Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bokak Atoll

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KAJ (talk | contribs) at 19:01, 4 November 2005 (→Melchizedek nonsense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:01, 4 November 2005 by KAJ (talk | contribs) (→Melchizedek nonsense)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bokak Atoll article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1

Previous discussions:

Melchizedek nonsense

I have removed the Melchizedek nonsense from this page. This is an uninhabited sovereign territory of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and they haven't given it away to anyone. Furthermore, nobody from "Melchizedek" has ever set foot there, nor are they ever likely to, and hence they have no way of asserting their "claim". Indeed, the fact that they "claim" it is totally meaningless. They might as well "claim" the moon. --Centauri 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Centauri, The only reason that most people know about Taongi is because of the lease that Melchizedek has over it, from Taongi's Paramount Chief. Melchizedek's claim to Taongi has been mentioned in several credible news sources, and is in the Wiki article about Melchizedek, a micronation. Micronations are one of the 500 most popular topics in Misplaced Pages. We don't know if any Melchizedekian has ever set foot on Taongi, and it really doesn't matter either way. You have been accused of being a sock-puppet of Gene Poole and as you both use "nonsense" so often that encourages me to believe the argument. Having a claim to the moon is a far fetched comparision. And a lease from a Iroijlaplpa is not meaningless. Sincerely, Johnski 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I have had disagreements and heated arguments with Centauri, but I agree with him on the Melchizedek issue. I have added this page to my watchlist and will revert on sight any Melchizedek content added to this article. Samboy 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Centauri, despite what anyone says, I don't believe what's being said in terms of you being both people. I'd encourage you to continue to watch the pages regardless of the accusations Johnski or others come up with. As I've said, I'm going to take a more passive role and get back to editing some articles that I want to improve and/or create. That doesn't mean I won't be watching him though. Davidpdx 03:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins "A Wikipedian article about the Dominion of Melchizedek..." cannot be placed into this article because it is a violation of the guidelines in WP:ASR. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is also clearly not approved by the consensus of the editors on this article, as only one has attempted to insert it, but several have reverted. It has definitely not won consensus on the talk page. Consensus on the talk page is necessary when you insert something and it is reverted: the reversion indicates that consensus does not yet exist and you should discuss your change and obtain consensus on the talk page before inserting it again.

Johnski, this edit warring has got to stop. The three revert rule is not a license to make three reverts per day. You are consistently making as many reverts as you possibly can so that you violate the spirit of the law while not violating the letter. That's unacceptable. I'm going to look into where I can report you for this.

If you want to have any hope of exerting any influence over these articles, you had better listen up and start confining yourself to proposing changes on the talk page and waiting for consensus before editing articles. Otherwise you are going to be reverted by multiple editors as long as you are here and will ultimately find yourself blocked because of edit warring. You can and will be blocked for edit warring even if you have never technically violated the three revert rule.

I want to encourage you to read completely through WP:3RR and Misplaced Pages:Harmonious_editing_club before proceeding. I also want to point you to the sentence in WP:SOCK which states, "Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Misplaced Pages community." As far as I can tell you are, so far, a single-purpose account holder here at Misplaced Pages. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. JDavidb et al: Melchizedek's claim to this Atoll has be covered by international media both in print and tele. It is worthy of mention. The text is from the DOM article that there is consensus for. If it can't be said that it is quoting from Misplaced Pages, just take the word Misplaced Pages out.KAJ 06:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
KAJohnski, this claim has not been demonstrated to the consensus of editors of any article and any alleged documentation within Misplaced Pages only exists due to edit warring and not following the rules. Misplaced Pages is not a source. Sources used in Misplaced Pages can be a source, but of course they are open to examination and questioning. As mentioned ad infinitum, the alleged claims appear ludicrous to every Misplaced Pages editor so far other than all your sockpuppets that exist only to promote DOM. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Johnski I don't know where you get the idea that there is any consensus on either articles for your garbage, but there is not. I would warn you that this IS going to mediation and we will make it known about the various sockpuppets. If you revert, we will push to have your access to Misplaced Pages limited. I would take these threats very seriously. Davidpdx 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davids: It appears you have never taken the time to read or study a subject for which you claim to be experts. The parts that are quoted come from the article about Melchizedek that you and your supporters have repeatedly reverted to, and Gene Poole, et al have edited to their liking, are those portions. The real reason, as I see it, is that you just don't like the subject, so you want to remove it from Misplaced Pages. To me, the subject is interesting, and famous enough like other subjects to be covered in all of its notorious aspects. Melchizedek claims Clipperton, but I don't see that that is worth including in the Clipperton article, because that claim doesn't rise to the fame of Taongi and Solkope, nor are there leases involved.KAJ 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Dominion of Melchizedek and related pages

There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the DOM page 60+ times in the last two months. He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, that the version that is posted is bias. He also uses numerous sock puppets to revert this page as well as many others including Bokak Atoll. Johnski does not follow the rules of Misplaced Pages and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda.

Users complaning about Johnski's behavior:

Making a Complaint against the following:

Davidpdx 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks good. I don't think it's a good idea to list "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" as separate users, since there is a belief that these two people are the same user (e.g. look here); however I have dealt with this editor before, so go ahead and add my name to the list. Samboy 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)