This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KAJ (talk | contribs) at 20:10, 25 October 2005 (→Soklope: chnaged test to text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi Isotope23, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) June 29, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. It's greatly appreciated! --Alan Au 20:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam Sloan already went through a vfd

I23: The Sam Sloan page already went through a vfd and survived. It has gone through its ups and downs in POV (Bill Brock and myself, A.W. Morrow), but basically the vfd it went through already still seems to apply: it survived. I am going to remove your vfd for now. 69.181.82.221 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh

I was trying to be nice... I've known band that played a series of towns <2 hours away from their home and considered it a "tour".--Isotope23 20:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh. I don't doubt it. In my book, those are exactly the kinds of bands that are problems, because they misrepresent their own significance when they make their articles about themselves. Some bands who live near borders may play in more than one country frequently, next people will be calling that an "international tour". ;-) Friday (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

NGC 3031

Thank you for your positive feedback.

The myspace link actually has an mp3 streamer which can be downloaded from. All other hosting sites I have hosted the songs with often require registering with an obscure website, so I leave those links alone. If you are really interested and cannot get the songs(plus several others that are not there) I could send them to your email in a zipped folder. The0208 21:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical State

Hey Isotope, I wanted to talk to you about your comment on the deletion of Ecclesiastical State. You said delete, which I basically agree with you, but you also argued (partically) for redirecting to Ecclesiastical government. Any chance I can convince you to change your vote to a redirect? I also liked your comment about locking it so the article can't be recreated. I've been dealing with this one for awhile (if you look at the edits and the talk page you'll see my comments). Anyway, hoping I can persuade you to slightly alter your vote. Thanks! Davidpdx 9/25/05 11:26 (UTC)

Master memes

You asked:

So by definition if the OS 0 1 2 article gets deleted from Misplaced Pages does that mean it's been defeated and is thus no longer a master meme or is this page considered an irrational exchange?--Isotope23 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I can answer that one myself. It's easy. By definition it is a master meme and cannot be defeated in rational exchange. Therefore, if it is deleted, it proves that the AfD discussion was not a rational exchange.

The only question I have is: what happens when an irresistible master meme meets an immovable logic? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I thought I had perhaps slipped a cog in nominating this. - brenneman 23:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

'VfU'

Could you give an unbiased opinion on Seduction Community which is now VfU. This relates to the AfD debate on David DeAngelo. I think the most objective way to cover this area would be with a general article on the entire subject without links to commercial sites. It would be up to the WP community whether to address individual figures within the community. I think references to media coverage would be enough external linking. Let me know what you think. DutchSeduction 10:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome! I must say it was one of the more creative vandals that I ran into that day :-) --JoanneB 13:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Petrone

Heya. Want to go back to the Rob Petrone afd and sign your vote? DS 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Isotope's Law

... is awesome! — ceejayoz 03:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Last Poems

Hi, I've rewritten this article and would appreciate it if you could cast an eye over the result. Dlyons493 Talk 22:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for change of vote. Dlyons493 Talk 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bryants etc.

Liked your approach on the Bryant afd. Good work. AndyJones 23:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Domestic virtue

This article has been expanded considerably. I urge you to take a look at it and reconsider your delete vote. Thanks. Denni☯ 05:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Negative Zero

Hi there, do reconsider your vote on AfD for -0. Negative zeroes occur in one-complement arithmetic. Please check out this link! Pilatus 00:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Here

For extensive work on VfDs and articles on Misplaced Pages. Molotov (talk)
22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

May I burden you with working on this subject? I joined the fray with Johnski to try to counterbalance the opposition from Gene Pooley and Davidpbx for a better article. From your efforts thus far on related subjects, it appears you are better suited to write something between the two points, which seem to have consensus on some points. It seems that Johnski's arguments are based on an real effort at removing bias, but he may be adding some of his own.207.47.122.10 01:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a small note to say thanks for making me laugh here . Thanks :) chowells 17:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Soklope

I respect your effort to try to rewrite this article. However, I feel very strongly that the more he (and we both know who I'm talking about) is permitted to spread this crap throughout Misplaced Pages, the more legitimate it will make it. It defintately is not legitimate.

I did look at the links, I feel the document from University of Hawaii is not a legal document. What it appears to be is the text of a legal document with no signtures or seals. I honestly feel that could have been typed by anyone.

I'll put these comments on the talk page as you are requesting, however likely it will just start a larger fight between myself and Johnski (aka Samuelspade/KAJ/ect). I don't know if you are aware, but he has several sockpuppets and has been up to some pretty dishonest stuff on Misplaced Pages. Please feel free to look at the history on the DOM page at some of the stuff that has been happening.

What it comes down to, is that I'm not willing to work with him because of his actions. I'm sure at some point you've been burned by someone and once you are, it's impossible to work with them anymore. Davidpdx 01:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me back. I don't want to start a revert war, but I am adimint (sp?) on keeping DOM contained as much as possible. There are other well respect users that feel the same way and I'm really hoping you'll back me on this one.

I'll see if I can come up with a suggestion for that paragraph and send it to you.

Another issue, just to keep you in the loop is the David Even Pedley page. Right now there is an rfd on it and I saw you had rewritten it. It looks like there is enough votes to merge the article into DOM and delete it, however I'm waiting for the rfd to close. If this holds true (stays the same) maybe you could facilitate rewriting it down to a manageable section that could be put into DOM. Davidpdx 02:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I had to laugh at the last line of your message, but I agree with you. Dealing with the DOM stuff is taxing at best. I am realitivly new and started by adding an article about my grandfather, Morris R. Jeppson who was on the Enola Gay back in August. Since then, most of what I've done is edit political articles about Oregon which is pretty easy. I have been watching the DOM material lately, but might just to back to writing the articles, it's a heck of a lot more peaceful. Davidpdx 02:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion in terms of the last paragraph of the Soklope article:

The Dominion of Melchizedek, a micronation known for being directly linked to large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world, claims to have a lease granting them use of the Solkope Island for 99 years. The lease was obtained from Hiagi Apao, who claims to be the sole soverign owner of the island. Although at times there has been a movement advocating sucession away from Fiji, the island is still recognized as territory of Fiji.

Through research on the internet, I found lots of stuff about a possible sucession from Fiji, which never materialized. It looks like Pedley tried to influence the whole thing in terms of getting their plan approve. Based on the article I read, it didn't work. Therefore, the claim Johnski (aka Samuelspade/KAJ/etc) is making is bogus in nature. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.atimes.com/oceania/BB05Ah01.html

Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks... Davidpdx 14:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I wikified two links (Dominion of Melchizedek and micronation). We might even be able to get rid of the notice that the article is stub at this point. It's getting pretty long now. Davidpdx 15:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen: I left a note on the talk page for Solkope and made minor changes to the article. Although I agree with what you are attemting to do here, let me clarify that while the documents in questions do not show the signatures, Alan Howard, professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa and creator of Noa'ia 'e Mauri, a website focused on providing information about Rotuma (http://www.hawaii.edu/oceanic/rotuma/os/hanua.html), is the one that is claiming that those documents are signed and gave the names of each person purporting to have signed such. I really doubt that he would go to that trouble if he didn't have their signatures.

I also believe that the definition of DOM should be changed to "the only micronation that has been diplomatically recognized by a world governemnt". KAJ 17:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think the question here is whether or not the documents are signed... I think the broader question is whether or not any of the signatures were real and whether or not the signees had any authority whatsoever to certify these documents... that is a debate for another time and place though and really doesn't have much bearing on what I'm trying to achieve here: NPOV wording.

Before I go back and start editing again, does anyone have objections to stating that "DoM purports to have a 'sovereign lease'...etc."? I'd like to stay away from wording characterizing DoM in any way (i.e. "fraud" or "diplomatically recognized") and leave that discussion for the DoM page. My assumption is that anyone reading this article who is familiar with DoM will likely already have an opinion of them... anyone not familiar can follow the link and wade through the debate in the main article.

Comments or Suggestions?--Isotope23 18:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

All creditable newssources that I have seen talk about DOM being a fraud. It is just that, it is a half truth on paper. Those who push DOM as real are pushing a fraud on behalf of Pedely and his crooked cause. Why shouldn't it be listed as a fraud? Because one or two people insist so?

The Washington Post ranges from "MAY merely be a ruse" to "MAY be the ultimate post modern state" and confirms the "diplomatic recognition". Context magazine states doesn't say it is a fraud, and Context is onwed by a company listed on the NYSE. The last article in Forbes I could find refers to DOM as "dubious". The reference to fraud is always referring to the banks licensed by DOM. You can still have the word "fraud", just use it in proper context, as I and others have been trying to get you to do.

I also wonder whether the signees had any authority to certify the documents that appear to be listed on the site that is linked. The reason I say "appear" is because it is simply the text of a legal document with no signtures, affixiations or certifications. I am, in addition questioning the exsistance of the document itself. Anyone can simply type a document and report that it was signed, that in itself doesn't prove its a legal document.

Remember that Professor Alan is very close to Rotuma for half a century and would be foolish to publish something that he believed to be made up, and hasn't retracted it for half a decade.

It is also clear from my reading that the people of Rotuma don't recognized Pedely's fraud as the leader of their government. Most people resent Melchidez for trying to gain control of the island from Fiji. They see DOM as a joke and do not take it seriously.

Certainly there is truth to this, and no one , including me, seems to be claiming Pedley (I didn't find anywhere that Pedley makes that claim either) is leading their government, but you can't speak for most people as the Rotuman web site says they are very private people and rarely give their opinions, so the vocal ones are more likely a minority but could represent the majority as you stated. Also, most the Rotumans that gave opinions appear to be not living on Rotuma, and removed from the day to day reality of Rotuman existence.

In terms of being "diplomatically recongnized" I'm not going to rehash the whole argument. Johnski will try to say everyone in the world (including the US) recongnizes DOM through defacto recongniztion, but it isn't true. The only proof I've seen is a letter from one small African country on the DOM website. Being recognized by one country does not mean squat.

I can't find where Johnski made any such claims. He seemed to emphasis the fact that the Washington Post noted the fact, so it isn't just a claim on the DOM web site.

I still advocate the rewritten paragraph that I submitted and will not back down from that position. It included more information then the previous paragraph and matches the wording on the DOM article (as it should be consistant). That article does by default can not be changed unless consensus is reached on a new version, which has not happened. Therefore, the wording should match that of other articles. Davidpdx 18:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Isotope23's idea seems the best approach. I'm not trying to argue the validity of the lease, only correct the statement that "anyone" could have posted the text of the lease and its signatures on the web site controlled by Professor Alan Howard. It is more than DOM purporting that it has a sovereign lease, as the person claiming to be the sole sovereign owner also claims that and if Professor Howard hadn't published the text of the lease we could simply say that DOM purports. There has been no legal action known to us setting aside the text of the published lease. I'll leave this to Isotope23's best judgment. Although it isn't a good source for this, there is a blog that makes a convincing argument that the fact that the Constitution of Rotuma was signed during the suspension of the Fijian constitution it might have some future impact. Unfortunately the link to the Rotuman constitution is broken so can't read what it says. KAJ 19:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My primary reason I use "purports" is because the lease has never been legally analyzed AND the original "sole sovereign owner's" claim on the island has never been sustantiated. I don't know Fiji property law specifically, but I assume it is like property law everywhere: You can't transfer a title you don't hold. Until there is evidence produced that any of these documents are legally binding (and I have problems with sourcing from blogs), you cannot really accept them as fact... thus

the "purports" terminology.--Isotope23 19:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with purports and I left it that way when you wrote it originally, but after considering it further, perhaps you can make it from the standpoint that the text of the published lease purports, instead of DOM purports. However, it is not a transfer of title, it is only a lease which leaves the title with the person purporting to own the islet. The fact that there seems to be no legal action to void the lease seems to mean that it might be valid, but we don't need to go there! KAJ 20:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)