Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KAJ (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 24 October 2005 (→Melchizedek sockpuppets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Tom, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here's some tips:

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page
• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Misplaced Pages policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 21:16, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that you could be a valuable addition to WikiProject Mathematics. A lot of our math material is written by people with PhDs in math, so it tends to be very high-level. Even topics that are approachable by most people are not always explained in ways that would help a non-mathematician.

If you teach introductory mathematics, you probably have a lot of experience making lower-level material understandable. Articles on subjects like factoring by grouping would be entirely appropriate, and greatly appreciated. Of course, it's always good to check what's there already. There's almost certainly discussion of factoring on Misplaced Pages somewhere, so you'd want to find it and make sure that your new article finds its place in the existing web of knowledge.

Anyway, hope you stick around and keep contributing. If you need anything, don't hesitate to drop me a message on my talk page.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 02:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:41, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

See Conspiracy Theory discussion on other page

Hi, some of my recent edits are based on a big discussion on this page:

Please join in.--Cberlet 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Dirigisme

I'm a bit unhappy about your copyediting. For instance, as far as I know, manuals of style usually specify that one does not use a capital after a colon or semicolon. I reverted your changes, feel free to let me know your opinion. David.Monniaux 18:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Society of Jesus

Thanks for your quick fix after my error of omission. --Dpr 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

George Washington edit summary

Howdy. Changing "Washington first gained prominence as an officer during" to "Washington first achieved prominence as an officer in" isn't exactly vandalism, as your edit summary indicates. If you disagree with a grammatical change like that one, please say so in the edit summary rather than referring to it as vandalism. Thanks, android79 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. See User talk:Android79 and User talk:209.7.119.170. Tom harrison 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Superscan

You can let it run, or enter a comment saying that you withdraw the nomination. The choice is yours. Don't let my single keep vote bully you into withdrawing it if you still have reservations about it. If you do withdraw it, I know the markup to mark it as closed. --GraemeL 20:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I had some concerns at first, but I think they can be addressed by expanding the article. See Talk:Superscan. I'm inclined to let the vote run its course. Thanks, Tom harrison 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek

Mr. Harrison, why do you want to start with the article about DOM that is less balanced and less complete as a starting point? KAJ 12:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Having examined both, it looks to me like the version I suggested is in fact better-balanced and more complete, and is preferred by a consensus of editors. Tom harrison 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The version I chose to edit, had more quotes in it and gave two sides of the story, so I'm not clear why you feel that it is better-balanced and more complete. KAJ 13:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Having come to this through the request for comment, I know little and care less about the Dominion of Melchizedek. I looked at both versions and reached a conclusion based on my own judgement. Other reasonable men might disagree. The place to argue the merits of the different versions of the article is on the talk page.

Like the rest of the editors you can do as you please; But so far that doesn't seem to be working very well, having resulted in an edit war, request for comment, and suspicions of sockpuppetry. Like the rest of us, you want to improve Misplaced Pages; Your methods aren't getting you what you want. If you'll excuse some gratuitous advice, I suggest you take a day to pause and think, and then try to build consensus for what you want to do a little at a time. Tom harrison 14:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this gratuitous advice, which I will follow by taking a day to pause and think about it. KAJ 14:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison: Have posted my first attempt to build consensus about the first line of the article about Dominion of Melchizedek entitled "just the facts". Please have a look and let me know what I should do next. KAJ 19:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek sockpuppets

Please be aware that KAJ is one of the sockpuppets used by Johnski, who has been attempting to insert his outrageous POV concerning Melchizedek into multiple articles over many months, despite a strong consensus against this by many other editors. His actions in this regard have been identified as persistent vandalism of Misplaced Pages - for which he has been reported numerous times. For evidence of sockpuppet activity see here. This editor is strongly suspected of being an active member of Melchizedek - and quite possibly is a member of the Pedley family. He is incapable of rational discourse on this subject and should not be encouraged. --Centauri 23:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I read some of the discussion on the talk page. Unless there are IP addresses confirmed as the source of edits under multiple names, I'm going to suspend a conclusion. In one sense it doesn't matter except for votes and discussions. The writing is good or bad no matter who wrote it.

Still, I understand your concluding point. I have no interest in seeing the article adopt a tone of naive credulity. In fact, I have only a limited, and waning, interest in the DoM. I will say that so far KAL has behaved reasonably with me. Maybe taking the article a paragraph at a time and considering his recommendations would be useful, if time-consuming. I welcome your opinion on the proposed first paragraph. I understand it must be exasperating to keep re-hashing old arguments. After all, I'm the new-comer here, via the request for comment. I don't want to seem to come in and impose anything on people who have researched this in detail. Tom harrison 00:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. The reason I say that Johnski should not be encouraged is for precisely the reason you outlined above. He uses a very specific technique in attempting to insinuate his pro-DOM POV into articles - and that is to initially conduct what appears to be a "reasonable" discussion with parties unfamiliar with the dispute/s or his prior editing behaviour, on a "line by line" basis. This results in the discussion being dragged out interminably, endlessly regurgitating matters that have been discussed at length with other editors previously, while simultaneously giving him the apparent pretext to revert the article to his preferred version, using wildly misleading edit summaries. This is the well-practised technique of a fraudster whose intent is to deliberately mislead. The real intent is to exhaust those with whom he disagrees by entangling them in pointless circular arguments that continually sidestep the real issue, and which are devoid of evidential support. In the end most people throw up their arms in frustration and run screaming from the room - which allows him to continue unhindered. Just ask Davidpdx, who has gone from an outlook not dissimilar to your own, to adamant opposition, all within a few short weeks. --Centauri 01:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Tom, I wanted to address the comment you made in the above conversation: "I will say that so far KAL has behaved reasonably with me. Maybe taking the article a paragraph at a time and considering his recommendations would be useful, if time-consuming. I welcome your opinion on the proposed first paragraph. I understand it must be exasperating to keep re-hashing old arguments."

First, Johnski (aka KAL/Saumelspade/etc) will not act in good faith. There have been many well documented cases of this user reverting and not showing good faith. I urge you to take the time to look back through the archieve talk pages as well the history of the article itself in terms of his behavior in reverting the article.

Second, I did try in good faith to come up with a compromise. Each time I asked for proof I was told by Johnski (aka KAL/ Saumelspade/etc) that they (they being his multiple personalities) had provided it. Even during the time we were trying to compromise, Johnski (aka KAL/ Saumelspade/etc) claimed he had seven people that supported his version. "I counted at least 7 different IP addresses and User names that showed tendency towards the versions that I worked on."-Johnski (see current talk page). This begs the question, where are those seven people? I respect the fact that you may not have a large amount of time to spend on this article. However, given the situation it is important to know the background of the situation and the lies that this user has commmitted and the fraud in which he is pushing.

Third, don't your think it is suspicious that these "new" users pop up out of no where, but Johnski suddenly disappears? I guarantee you it is no coincidence. There have been several users who have spend a large amount of time making sure to keep in check the fradulent material that Johnski (aka KAL/Saumelspade/etc) have been pushing. His newest campaign is to create as many articles (regardless of quality or noteablity) to push DOM. With in that last few days, he has also been caught trying to edit talk pages in archieve.

Certainly, you don't have to believe me. However, the evidence is there if you want to read it yourself. I urge you to make yourself informed. Davidpdx 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison: It is unfortunate to have to read through the history of talk that Mr. Davidpdx encourages. But if you find the time, you will learn what I found, that Johnski was not the first one to throw stones, and he did list the IP addresses and user names he thought supported his versions which were more than 7 as he claimed. Also, other users since have edited the versions that Davidpdx will not let stand (even on Solkope). It also appears that Johnski instead of insisting that Melchizedek is an ecclesiastical state decided to compromise for "aspires to ecclesiastical statehood", or something like that. Davidpdx instead insisted that Johnski prove that Melchizedek is an ecclesiastical sovereignty instead of trying to compromise. It appears to me from my understanding of the rules at wikipedia that quoting reputable media and government web sites is enough and that we are not to prove or disprove what those articles state, but just quote from them. Perhaps, Davidpdx and Johnski don't understand these rules, and although I am a fast reader and learner, I still have not be able to grasp and digest all of the rules I've been reading. So I shouldn't expect others to get there any faster. I hope that you understand these rules better than us and can be some kind of fair referee. I just don't understand Davidpdx's argument that because Johnski has been silent that that is some kind of evidence that I am his sock-puppet. It seems more reasonable to conclude that Johnski quit after the way Davidpdx failed to give an inch and found so much fault with him. It really appears to me that the efforts of Johnski and his supporters were to remove the bias of Gene Poole backed by Davidpdx. The exercise for a compromise apparently wasn't done a little at a time as Davidpdx claims, but the effort was a wholesale effort. It seems that as a last ditch effort Johnski tried to take a point by point approach, but at around that time Davidpdx had refused to talk any further with Johnski claiming that Johnski wasn't following the rules (it's not clear whether those were wikipedia's or Davidpdx's rules) nor was Johnski giving "sightings" of credible evidence as demanded by Davidpdx. KAJ 07:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)