Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SamuelSpade (talk | contribs) at 18:23, 6 October 2005 (Taongi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Feel free to leave me a message at the bottom

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)

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)