest by starting with making the Washington Post article reference accurate.

The current article has it this way,

• An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but opined that that nation would probably "recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

The portion in question of the acutal article states:

"You get the feeling that the Central African Republic would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

So I suggest our article should state accurately:

• An article in the Washington Post reported that DoM was "diplomatically recognized" by the Central African Republic, in 1993, but commented "you get the feeling" that that nation "would recognize the State of Denial if it had a letterhead."

The main point is to change "probably" to what the article actual said, "you get the feeling" so please feel free to use different wording outside the quotes. Best, KAJ 00:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no further reason to entertain these nonsense proposals designed to imply that "Melchizedek" is something other than a criminal scam. The statement in qestion is 100% accurate as it stands, and there's no reason to re-word it using weasel words. The author of the Washington Post article clearly offers an opinion on the subject of the "recognition" of Melchizedek" by the Central Afrian Republic - which is what the word "opines" means. No amount of obfscatory babbling by Johnski and his sockpuppet/meatpupet army to the contrary can change that. --Gene_poole 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gene_Poole: Can you please explain how making the Washington Post reference accurate is using weasel words, or how it is designed to imply that DoM is something other than a criminal scam? Best, KAJ 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again the two of you are up to your old scam. Laying the ground work for the appearance of having consensus and then reverting. As I stated below (which has gone unanswered), this is the reason the case was taken to arbitration. It appears that the arbitration case will lay out some finding of fact against both you and Johnski. The arbitration case has not concluded, so if you guys are playing the old bait and switch game maybe it's time to have to the article protected again. Davidpdx 07:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: This is not an attempt to giving the appearance of consensus, rather to get help from El C to make the Washington Post reference accurate, which you apparently don't want. Gene has the nerve to say that making the Washington Post reference accurate is using weasel words, when his own words sound like weasel words to me, where Gene_Poole wrote on your page, "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." Now he has the nerve to say there is no difference between "probably" and "you get the feeling" and that exchanging the words is 100% accurate. Hopefully El C has the patience to get to the bottom of this and see the need for accuracy and not just take Gene's word for it. Best, KAJ 21:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My first question is where did El C supposedly bring up this question? To my knowledge, he hasn't been very active in editing this article at all the last few months. He removed the NPOV notice on the page, but that's all I'm aware of. Feel free to look at the article history, in the last three months that's the only edit he's made.

In terms of the talk page, it goes back almost 4 months since he's made a contribution on this article. Again, please feel free to check for yourself. If you have a problem with a specific user, why are you not sending that person a message?

While discussing it is fine, please keep in mind there is still an arbitration hearing going on at the moment. Davidpdx 11:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, I did bring up these issues with El C (not that I have a problem with El C) on his talk page. There are enough votes to finalize the arbcom, so why shouldn't these issues be dealt with now, and how do you see the arbcom affecting these unresolved issues? Sincerely, Johnski 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First, there actually aren't enough votes to close the arbitration hearing or it would have been done already. If you look at the page, it says six arbitrators is needed for a majority. Last I looked they only had four.

Second, the arbitration does effect what's happening to this article, because of the edit waring going on. Furthermore, if you look at the possible outcomes of the case (I say possible because it is not yet finalized) they include:

Finding of Facts

• POV war-The edit warring is sustained, and marked by aggressive editing by Johnski and a host of apparent associates.

• Association-Johnski, and his numerous puppets, are reasonably believed to be associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek and are capable of using a wide variety of IPs to access Misplaced Pages.

Proposed Remedies

• Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. (note: these have been taken directly from the Arbitration Preposed Decision page).

Please explain to me why the arbitration outcome wouldn't have an impact on the "unresolved issues" that you continue to push? Davidpdx 04:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My point in bring these (unattributed comments) into play is the fact that Johnski has used the talk page to justify his reverts and claim consensus. This has happened over and over again and is part of the reason behind the arbitration case.

Second, my comments are signed. The above comments about the arbitration case were slightly off center as I didn't get them offset to match my comments. Those are now fixed. Davidpdx 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification/indentation. In light of my explanation above, I remain content with the tag removal. Regards, El_C 15:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)