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 08:00, 6 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 08:00, 6 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)
Johnski, I never once claimed to be an expert on DOM. You are wrong, I have read some about DOM and I do honestly believe it is a fraud. I have no problem with their being articles on the issue on Misplaced Pages, but they must (as the rules state) have the sources to back them up. You have repeatedly made claims that did not have the sources or used bogus sources (such as the blog) to try to prove points. In addition, you have reverted pages without consensus, lied about having consensus, misrepresented the rules of Misplaced Pages to push your own agenda and so on. If you want to continue to sit on your high horse and scream foul, that's fine. However, myself and others are not going to allow you to hijack Misplaced Pages to further your own cause. That's not why Misplaced Pages is here. Davidpdx 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Davidpdx: Please don't address me as Johnski. I haven't lied about anything, have not misrepresented the rule on Misplaced Pages. However, you have done both. No matter how many times you say it, it won't make me Johnski. I only have one user name, KAJ. I still doubt you understand what it is that is going on here about this subject. You are nothing but a broken record on the subject of DOM and seem to have nothing to offer, with the exception of Solkope, which you did seem to make an honest attempt to resolve. Thank you for that much!KAJ 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is you have reverted this article as well as others a number of times without consensus and have not admitted you were dead wrong in doing so. Do you want to talk about good faith? How about admitting it? Yes, I have read about the subject. The reason I sound like a broken record is because myself and others are standing our ground and we are no longer going to allow you to revert articles because you disagree with them. As to your accusation that I lied, please tell me what lie you think I told? Davidpdx 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It is you that is reverting articles that you don't agree with merely because you don't want to hear or see anything about DOM, which is the issue that makes this article most worth having in Misplaced Pages, as has gotten the most news for Taongi that I can find. I quoted from the article about DOM that you claim has consensus, that you repeatedy reverted to, but you can't accept that, and lie that there is no consensus for the facts quoted about the Iroijlaplap lease to DOM. Another lie is that you claim that I am a sock-puppet. It may not be intentional that you lied, but when I have more time, I'll try to find the other lies I've noticed in the past.KAJ 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Dominion of Melchizedek and related pages

There is an ongoing revert war with Johnski, who has reverted the above page 60+ times in the last two months.

Johnski is strongly believed to be an active member of Dominion of Melchizedek, as he possesses an intimate familiarity with details of court cases and other historical matters pertaining to it that few, if any, outsiders would be privy to. As a primary source and should not be contributing to any articles on this subject, in accordance with Misplaced Pages general editing principles.

He has violated the 3RR rule numerous times. To justify his reverts, he claims that his version has consensus, and that the prior version is biased. He has also used numerous sock puppets to revert the above page, and to introduce Melchizedek-related promotional content into many other articles as well, including: Bokak Atoll, Karitane Shoal, Solkope, Rotuma, Clipperton Island, Antarctica, Micronation, Fictional country, Bible, Melchizedek, Melchizedekian, Ecclesiastical State and David Evan Pedley.

When challenged by other editors Johnski selectively quotes media reports out of context in order to put a positive spin on consistently extremely negative reportage about Melchizedek. He consistently seeks to insert these out-of-context quotations into the above articles to provide what he alledges is "balanced" reportage, and has attempted to delete quotations which show Melchizedek in a negative light.

Johnski does not follow the rules of Misplaced Pages and frankly changes them in order to push his own agenda. Additionally, his presumed association with a group known for defrauding people in many parts of the world of millions of dollars is a negative reflection on Misplaced Pages, and should be curtailed.

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)
This looks good to me, although it is actually User:Calton, not User:Carlton. I would also include a list of all the other articles he has vandalized or created to promote his agenda - it's quite long. --Centauri 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I fixed the user name and added the additional articles he has been involved in. Hopefully the the mediation case will go forward soon. Davidpdx 02:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note the above has been updated based on recommendation of those making the complaint. Davidpdx 08:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)