This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KAJ (talk | contribs) at 06:07, 19 January 2006 (Thank you!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ambient music

Hey, Gene Poole, nice name! Would you take a look at the Ambient music article, where I added a section on isolationist ambient? Maybe you have something to add. Thanks! heidimo 20:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Revert warning

Please do not revert an article more than three times within 24 hours. It is advisable to talk differences out, request for page protection, or seek mediation/arbitration instead of reverting. You have already done so on Decimal calendar. If you continue to revert, a Quickpoll may be started and you may be blocked for 24 hours. The relevant policies and guidelines are at Misplaced Pages:Quickpolls policy, Misplaced Pages:How to revert a page to an earlier version, Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Thanks, Dori | Talk 02:18, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

If people continue to vandalise articles without responding to repeated requests not to do so, or who repeatedly fail to provide documented evidence to support their assertions, or who deliberately revert articles on the basis of specious, subjective reasoning, then I will continue to restore them to a factual, NPOV state. You would be better served directing your warnings at those whose actions necessitate my response. Gene_Poole

Sir, if you disagree with a policy please discuss it at the relevant talk page. Otherwise, you should at least attempt to comply with the policy, rather than simply ignore it because you believe that your engaging in actions prohibited by policies is justifiable. Policies exist to be followed and implemented. If you are truly concerned with the integrity of the article, please, request mediation, which is a better way to effect this and one which is permissible under current policies, unlike the application of frequent reversions, which is likely to get you censured and/or banned temporarily, regardless of the POV or factual accuracy of the edits involved. (Only simple vandalism, such as the blanking of a page with nonsense, is likely to be excluded in this regard). Thank you for your concern in this matter. - Fennec 05:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are the people removing the content Gene is repeatedly restoring being warned about these repetitive reverts? Because the content was present in the original article on 17 Jan 2003. People keep removing it repeatedly, reverting the change that originally added it. Are they being warned about not following Misplaced Pages policies? Jdavidb 18:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am fully compliant with Misplaced Pages policies. In the case in question you will note that page protection was repeatedly requested - but nothing was done about it. Gene_Poole

Wik

Hello, you and I have something in common. We are both on Wik's list.

You might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Images_for_deletion#April_28

Dmn 00:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I'd noticed. It's always gratifing to know that you've succeeded in enraging a crackpot/troll/content perverter - using nothing more than facts and consistent, rational reasoning - to the point where they view you as a threat worthy of hysterical co-ordinated ad hominem attacks. Still, I can't help feeling a little pity for someone so obviously thoroughly screwed up. It can't be easy having to live with that level of festering anger chewing away at your insides. --Gene_poole 01:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Empire of Atlantium

I kindly ask you consider not editing Empire of Atlantium (or any Atlantium related article) because Misplaced Pages generally frowns upon using primary sources. Please also consider removing your anti-Wik message from your user page, and please assume good faith with Wik and all other users. --"DICK" CHENEY 05:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your comments, and would point out merely that almost all of the edits I've applied to this article over the past several months (aside from reversions necessary to protect the work of other contributors from targeted vandalism) relate to formatting or improved paragraph layout and/or sentence structure - and not to the content itself. I will be happy to remove my warning concerning Wik when I see evidence of a change in this user's attitude towards Misplaced Pages's community standards. One hopes this will occur sooner rather than later. --Gene_poole 06:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Wik warning

Hello on your user page you asked "I welcome the views of others on how it might best be combatted."

Well I did better than just tell you my views. I managed along with Danny to persuade Wik to remove the list. So your warning about it on your userpage is therefore no longer necessary. I am asking you to remove it please.

theresa knott 22:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you :-) theresa knott 07:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Revert war with Wik

I just wanted to let you know that you violated the three revert guideline on Talk:Empire of Atlantium, and Wik stopped at the proscribed three edits. Also, it is against Misplaced Pages policy to remove the comments of other users as you did with Racomedia's comments , and as Wik removed your comments. Please contact the user whose comments you find offensive and ask them to remove the comment instead of doing it yourself. If they refuse, please follow the Dispute resolution process. As always, you can leave a message on my talk page and I would be more than happy to answer any questions. --"DICK" CHENEY 13:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent removal of Racomedia's comment at Talk:Empire of Atlantium. I very strongly suggest that you refrain from removing other user's comments and referring to other users as "crackpots" or this issue will be taken to the next level. --"DICK" CHENEY 12:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest you actually read the rubbish posted by by the user whose comments I am deleting. They consist of (a) a dubious personal observation used as a lead-in to (b) a link to an article on horse racing. The user who posted these comments is correctly referred to as a "crackpot" because they have spammed my personal email address with volumes of semi-coherent personal abuse on 2 separate occasions, and self-published similar borderline defamatory material on a public internet page. You might also wish to note that the user in question has made a grand total of 2 edits since September 2003 - including the abovementioned one. In light of this I take exception to your threats.--Gene_poole 01:10, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

We do not remove comments from talk pages. Danny 01:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well we ought to review our policy.--Gene_poole 01:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

At this point we are reviewing your conduct. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Gene Poole. --"DICK" CHENEY 01:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

See above comment concerning threats.--Gene_poole 02:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Wik

Hey, what exactly happened with Wik? His page says he left on May 21st. Do you know anything? Jdavidb 21:48, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He/she was banned for a week for abusing community standards, and as a result decided to go for complete martyrdom by making the absence a permanently self-enforced one. Unsurprisingly, nobody seems overly concerned by this.--Gene_poole 02:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I share the same amount of concern. :) I was just curious. Did a bit of reading, and I was quite impressed by Jimbo's stance. I'm one of those optimists who wants to honestly feel that anyone can be rehabilitated in an online community, and Jim seems to share the ideal while still holding to the right level of realism for the community. So, life goes on. :) Jdavidb 14:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm a natural optimist too - but I also recognise that some people choose to have an irredeemably toxic attitude toward others - and in such cases I can spare them little pity when the inevitable chickens come home to roost.--Gene_poole 00:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

After some consideration, especially after the nice note you left after our shouting match, I've decided to return. I'm limiting my VfD exposure, especially where micronations are concerned! I wish you luck on your future discussions. - Lucky 6.9 06:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dropbear

I inserted a section about smearing Vegemite on your face to keep the Dropbears from attacking you. This was part of my understanding of the myth as I was told this when I was a teenager and heard it later as I got older. In your edit of this article you decided to omit this. Is your understanding of the Dropbear myth different to mine? One Salient Oversight 03:17, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've never heard of Vegemite in the context of drop bear mythology, and the reference sounded as though it had been invented by the original article author. In editing the article I tried to reduce it to the most common, generally-accepted elements. Perhaps you could re-insert the Vegemite component, noting it as a localised embellishment of the basic drop bear myth.--Gene_poole 09:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Samboy

As an addition, Gene, I invite you to share some facts with us. In particular, you alledge that there is evidence widely available in the public domain, but all requests for links are ignored. Please supply links supporting your assertion that there is evidence that Empire of Atlantium is worth noting on the list of micronations, or please stop asserting that there is public domain evidence supporting your assertion. Samboy 06:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mediation, not arbitartion

George: It is obvious that we are both wasting time in meaningless personal attacks against each other. My issue with you is this: You are trying to conceal your identity when arguing about the relevence of Empire of Atlantium and the relevence non-relevence of other micronations. You also engage in intimidation and personal insults whenever anyone questions the validity of your empire. I can make a case that you are abusive, and already have evidence (which you have already read yourself) of engaging in multiple edit wars.

I feel that mediation is the appropriate step at this point. Bascially, what we will do is email each other through a third party, who will be a mediator for our dispute. There are things I need to say to you that are completely inappropriate to talk about in a public forum; I also do not want you to email me personally, but only through a mediator. This way, both of us can have some kind of consensus and will not have to bug the editors with arbitration.

If you look at the requests for arbitration page, personal disputes between two people are unilaterally rejected. You won't get arbitration for this; but mediation is perfectly reasonable considering the circumstances.

I hope we can work something out via mediation. Samboy 22:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Additionally, I have deleted all of the discussions we have had on my talk page, and will delete anything you post on any of my user or talk pages. This is a formal request to take it to mediation instead of to my talk page; we need a third party at this point. Samboy 01:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glad to help

Under the circumstances, it only seemed fair that an article that survived two VfD's inside a ridiculously short time should stay. I'm convinced that the article wasn't nominated for a lack of notability, and the obvious attempt at some sort of personal attack was enough for me to weigh in, at least with an opinion. It's certainly far better than a lot of what passes for articles around here. Interesting how the article by your biggest detractor is getting its tail kicked in, eh? I may weigh in soon on "general principles" as was previously pointed out. Stay in touch. - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverts

Please note that you're only allowed three reverts to one article in a 24 hour period. RickK 05:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

User:Gene-Poole/samboy

I moved this page from to your user space, as it seems to have been created with the full URL as an article in the main article namespace.

--Ianb 00:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's now at User:Gene Poole/samboy, and the original (in the main namespace) has been deleted. Angela. 01:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK - thanks for the assistance/relocation - I'm a sub-page creation newbie. --Gene_poole 01:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:VampWillow

I'm considering listing this user on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges for that disgraceful delete without consensus. Would you be interested in supporting this? Dmn / Դմն 12:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pyramids

Glad you liked the Red Pyramid photo. Bent Pyramid? No, except for one which is just a very hazy outline against the horizon. On the wish-list for the next trip, though. Inside the Red Pyramid? Erm... nothing outstandingly wonderful that doesn't have idiotically grinning family members on it. I do have two that are views pointing up at the ceiling inside the chamber (very impressive staggered roof, if you've seen it), I don't know how suitable they'd be for an article... want to take a look? I could upload a couple of thumbnails, followed by full-sizers if you feel they can be made to fit in the article. Just don't get too excited before you've seen them. –Hajor 05:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duly uploaded: Image:Egypt.Dashur.RedPyramid.02.jpg & Image:Egypt.Dashur.RedPyramid.03.jpg. I decided to save myself the hassle of resizing, so these are standard 640*480s. Let me know if you want to use them; otherwise I'll list them on ifd in a day or 2. –Hajor 06:07, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pic 02 duly incorporated. It looks somewhat unbalanced, but I'm afraid it's getting late here. And wow! Inside that thing with no electricity! The air extraction system wasn't working either, I imagine? –Hajor 06:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When I was there, there was definitely a noisy old generator near the door connected to a very long pipe leading down to the burial chamber -- although, now thinking about it, I think it was blowing in rather than sucking out. Glorious smell of diesel.

If you haven't seen it already, you might be interested in Cholula, the pyramid that the Mexicans claim is bigger (yeah, ok, strictu sensu...) than the Egyptian ones. I've just uploaded a couple of pics of that one, too. Giza it ain't. –Hajor 01:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very impressive set of photos that Canadian gent has got. Sure -- drop him a line, explain the project to him, butter him up. (Somewhere in the [[Misplaced Pages:... namespace, there's a form letter, a permission letter, that you could perhaps use a starting point.) Maybe he could be talked into releasing some of his photos under the GFDL or one of the Creative Commons licenses -- perhaps even public domain? ("For use on wikipedia only" photos do exist, but they're sort of discouraged, depending on who sees you do it.) Say you'd provide a link back to his website from the Image details page -- if he's interested in driving traffic to his site (I see he also sells his pics as prints), he might just nibble at the bait. He doesn't appear to have any sort of copyright notice on his page, so (with a little luck) he's not that uptight about spreading his pics around. –Hajor 01:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great news on the Canadian photos! Now, incorporating photos into articles: the page you need to be consulting is Misplaced Pages:Picture tutorial. Couple of quick hints:

• This business with < div > commands is really only useful if you want to "stack" two pics on top of each other. Otherwise, its largely obsolete: the modern image markup commands introduced earlier this year -- ] -- are more than adequate (and very flexible, and a whole lot easier) for single photos aligned alongside text.
• The command for breaking a section after a pic and its corresponding text is < br style="clear:both;" >.

Did the photographer not indicate any language (copyright status, contact info) he wanted included on the Image: pages? –Hajor 04:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pyramids (Egyptian) looks great in Internet Explorer, but in my Opera the text and pics are shonw superimposed (when the pic is to the left). I suspect this is because of the < div > boxes. Can I take a crack at eliminating them? –Hajor 05:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, there. Re an appropriate tag for the pyramid texts. Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags is the page you want. It depends whether the photographer granted Misplaced Pages an exclusive right to use them, or whether he okayed their use by people who take and reuse our material in other places (third party use). If the former, then you want Template:Copyrighted; if the latter, then perhaps Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided or Template:CopyrightedFreeUse. (It's easier for the project if you can get external photographers to agree to licence their stuff under the GFDL, but explaining that arcane tract of legalese to some bloke you cold-called over the internet ain't my idea of fun, either.) Cheers, –Hajor 13:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about Pyramids: The Next Generation down in Nubia: something I know even less about (odd half-hours on the History Channel notwithstanding), but I certainly take a look. (I see you don't appear to have minded my shifting all the photos to the right on Egyptian pyramids -- I'm afraid it was making me a little dizzy.) –Hajor 13:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Gene Poole,

I see you have got a fledgling Egyptian project going on with Hajor - go to it! One potential problem - I noticed at some point that you mentioned your Canadian friend might still be reserving some rights over the new pyramid photos. I've just asked for confirmation on the Village Pump, but Jimbo recently made an announcement to ban/discourage all images which were effectively neither Public Domain/GFDL or Fair Use. See Jimbo's email and Misplaced Pages:Copyright_FAQ.

Of course, this might not be a problem once you have decided what the correct licences are, if you can persuade him to use GFDL (which still requires attribution to the original author). -- Solipsist 17:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Howdy again. Concerning the copyright business on the photographs on Egyptian pyramids, the copyright owner basically said "no problemo" when I asked to use them; he didn't place any conditions on our use of the images, but asked nicely if we'd include links to his site. He did not specifically state any objection to their use by other third parties, and obviously the images themselves are already in the public domain. Would you read that as a "fair use" scenario? --Gene_poole 02:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I doubt it is fair use. That's more 'its copyright, but there are good reasons why we should ignore it'. This case sounds more like a GFDL license - can we assume that your friend is happy for anyone else downstream to also use the images as long as they still credit him? If so then you are probably good for a GFDL license, although ideally you should get his explicit agreement. Then you credit your friend by putting their name on each Image page, along with a link to their web site and a {{GFDL}} tag and you are done. -- Solipsist 15:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

À propos project, User:JCarriker just yesterday set up Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, in case you didn't know and/or are interested. –Hajor

Uh, dashes... holy wars between devotees of various forms of dash fetishism (I include myself, but I don't think you're involved). You started off the pyramids article using simple hyphens - like that. I changed 'em to the slightly longer en dashes, which display more pleasantly, but still reflect the original writers basic aesthetic sense – thus. Then this other guy comes along and changes them to the even longer em dashes, but joined up to the words instead of spaced—like that—claiming that my shorter spaced dashes were typographically incorrect (I don't believe they are, but rather just a different way of punctuating the same thing). However, instead of reverting to my short en dashes, I offered the compromise proposal of spaced em dashes — like that — which has in the past been known to placate both the advocates of the longer dash orthodoxy and the acolytes of the reformed church of the spaced dash. Dash fetishism. One of those very petty issues that people can get very cross about. I gather you are blissfully unaware of its existence. Luck you. Check out the usage guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dashes) (if I haven't sent you to sleep already). –Hajor 00:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving

I'm not a sysop. I don't know what to do. I think I could move it to Atlantium instead. This seems a more appropriate place anyway: the latvia article is at Latvia not Republic of Latvia. Does this sound good? Dmn / Դմն 00:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't work. I've place notes on Atlantium and Empire of Atlantium and reported the vandalism on Vandalism in progress. Dmn / Դմն 00:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chaim

Nope, I'm not the same guy, sorry :). In fact I have no idea who this "Chaim" is. --Shibboleth 02:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Gzornenplatz has requested mediation with you over reversions of Sealand. It would be appreciated if you could reply as to whether or not you accept, over at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation. Ambi 05:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

Following your rejection of mediation Gzornenplatz has now requested arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. You may make a response on that page. Fred Bauder 14:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Inquiry

Are you personally involved with the whole Empire of Atlantium scam? GeneralPatton 21:54, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well it is a scam since its absolute and utter nonsense most likely designed to draw attention to its humble creator. By adding articles like that and forcing it be featured on the main page you’re really hurting Wiki, making it into a laughing stock. The fact that you’re personally involved with the whole joke also makes your extensive edits to that article seem done in pretty bad taste. GeneralPatton 01:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment:

• "Absolute and utter nonsense" - this assertion is not sustained by documented 3rd party reference sources.
• "most likely to draw attention to its humble creator" - this statement makes no sense whatsoever.
• "forcing it to be featured on the main page" - this statement is a complete fantasy.
• "your extensive edits to that article seem done in pretty bad taste" - most of my very small number of "changes" to the article have related to formatting. several have related to spelling/factual inaccuracies. How is this is "bad taste" is anyone's guess.--Gene_poole 01:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nice Work

Well done on the ANZAC page. I take your suggestion that Hoff work inside is the only male nude in a war memorial as a challange, though I have looked at a lot and NONE come to mind. Carptrash 23:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Micronation

Juuust in case you missed it:

With regards to vandalism, the surest option is to ask a developer to run a sock-check on the users in question. This is best accomplished on the IRC chat, but you could drop a note on a talk page as well. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね)

• Oh, the fun we're having here. Just got your note, and if anyone can polish that article, you can. I seem to be at odds as well with one of the two users you mentioned. I'm working to block a problem user, and the user that's hindering you is not only reverting my motions to delete the problem entries, he's doing little else beyond wikifying them. If you haven't already, please take a look at User talk:B-Movie Bandit to see what I mean. It's just too weird. Meantime, I'd be glad to keep an eye on the Atlantium article. Once it's cleaned up, I'll change my vote without hesitation. As I pointed out, it's a fascinating subject. Hang tough and stay in touch. - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Oops...I meant "Sealand." Sorry. Off to sneak a peek at what you've done. - Lucky 6.9 00:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

Gzornenplatz does stalk people, clearly. I don't know what happened between you two so I'm reluctant to comment on that. But he's battling me on a couple of articles right now. VV 00:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Getting someone banned is almost impossible. I've had to deal with far worse users than Gz who were and in many cases still are being tolerated. You're welcome to try, but in my experience he is simply editing aggressively and stalking other users' edits, neither of which is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. (And even if it were, nothing would be done anyway.) There is a request for mediation pending involving him and me, FWIW. VV 01:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case

The case involving you has now been opened; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gene Poole vs. Samboy.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 04:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Micronation

Sorry, I have enough stress, I don't need to get into THAT quagmire. RickK 23:29, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Floating island

Hi, I am writing about the article Floating island. You originally wrote "many hundreds of hectares". Since 100 hectares = 1 km², I simplified it into "many square kilometres". You then changed this to "many hectares". Was your original description of the area 100 times too big? Just curious. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It is possible that 'hundreds of metres across?' may be more readily understood by the average Misplaced Pages reader including those in the UK and US. Just a thought. Regards Bobblewik  (talk) 07:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Self-promotion

Mostly because it's your site. You'll notice I put it back as well. Snowspinner 06:34, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Enclave

I notice your argument "embassy territory *is* sovereign territory. there is no legal distinction" for including the Knights of Malta's building in Rome as a sovereign enclave. While the question of whether the Knights of Malta is considered a sovereign nation is a tricky one, your argument would seem to say that every country, by dint of having embassies or High Commissions present within it, would have as many enclaves as the number of embassies. I haven't removed your point from the article but we may need to include the distinction in the article. --Roisterer 00:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz

I have created a request for comment, regarding User:Gzornenplatz's behavior, that you may be interested in. ugen64 02:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Gene

Well I can see that you are into this micronation subject in a big way. I agree that it is interesting but it can also be annoying when reality is crowded out by fantasy. The problem is that what exists in cyberspace about "Sealand" does not exist in the real world. By the way. the "Sealand" discussion page is running, or I should say has run out of space. Either someone needs to delete old stuff or file it or whatever and start a new page. Anyway, I just wanted to stop on your page to say a friendly "hello". MPLX/MH 02:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I take your point that a lot of media coverage has established a subject called "Sealand". Yes, I agree that is a fact. I also agree with you that Roy and Michael can claim what they want to claim because it is their right to do so. Freedom of speech, etc., etc. So I agree with you on that as well. Now this is where I am coming from:

There is a disconnect between something existing because someone claims that it exists and establishing what exactly it is that exists. Let me put it this way. What if I mounted a campaign and I claimed to be a person from the Planet Glob, but that in order not to frighten people I appear to be a human being. However, I claim, we people from Glob are so different from Earth people that the mere sight of us would cause the average human person to become scared and possibly want to kill me. So I have the ability to appear human. Now what is wrong with that story? The answer is nothing at all.

But then if I ask is it true? Then you have to decide whether or no it is true. If you decide that you want to know the answer you have to investigate. First of all you find that I have human parents and that my human birth can be verified. So then you check on my human parents and verify that they are human. Next you wonder what my motive is for creating this story which is obviously not true.

I have investigated Roy and Michael and Joan - I have spoken with them. I have investigated their British and other claims and guess what? They are full of holes. They are simply not true. This is not what I have read in a paper, this is what I know for a fact. I also know what the UK says from the Crown solicitors on down. I know this for a fact. I know what the Police say. I know that although the Bates family have claimed many things, most of them are untrue. I know this for a fact. So you ask, why are they there? Well they are there because unlike the USA who would blast them away, the UK has a habit of letting things be and when they get out of hand they slap the person down behind the scenes and this is what has happened to the Bates family over and over again. The problem is that they have created a hoax and no one really cares. It is "buyer beware". If you get suckered in to their schemes you only have yourself to blame, is the official response.

But should an encyclopedia help to promote a hoax or should the hoax be exposed? I say that the hoax should be explained but the encyclopedia should not be a cause of more people falling victim to a hoax in which they can and have lost money. MPLX/MH 05:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Art Deco and Sealand

It would seem that we have more than Sealand in common because I am also interested in Art Deco. Art Deco as such is a well-documented modern term dating from the 1960s in England which has been retroactively applied back to the French exposition which did not use that term at all. There is in fact an actual starting place, date and time and author for this term. I have the research somewhere and I will pass it on to you if you are interested. I will not touch your art deco page and you may wish to incorporate the material I was referring to. But since I will have to find out where I put this material I am not going to look unless you have an interest. Let me know.

On the Sealand thing we are basically in totally agreement except on the hoax and fraud issue. The fact is that I personally know a lot of the inside legal story of this set-up and I can tell you that the British government has quietly slapped down every one of Roy Bates' ideas. He managed to con Ryan Lackey and he got stuck like the people who bought the Lichfield I ship got stuck, because there was no jurisdiction in which to sue Roy Bates.

That is the key to this whole thing. He claims to have postage - but he only has stamps which cannot be used. Same for money. Same for law. There is no population and there is no law because there is no court. The UK knows this and therefore the problem is finding a British venue in which to sue Roy Bates. It should be where he lived near Southend (that is where his home was and Michael's is at Leigh on Sea.) But Bates has now moved. Then there is the problem of proving what it is that you are suing him for. To sue Roy Bates as a British citizen means using UK courts. Ryan Lackey is a US citizen and he cannot sue Bates in the USA because Bates does not live there. Lackey cannot sue "Sealand" because the US courts have already ruled that "Sealand" does not exist. So that means that he has to sue Bates in England with a British lawyer. Now we are talking money. The first question is how much money does Bates have? If you sue someone who is either broke or who has hidden their money somewhere else you are stupid to sue such a person because the only person to win is the lawyer who gets paid by the client.

So if you tried to sue in "Sealand" (believe me I know this issue first hand) you would be laughed to scorn. First of all the UN and the nations of the world say that "Sealand" does not exist and therefore there is no "Sealand law". Second, to sue in "Sealand" you would have to be on the barge. But the barge is just that - a barge with a caretaker most of the time. So how could they even constitute a court when the only people they could muster would be Bates' family friends?

Knowing this Lackey looked at the ship case and he saw that those people were swindled and lost thousands. Lackey has to eat his losses in the same way. There is no redress. On to top of that Lackey stuck his neck out and at first defended the myth of "Sealand" and attacked the UK. So the UK is quite happy to let Lackey rot = serves him right! = is their response. More than this Bates is protected by an army of people creating a myth which the press loves just as it loves stories about man bites dog and flying saucers.

So if Wiki is to retain any degree of authority it has to get rid of this silly "Sealand" page and dump it under the Roy Bates' Sealand Hoax or some similar title.

Keeping up this present farce is enough to make me want to quit Wiki and it is also a slap in the face of everyone who has been swindled. MPLX/MH 17:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Utopia

I'll take a look. But I'm involved in a number of other conflicts right now (including before the ArbCom) and can't really pick up another. VeryVerily 23:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism

Hi! Thanks for your post to my talk page. I also think that people are spending too much time destroying the work of others instead of making their own articles. I suggest you and everyone keep copies of articles up for deletion, in wikiformat, just click edit, and copy it into a text file :).

The inclusionist's talk page might be a useful place to put up articles that might not deserve to be deleted. It will save us hours of having to review that delete page, which is also a big waste of time that could be better spent on making articles instead of putting up with deletionists :). Bye for now, --ShaunMacPherson 02:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gene. I saw your message on Shaun MacPherson's talk page. Good to see your support for historically verifiable topics on Misplaced Pages, continue to fight the good fight and don't lose hope. ] 22:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Same goes for me, I don't have time to fight Ambi, and frankly I am afraid of that editor. She messaged me (over AIM) and threatened to have me banned if I broke any rules in our conflict. I eventually gave up because sealand is not such a big deal and my time is limited as it is. --] 04:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism and Arbitration

I'm very much for preserving the Micronation articles, so thanks for pointing that vote out to me.

As far as the arbitration goes, your supposed bias is only the icing on the cake of your rules violations. You need to stay cool. Discourse, not edit wars, will win the day for inclusionist Wikipedians and responsible editors. Be willing to compromise and defer to other editors, even if you don't agree with them. Backing off on an edit and commenting on the talk page (and citing sources) will often result in support from friendly editors and respect from opponents. (And, if not, that may mean consensus is against you. That's how it goes sometimes in a democracy). Don't be adfraid of mediation (especially since it can avoid the more extreme measure of arbitration). But I guess that's enough of a lecture, eh?

I read the whole case, and left some comments for the arbitrators, but I was limited in what I could reasonably do. I did:

• Protest the use of your alleged identity in this case, as your right to privacy should be respected and its use in this case was prejudicial, as it implies bias in and of itself, and bias should be evaluated purely based on your actions in Misplaced Pages.
• Request that your sanctions be temporary instead of permanent, as the proposed sanctions seemed quite extreme.

Please feel free to point out Micronation or other inclusionist issues in the future, and I will consider all of your suggestions. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought such use of past record was patently unfair, since it had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. It's pretty clear that Samboy does have some personal issues with you. He more or less said so when he requested mediation. But the arbitrators were more concerned by three revert violations, which are considered to be very serious, and etiquette issues (calling someone a "crackpot stalker" or "poisonous" won't sway friends to your side, no matter how mean that person actually was to you). I try to view such editors not as enemies or radicals, but rather as teammates that I don't agree with on specific issues, and treat them as such. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:32, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

And you're ranting on the arbitration page now? Gah! That's kind of shooting yourself in the foot... --L33tminion | (talk) 17:56, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just calm down. I don't support Samboy, but you're not helping your case. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Pyramid pictures

Hi! I hope you still check this page every now and then, because I need some answers.

To be more specific, the following pictures have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and we need to know their source to make sure they are free to use. So, did you take them yourself? Get them from someone who allows GFDL, or similar? Please let us know!

• Image:Pyramid of sneferu bent 01.jpg
• Image:Pyramid_of_sneferu_meidun_01.jpg
• Image:Pyramid_of_amenemhet_hawarra_01.jpg
• Image:Pyramids_of_niuserre_and_neferirkare_01.jpg
• Image:Pyramids_at_giza_01.jpg

Ranveig 17:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Misplaced Pages's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Bent Pyramid

Gene Poole, please add origin information to your bent pyramid photobent pyramid photo

Imperial Post

is now listed on VfD. I was wondering if you would have any interest in input. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I've never heard of any article with that name before. What was it about? --Gene_poole 04:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Araucania orelie 01.JPG. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

Thanks for finally getting rid of the neutrality tag on Sealand. I've just removed it again after someone restored it without giving a coherent reason. You might want to keep an eye on it too. The article seems to be a magnet for those with bizarre opinions. --Centauri 08:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please let it go

Dear Mr. George Cruickshank,

I noticed that you have posted this personal attack against me. I am sorry that you are still upset with me. I do not think I have ever taken the time to properly apologize to you, so I will do so now: I apologize for any personal attacks I have directed against you. I have also removed any and all personal attacks I have made:

• I have removed any personal attacks directed against you on my user pages.

• I have also removed any personal attacks directed against you on my web page.

• I have also removed a peronsal attack directed against you on another user page.

If there are any other personal attacks directed against you that I have posted, please let me know and I will remove them. This is my request for a truce; I am asking you to please not continue posting personal attacks against me also. Samboy 05:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

File:Garden Palace 01.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Garden Palace 01.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This image can be deleted. A better version with appropriate copyright tag has since been uploaded and used for the intended article.--Gene_poole 22:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\

You're a sockpuppet!

Thought you might want to know that you're my sockpuppet- so you better start behaving! --Centauri 22:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it for now. If they're stupid enough to take it to RFC we can deal with it then. --Centauri 23:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Centauri 06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on expanding the Umm Kulthum article. Danny 00:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celestians Unite

Thanks for recruiting me to save your article. ---Isaac R 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio mast articles

I am contacting you because you have contributed to the VfD discussion on radio mast articles. I just wanted to let you know that a proposal has been put forth at Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/Masts to address these articles en masse. Your comments are welcome. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"High school" articles

This Newsweek article on The 100 Best High Schools in America is certainly food for thought in the frequent debates over the notability of high schools... certainly every one on that list should have its own article! -- BDAbramson 01:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

As discussed

Here's the link: . --Centauri 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Political religion

On political religion's vfd, you state that "everything from the name of the article down is original research". Can I ask whether you've read the article recently? Or noted that Eric Voegelin wrote a book on it as long ago as 1938 (Die Politischen Religionen, the political religions)? Rd232 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

you remarked on Eric Voegelin, but that was a long time ago; the concept isn't "his". And never was - Paul Tillich "along with contemporary Karl Barth, the most influential Protestant theologian of recent times" also used it early on. However, you're right that something on the term's usage (mostly academic history/politics, but not mainstream there; maybe others) is needed. Rd232 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

Avram editor

Hi GP, I just thought I would let you know that I am attempting to make contact with User talk:144.131.41.53 (the Avram vandal) at his talk page! -- Chuq 08:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to know more about the article subject itself than me - I was just reverting to help out - you can do the reporting if you like, if I did it I wouldn't know how to answer any questions about the edits. -- Chuq 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily protected your user page. Hopefully this is enough to alleviate the vandalism problem. After a short while, I'll unprotect the page. If at any time you want to have your page unprotected, let me know, and I will follow through with your request promptly. See you around the Wiki! --HC 00:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The IP seems to jump around all over the place, I'm not sure a block would be effective in that situation. For the moment, we'll have to (unfortunately) deal with the nuisance... --HC 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a week of protection has been sufficient...if your user page becomes cluttered again let me know and I'll come back to protect. --HappyCamper 02:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...guess not! I am actually running another idea by another administrator to delete your entire page history and recover only the non-vandalism edits. This way, the edit history on that page will be clearer, and will have less clutter. What do you think? Afterwards, I'll protect it again. --HappyCamper 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Micronation template

Discussion of template moved to talk:Sealand table

re Wik?

You're certainly more familiar with Wik+ than I am, although I have looked through the various things that are relevant as best I can, and read what I could bear to read. That's nothing compared to dealing first-hand with him, although I did with NoPuzzleStranger — there he was trolling against Lucky6.9 so acting differently to here. There is something of a fingerprint to Rivarez (though there's the whole AGF thing to consider), and I must confess to playing anagram games with RIVAREZ wondering if I could conjure something along the NoPuzzleStranger lines, but it doesn't yield. It seems that, on past experience, he can't help but reveal himself sooner or later so, if it is Wik, I expect we'll stomp on him again. We can even hope that Jimbo may be able to fingerprint him more effectively. Oh, and don't think I was implying that you were making baseless accusations; I see my AN/3 post could be construed that way — I meant it, since admins can (as you know) shoot this one on sight. -Splash 05:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Rivarez certainly is Wik. I suggest posting on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and point out the evidence - like he appeared right after NoPuzzleStranger was blocked, edit wars on the same articles, and has knowledge about "the system" that a new user wouldn't know. -- Netoholic @ 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the posting on my talk. I didn't have the time to get involved in an edit war last night, but was happy to see others did. -O^O 14:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You were happy to see others get involved in an edit war..? 24ip | lolol 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Numerous contributors spontaneously and co-operatively addressing a reprehensible instance of trolling by a suspected hard-banned editor doesn't constitute an edit war. --Gene_poole 01:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for your assistance with reverting the Wik psycopath and his ever-growing army of puppets. Is there a practical way of permanently blocking his IP range/s ? --Gene_poole 04:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, but he's easy enough to rollback. Let me know if he moves to other articles so I can watch those.

Could we lay off the personal attacks by the way? I know nobody's very fond of wik right now, but making personal attacks doesn't help. --fvw* 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe the nerve of this guy, especially in light of the name he chose for his sockpuppets. What a freaking idiot. Consider him gone and consider a nomination for an admin position if you want it. I'd be glad to nominate you. - Lucky 6.9 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• You may continue to "smirk beatifically." I've just had the overwhelming satisfaction of making those two socks go away for good. Another admin protected the Sealand and Atlantium pages. Chalk one up for the good guys and don't hesitate to let me know if our little Wiki-poo puts on another set of "Groucho glasses."  :) - Lucky 6.9 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

DOM Consensus

Gene, well you were correct about it being a waste of time trying to get a consensus on the DOM article. I tried though and those who push the DOM idea were not able to provide sufficent facts to prove their case. I would appreciate it if you would continue to check in on that page and the pages that are associated with it to confirm the fact that what they are posting is fraudulant and without adequate proof. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 10:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Voting on the category deletion

Gene, I'd encourage you to look at what I wrote in terms of my nomination to delete the page Johnski added for . I also have nominated the article about David Even Pedley for deletion that was created by Johnski in an attempt to further POV push DOM. If you would, please consider voting for deletion of both of them. Davidpdx 04:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User page

Done! -- Chuq 07:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

DOM Reverts

GP, I saw your note on the talk page. I'm going to be in and out this afternoon. Please keep a watchful eye on the page for me if you can. I'll try to pop in and check in on it. There have been a lot of reverts and I'm in the process of trying to figure out what's going on with the diffrent user names. Thanks.. Davidpdx 04:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Gene, you (or someone else) is going to have to revert the DOM page for the next few hours. If I do I'm going to get a 3RR violation, which I don't want. Davidpdx 04:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting that this is categorized as ecclesiastical government. Gene, didn't you claim not to be involved in Atlantium somewhere? It is interesting what wikilantes you and David have become over Melchizedek, that you can't leave a subject alone for 2 hours. I'm glad when you honestly interact with me, even though you want to exclude balance from that subject.Johnski 06:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Micronation poll

Thanks GP, I will take a look at it in the next day or so. I wanted to make sure you saw that I have threatened to file for arbitration against Johnski and his fembots (ok, bad Austin Powers joke). Anyway, please take a look at it on the DOM page. If you have any comments, feel free to leave them on my talk pages as always. Davidpdx 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case Davidpdx

Did you happen to see Johnski's reply on the arbitration case. Supposedly, I am the "ringleader" of the group. He's making wild accusations and lying through his teeth. It looks like one member of the arbitration team has voted to accept the case. They are pretty backlogged so my guess is it will be later this week before anything big happens. If you want to add a statement you can, but it's up to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Davidpdx 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you've looked at the arbitration page lately, but since you put your statement on the page, Johnski has launched a rebuttle attack on you. He now claims your the "ringleader" and you misuse Misplaced Pages (I'm paraphrasing of course). Anyway, I left a message under his statement for the arbitration committee stating his rebuttle should be removed. We'll see what happens.

Right now it looks like were pretty close to this going forward. It's still 3/1/0 so I guess we need a few more votes still. Davidpdx 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Minerva

I took a look at that page, I agree with you. We have another "Johnski" on our hands, but not maybe as bad because the changes he is making are only in the info box. Davidpdx 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The information you have provided is inaccurate and unfair, as any depth of research on the topic could provide. I am simply aiming to show all sides of the issue, including the most vocal recent group. You are passing judgement on a strictly legal issue, only appropriate for courts to decide. Misplaced Pages should be a forum of which all information is provided to users so that they may make up their mind. Your information does not allow for such ends. I would gladly like to initate an arbitration, so long as it is fair. Minervan 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP quote in DOM article

GP, I was looking at the Washington Post quote in the DOM article. It does seem like the quote is a little sloppy. I'm not sure who put it in there, but I wanted to get your take on what we could do. What do you think about just putting the words, "you get the feeling" back into the quote, or even just removing the quote completely. Please let me know what you think ASAP. Davidpdx 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Talk Page

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here: Davidpdx 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have begun to post evidence. Hopefully some of you can help me a bit with this. It's turning out to be a lot of work. Davidpdx 10:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

GP thanks for your message. You might want to look at the evidence page. Johnski has begun to post all kind of strange accusations, including the fact that you are now our "ringleader." I don't know if I should bow down before you now or not? LOL He claims you've been nasty and mean to him. So you might want to post a rebuttal of some sort. Anyway, hopefully we will get some stuff on their about content soon. Davidpdx 16:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet

It seems like there's yet another Johnski sockpuppet/meatpuppet to now contend with: Immigrationissues.--Gene_poole 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

GP, yeah I noticed that. I didn't say much other then to point out the arbitration. I'm not sure what we should do at this point. What do you think? Davidpdx 23:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore it, and add it to the evidence. --Gene_poole 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Last Call

Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Misplaced Pages as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Phantom Islands

A note regarding the Melchizedek entry. Granted that Melchizedek isn't the name of a regular phantom island. Evan David Pedley claimed as the territory of Dominion of Melchizedek a small island he claimed existed just off the coast of California. I believe it was this "phantom island" to which the original contributor was referring. --Roland 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Proposed Decision

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:.

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: .

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Davidpdx 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the proposed decision talk page. It seems like we need to try to keep the pressure on to get the arbitration committee to make the sanctions stronger. I'm a little surprised Johnski hasn't been anywhere to be found lately (short of the reverts). I am sure he's probably lurking waiting to disrupt the arbitration hearing at some point. I will try to continue to keep a close eye on the pages and keep everyone updated. Davidpdx 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent micronation edits

Hi; Johnski has messaged me complaining about your reverts on Micronation. I think it might be better to leave the the wording in question as it was until the dispute is resolved. I also have to say it's probably not fair to characterize these edits of Johnski's as vandalism merely because they are Johnski's. To an objective observer, which I hope to remain, this can only be seen as a disagreement over content. Best regards, Tom Harrison 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

GP, will do. I'll be at work this afternoon, but I'll try my best to check in every once in awhile. Davidpdx 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Johnski Comments

I don't know if you saw, but Johnski put comments on the proposed decision talk page. He complained his "evidence" wasn't being considered. On my talk page, he said if I didn't revert the Micronation article he would "assume I was Gene Poole." His accusations are getting rediculous. Anyway, thought you'd get a good laugh out of that.

Merry Christmas Davidpdx 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Independent State of Rainbow Creek

This article contains a good deal of text in common with that of the reference given at the bottom of the page. I'm seeking confirmation that you wrote the article or asked for permission. Matt73 13:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can vouch for "Gene Poole"; he is the owner of the website in question. Samboy 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:ANZAC War Memorial 10b - 28012002 x640.JPG has been listed for deletion

dbenbenn | talk 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

ANZAC War Memorial image

Hi, I'm the owner of the image linked to the above article that has been tagged for deletion. I'm not sure why it's been so tagged, as I assumed I'd added the appropriate copyright tag at the time I uploaded it several years ago. I'm currently travelling internationally and don't have the time to look into this in any detail until my return in a week's time. If you can make any necessary modifications to prevent deleteion of the image please do so, as I don't want to have to upload it again. I authorise the image to be published under the Creative Commons license. --Gene_poole 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You tagged Image:ANZAC War Memorial 10b - 28012002 x640.JPG as cc-by-nc-1.0, a noncommercial license. Images here have to allow commercial use. Of course, you can't "authorise the image to be published under Creative Commons license", only the author George Cruickshank can do that. dbenbenn | talk 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can. I am George Cruickshank. --Gene_poole 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I recommend you tag it as {{GFDL-self}}{{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. dbenbenn | talk 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

List of micronations

Hey Gene. Actually, part of the point of the new list in List of micronations was to create an inclusive list which could include all the marginal or internet-only players, while marking the real-world one simultaneously (see the tags...). This would relieve pressure from them all poking into the main Micronations article, where the non-notable ones don't belong. I am going to partially revert your last back to make the list header more inclusive. I would not object, if you are so inclined, if you want to do something like swap the order of the old (exclusive to historically verifyable credible) list (now on the bottom) with the new list (now on top). Anyways, followup to the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Mr. Poole: I feel like we are finally learning to get along and thank you for working with me on the issue of the Washington Post quote. Hope we can work together in the future as well. Best, KAJ 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ecclesiastical Government