| Revision as of 02:26, 16 October 2006 editDavidpdx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,793 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:12, 16 October 2006 edit undo207.47.122.10 (talk) →DoM WhitewashingNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| It appears our serial DoM whitewasher is back yet again after conducting several "test" edits throughout the month. This is the same pattern that the person has used in the past before starting a revert war. ] 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | It appears our serial DoM whitewasher is back yet again after conducting several "test" edits throughout the month. This is the same pattern that the person has used in the past before starting a revert war. ] 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :If you are referring to my last revert, that is not whitewashing, but what you are doing is attempted "brainwashing". Good day. ] 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:12, 16 October 2006
Previous discussions:
- Archive 1 (21 July 2005 to 14 October 2005)
- Archive 2 (15 October 2005 to 31 December 2005)
- Archive 3 (1 Janurary 2006 to 30 April 2006)
Arbitration Case
Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.Davidpdx 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Helpful if you actually link the decision Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision, so people don't just have to take your word for it.--Isotope23 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
categories according to definitions in Misplaced Pages
How can this be a criminal organization? Wouldn't some court of law first have to make this determination? The cases I can find involving people of DOM never make any determination about Melchizedek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Criminal_organization
People convicted of organized crime as a category also seems a little excessive because a racketeering conviction does not necessarily result from organized crime, unless the indictment states that there was organized crime. I can't see where organized crime was used as the basis for a racketeering cause of action in any of the cases mentioned. "Racketeering" can also be used as a cause of action in a civil case and does not necessarily mean "organized crime".
http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:People_convicted_of_organized_crime
If those responsible for adding DOM to these categories can, please give references that substantiate same. (unsigned by user:70.137.153.72 16:31, September 25, 2006) 70.137.153.72 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Guess who's back Davidpdx 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
DoM Whitewashing
It appears our serial DoM whitewasher is back yet again after conducting several "test" edits throughout the month. This is the same pattern that the person has used in the past before starting a revert war. Davidpdx 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you are referring to my last revert, that is not whitewashing, but what you are doing is attempted "brainwashing". Good day. 207.47.122.10 05:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)