User talk:Davidpdx/Archive01

This is an archive, Do not edit it in any way! If you want to leave me a message please use the current talk page

Archive September 17th to December 31st 2005

Re: Deletion

You need to create the discussion page. Click on the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Coughlan either here or on the page, and then enter {{subst:afd2|pg=Aidan Coughlan|text=Whatever reason you had to delete the page should go here.}} and save the page. Then add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Coughlan}} to the same page you've edited before. Which part of this was confusing, BTW? JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Ecclesiastical state

Dear Davidpdx, I had received your message regarding Ecclesiastical state. I did not vote delete. Instead, I voted comment and suggest that there is a duplicate article which can be redirected. --Hurricane111 21:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Davidpdx, I received your message and I concur... My vote has been changed to redirect with a suggested lock.--Isotope23 13:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The submitter of an AFD request doesn't decide when they close. I think they stay up for a minimum of five to seven days or so, and then whenever an admin gets around to looking at them he or she decides the consensus, acts, and closes the discussion. Jdavidb 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

DOM

Hi David, took your advice and signed up under Johnski. I've started a subject of Micronation under Dominion of Melchizedek which you can take a look at and let me know what you think so far. Thank you Johnski 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, David, I'm not sure what parts you want me to prove, so could we take one point at a time? You can look at the talk page of Dominion of Melchizedek and see where I posted a version that I worked from the latest version that was posted there, and compare it to Gene Poole's last version, and let me know the first point you think I should prove. Let's take it one point at a time, otherwise, I'm not sure where to start or what you think needs proving.Johnski 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Davidpdx, I'm disappointed that you couldn't see any of the points I made. Did you sincerely try to understand what I sincerely tried to point out to you? Perhaps you were so prejudiced when you started, it was hard to honestly look at my points or believe any of the evidence I provided. Please at least try to respond to what I wrote in reponse to your last questions. If everything I've written turned out to be true, would that change your thinking? You think that I'm trying to prove that DOM is good? No, just that the article only tells one side of the story and is inacurate, and totally ignores the other side. Is it wrong to to try to bring balance to the article?Johnski 06:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

John, It goes far beyond seeing the points that you are making. I'm willing to, but again as I've said countless times the rules regarding sighting creditable sources need to be followed. Should someone break the rules simply to have a fair and balanced article as you are stating. No, they shouldn't. And even if I did, someone else would come along and point out the lack of creditable proof and pull the claim out of the article (rightfully so).

I've left you some link to the guidelines Wikipedia uses. I also asked for the links that SamSpade was talking about (SBS, ect) on the DOM page. If you could leave a message with those on my talk page, I'll look at them. Davidpdx 10/8/05 1:34 (UTC)

Mr. Davidpdx: You claim to be teaching English as a second language but you spell "citing" as "sighting". You also claimed to be willing to see the points made by Johnski but made not one effort to bend an inch his way over a period of the weeks he made many arguments for many reasonable small changes. He even withheld making reversions for more than a week at your request, giving you time to make any compromise. As an observer, it seems that you had no intention of any compromise, or you are Gene Poole, or he writes emails that you publish as your own work. If you are really an English teacher, please show that you were sincere by honestly looking at the "Just the facts" attempt to continue where Johnski failed on the Dominion of Melchizedek talk page. It only deals with the opening line of the article. I think by taking one sentence at a time, "line upon line, precept upon precetp," we have a better opportunity to reach a consensus. KAJ 21:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

re Ecclesiastical State

Hi David. The purpose of an AfD discussion is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion or not. Regarding the AfD of Ecclesiastical state, by my reading, there were six editors who were in favor of deleting the article and nine who were not (any recommendation other than delete is a recommendation to keep, for example a redirect is a particular kind of keep). Thus there was clearly no consensus for deletion. And, although there was a majority to keep, it was not large enough (in my view - there is no set amount) to call it a consensus. Nevertheless, a lack of consensus to delete means the article will be kept by default. However the article can still be redirected. And assuming that those editors who recommended deletion would support redirection, there does seem to be a consensus for redirection. However, such a decision is a normal editorial decision and doesn't involve AfD. If you want to redirect the page, you could propose the redirection on the talk page first, or you could be bold and simply redirect, in either case, citing the AfD discussion as justification. Does that make sense? Have I answered you questions? If anything I wrote wasn't clear, or your have other questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them. Paul August ☎ 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

David I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 01:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Taongi

I think it is much easier to deal with this seperately because it is a much smaller issue than the entire Melchizedek story. Therefore, over here please consider that this version appears to be perfectly factual and balanced, because it has claimed as part of its sovereign territory Taongi and DOM clearly is an entity, aspiring to statehood, that has a history of licensing banks that defaud investors. This gives the counter balance in a polite way, that "The only basis for this claim seems to be related to a 'sovereign master lease' granted by the Iroijlaplap of Taongi Atoll." There is no dispute over whether or not the Iroijlaplap granted such a lease, only the fact as to the meaning of the lease, which should be left for readers to decide without opinions of our writers inserting stuff.SamuelSpade 22:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Left this message for you at Taongi talk.SamuelSpade 18:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi was seen on SBS TV saying that he "granted Melchizedek a 50 year master sovereign lease over Taongi." The only dispute is over the significance of that lease. The way this is written now clearly lets the reader decide the significance of that instead of a Wikipedian making his or her opinion of its meaning, so please revert to the compromise version that is clearly factual and balanced. If you don't revert it, you can be sure someone else will. This is clearly a smaller issue than the entire article about Melchizedek. While the entire article of Melchizedek may never be resolved and end up a reversion war, this issue is small enough to resolve now.SamuelSpade 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC) When I wrote, "the way it is written now" meant the last version I posted, not the reverted one you placed on the Bokak article.SamuelSpade 20:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I agree with Sam, but really don't have the time to go though every link I've show here and there, and I've seen others point to, and put it all toghether for you at this time, but will try to find time in the future. I didn't see the link you said I could find the rules you referenced. I don't know how the web site of Quatloos, or Angelfire, etc., are any more authoritative than what has been show to you, but you accept those without question. I think there are a few hard headed people out there that either have an agenda, or just don't want to see anything but what they want to see.Johnski 03:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The truth is there is NO consensus. Because the two of you claim this trash is true, doesn't not make it so. It is absolutely ridiclous to claim consensus. I have posted on BOTH your your talk pages about consensus on Wikipedia and neither one of you seem to care about it. I will continue to revert the page back to the one that was last agreed upon and report all reverts by both you as vandalism. If you want a revert war, simply bring it on. It is not only myself that disagrees with what you are posting, there are others who have made comments on the DOM page regarding the lack of proof you base your article on. I will be posting this on both of your talk pages in order to make sure you see this message. Davidpdx 11:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You and Jdavidb have totally missed the point of what I am trying to do with the Melchizedek article, as I've backed off the original position and only tried to make a compromise using stuff that there is consensus on, just rewriting it to tone it down. I didn't revert it just to revert it but because there was vandalism on the version that you seem to approve. You can also see I've reverted from vandalism on the Enenkio and New Utopia pages without making any changes to those articles.Johnski 06:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There was vandalism by someone else, which was reverted, that is true. But I do not agree upon the alternate version that you had posted on the talk page. If you simply reverted back to the version that was there then that is fine. I looked at the current article and to me it looked like the article you posted was the "alternate version" that was posted by you. If it was that version that you posted, I would remind you that there was no consensus. Hopefully that clears up the issue.

Please be aware that that I am not the only one watching this page. There are two or three other people that are monitoring articles in terms of what is posted. Certainly these people agree with me that the things you are posting do not have enough proof behind them to merit changing the articles. You can disagree with any of us as much as you want, but I doubt it will change any of our opinions. Davidpdx 06:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your email

Hi David,

You promised to post your email address but I don't remember seeing it. I think I could clear up some of the points a lot easier and faster if we could use email.Johnski 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did post me email address. If you go back and look at an old version of your talk page you'll find it. I only left it there for a few days because of the possiblity of spammers getting it. However, I would suggest reading the DOM talk page before you do that. It probably will clear up where I stand at this point.

To put it bluntly, I've asked for web links or other methods of proof in terms of specific points you claim in the compromise article discussion. Both you and Samspade claim you've showed me that proof. When I've asked for those, they could just as well be put on my user talk page. In one instance, Samspade even went as far as insulting me on the DOM talk page. Both of you have reverted articles and lack a good faith effort in the discussion. Therefore, I have archived the discussion and posted my reasoning for withdrawing from discussions on a compromise article. Davidpdx 07:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

David, Please check your incoming email from me. As I finally found your email address that you left me back when.Johnski 09:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page as well as the DOM talk page, I am finished working on a compromise. Davidpdx 10:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Helpful links

Here are some helpful links regarding policies on using sources on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia:Cite sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia:Verifiability

I have posted new comments on the DOM talk page again. Most likely I won't get around to putting comments again until Friday or so. Davidpdx 10/5/05 13:30 (UTC)

David, thank you for these helpful references. Even though you have personally attacked me, I will try to be friendly towards you. I apologize for anything that I've written that may have offened you.Johnski 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

that both supporters and opponents can agree.

David, I haven't given up on you yet, and I've read again stuff that you suggested, and found that it wholly supports what I'm trying to achieve here. This is from the founder of Wikipedia:

The original formulation of NPOV

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points.

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.--Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

(Unsigned by Johnski)

Category deletion

I answered your question at WP:HD and removed the AfD glue for it. It should now be a clean slate for you to follow the process I gave a link to at the help deak. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

afd

Hi - seems something is missing in your listing here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solkope and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 18. Please fix, thanks - Vsmith 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed it. I know the AFD instructions can be very complicated, so don't worry. For your reference, the instructions are found at {{AfDFooter}}. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to be able to go along with the AfDs; but one result of an AfD can be public consensus on an NPOV article - which can be better than deletion. Septentrionalis 17:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sock

David: Thanks for your note. I'm going to stay out of it inasmuch as possible. -- Essjay · Talk 14:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

IP numbers

Hi,

No, I haven't worked with any developers at all, sorry, except once when my password stopped working because of a bug. The quickest way to contact some of them or ask for referrals might be on IRC; see Wikipedia:IRC channels. Tempshill 23:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek

Yes I have noticed the signs of sock pupetry. And while I was briefly taken in my his concern for consensus I have seen thru that too. Calling him a vandel, however, does seem to me incorrect and worse it may lead to the casual observer thinking it is he that is the reasonable one. Which is not to say that, if I had for a longer period been debating with someone who thinks an obvious hoax should be given serious consideration, I might not now be using the v-word.Dejvid 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, however there is no other means in which to describe his behavior. Most importantly, I am glad your aware of the situation. Thanks for your continued help. Davidpdx 09:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Solkope

Davidpdx, could you please look at the sourcing ont the Solkope talk page and discuss this either in the article talk (or my user talk page if you would prefer) before reverting again? You've already pulled the text you find objectionable 4 times so I would prefer to discuss your objections to it and/or the sourcing of the claims before we get into an edit war over this. To be clear, I think the DoM claim is complete bunk and would never stand up to a legal challenge (mostly because there is no clear history of title from the purported "sovereign owner"), but the fact that documents purporting ownership of the islet were produced in a court case is interesting and the claim of ownership is probably the most notable thing to happen on Solkope in the past 50 years. Please detail what your objections are; perhaps there is wording that could be used that you would find more acceptible.--Isotope23 16:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

First, thanks for writing back. You don't have to post this conversation on the Talk page for that article, we can have it here and on my Talk page if you would prefer.

I agree with you that DoM is not legitimate and that the docs I posted are not legal. What I'm trying to portray here is the fact that DoM has purported to own the island of Solkope and this (as well as their other actions on Rotuma) have created press, particularly on Rotuma itself. In fact, the DoM representative on Rotuma was actually barred from returning to the island by the ruling council for all the stuff he pulled. What I'm trying to come up with is a way to portray the fact that the DoM has laid claim to this islet, but also portray the fact that this claim has never been substantiated materially. The primary reason I even included it in the article is because it is possibly the most notable feature of the island: that it is claimed by a supposed micronation. I agree with you that it is most likely a hoax, but (and this is just my opinion) some hoaxes have enough notability to merit some mention. Piltdown Man is an example (and one farm more notable than this). I'm not in anyway trying to legitimize any claims on Solkope, I'm just trying to write an article that contains all the information there is about this islet.

I have not looked at the full edit history of you, Johnski, et al, but I've gotten a bit of the flavor of it, so I understand your reluctance and suspicion regarding anything to do with DoM. I'm by no means asking you to work with anyone on this to come to a consensus. I'm just trying to come up with a fair and neutral wording here. I'm open to any suggestions and you can always use "email this user" in the toolbox if you don't want to get into another needless argument with people.

Regards, --Isotope23 02:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, thanks Davidpdx... oh and concerning David Even Pedley, even after my rewrite, my delete vote still stands. If it survives AfD or the consensus is merge, I will certainly attempt to condense and merge into DoM main article. After that, I think I'm done with DoM for a while... I think I'll just go back to rooting out band vanity pages.--Isotope23 02:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me Davidpdx... I'll toss it up and see what happens.--Isotope23 14:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk Page

Please visit my talk page, User:KAJ made changes to the article and I'm trying to reach consensus (just easier to keep the discussion on that page).--Isotope23 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Reponse to your message

Davidpdx, while I understand your point, I have a couple of issues with refering to DoM with the "fraud" terminology in the context of the Solkope article. Primarily because it just isn't necessary to do so. Let me make an anology (feel free to groan now)... an apple is a fruit, but you don't see everyone appending the word "apple" with "fruit" everytime it appears in a wikipedia article. By wikilinking apple, it allows the interested reader to follow up and learn more about the referenced entity. The first sentence of the DoM article clearly lays out the fraud claim (well at least how it stands right now... but that is entirely another issue). It's just not necessary to append every mention of an entity with an adjective if it is clearly labeled in the entities parent article. Calling DoM a fraud in the context of the Solkope article comes pretty close to WP:POINT, even if it is 100% a true statement (and I am inclined to agree with you that it is). Whether it is 2 people who object or 200, it appears more to be a statement designed for incitement, just as "diplomatically recongnized" appears to be on the flipside. I'm opposed to using either terminology in the context of this article. Linking DoM allows any reader to go and read a much fuller discussion of all the issues surrounding DoM. I favor wording like "purports" because claims have been made, but not substantiated. This is my position. Heh, I'm starting to understand what it must be like to mediate North Korea/U.S. (et al.) multilateral talks.--Isotope23 19:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Isotope23: Forgive me if you are a woman. I remember you love music, but not your gender. You really made me laugh as if Davidpdx and I are like diplomats from two countries fighting and you, a diplomat from a third country. I hope that breaks the ice between us and relations can become a little friendlier as they thaw from your help with this subject! It seems we are both learning from your help. KAJ 20:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek/Solkope/et al.

I have given up on anything related to Dominion of Melchizedek, it is a waste of my time and will accomplish nothing. This issue and others have given me a bad impression of Wikipedia and I think that I will just stick to editing a few non contreiversion pages of interest. Further information on my view of Wikipedia can be found on my user page. Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 21:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, While you gave up on me because I reverted after waiting 9 days for any progress with you, but saw none, is this really such a cardinal sin that you can not forgive me? I also feel that you have violated wiki rules or guidelines, but haven't used that as a reason to treat you as a pariah. I ask that you make one more effort to work with me on finding wording that we both can consider fair, balanced and factual. Sincerely,Johnski 22:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

If these guys are sockpuppets (and what reasonable person would think they are not?), we've got some clear cases of 3RR rule going on here for which we can block. Any luck on getting an actual check? Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

David, I was pretty sick last weekend and didn't get a chance to do it. However, I put it in just now. I guess I was hoping things would calm down and it wouldn't be necessary. It looks like that is not the case. Here are the usernames/IP adresses I had him check:

User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

Davidpdx 02:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I'll tell you what, you disclose your IP addresses, I'll disclose mine. If you agree, I'll disclose mine first. Otherwise, myself and others might be led to believe you have something to hide. I see that KAJ was a leader in that regard, and you were not forthcoming in showing the same good faith. Sincerely,Johnski 05:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong, so why should I disclose my IP address? If you would simply follow the rules of Wikipedia, this would all be moot point. Don't try to pawn this on myself or anyone else.

Furthermore, the message you copied off someone elses user page was NOT to you. In other words, mind your own business. Davidpdx 08:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, when you accuse someone of wrong doing, then you need to be forthcoming to show that you are not guilty of the same thing, by showing good faith in revealing your IP address. The fact that you are not willing to show it to us, leads me to believe that you are hiding the fact that you engaged in the same behavior you have accused others of. What is the problem with showing us this measure of good faith if you are innocent?

Furthermore, what message did I copy that was none of my business? (unsigned Johnski)

Wikilante, Hurry, read all about it!

Dear Davidpdx, you and your ilk have inspired me to create a new article, Wikilante. I hope the fact that you have been the primary cause of this, causes you to give pause, and see how you have become a vigilante. I'm sure under different circumstances, we could be friends, and I still hope that we can forgive each other, and move in that direction. Hurry, rush and nominate it for deletion before someone else does. SincerelyJohnski 07:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You know that could qualify as taunting, which could get you banned. I'd very much caution you on your tone. Yes, you are correct I am keeping track of what is going on and I am very vigilant. If your creating articles purely for the fun of it, then you need to get your head examined. 09:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dear David, No, I did not know that, and please forgive me if you felt that I was taunting you. While I enjoy writing my free contributions here, it isn't fun, although creating a new term, was fun. This is what I just wrote to the other David. "Yes, I do agree that protecting Wikipedia is good through vigilance, and that should be included in the definition, but where am I not following the rules, lately? As I learn the rules, I follow them. I do admit that I am a slow learner, but have come a long ways. The real issue is Davidpdx's refusal to let the article become more unbiased. You and he haven't shown the slighest interest in doing that. I actually admire Davidpdx's Wikilantism on the one hand, but feel that he has gone overboard on the other. You and he claim sock-puppetry of me, and I have offered to reveal my IP address in good faith, if you agree to also, and I'll go first if you agree. Why have you not accepted my invitation? Other than having different religious backgrounds, you and I would probably see eye to eye in many other matters. Please see my comments on context and irony on the DOM talk page." Sincerely,Johnski 17:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Dear David, would you be interested in mediation under a wiki mediator? If so this could avoid the more difficult process of arbitration. Sincerely, Johnski 07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, there is nothing to talk about. Davidpdx 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, What reason? What about the fact that you just reverted a perfectly good version about Taongi after I proved there is consensus for the facts described about Melchizedek and you called it vandalism after a third party suggested you stop that behavior? Do you prefer arbitration?Johnski 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If that's what you want, bring it on. I'm sure there will be more the a couple people willing to attest to your behavior. I'm not the only person who has reverted you vandalism. There are at least 5 or 6 other legitimate users that have reverted the vandalism by you and your sockpuppets. Davidpdx 16:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, Mediation is a better means of resolving this matter than artibtation. I'd prefer to work this out with you man to man, but since you are unwilling to try, the first approach according to what has been suggested to me by other Wikipedians, is mediation, but if you refuse to participate it is impossible for a mediator to help us. If we end up in arbitration, I think your unwillingness to accept mediation will work against you. There are no witnesses needed because the record speaks for itself. Have you read how Mediation works here? I suggest you read that before making your final decision for refusal to mediate our differences. Sincerely,Johnski 05:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As I have stated and once again you have IGNORED the fact, I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE REVERTING YOUR vandalism. You should wake up and see that there are MANY users that have a problem with you NOT JUST ME. Are you that ignorant that you can't understand that? Davidpdx 01:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you have misrepresented the truth. First of all, arbitration is a "last resort" based on what I read. Second, you are sadly mistaken that there are no witnesses. In truth, the both sides have the chance to make a statement to make their points. Third, I see do not see ANYWHERE where it says that someone's unwillingness to accept mediation would work against them. Fourth, threatening to take some one to arbitration is in bad taste, lacks good faith and is plain wrong. I realize the first thing out of your mouth will be to deny the fact that you threatened me with arbitration, but there is now a record of it on both your talk page as well as mine. Fifth, I'm not the one that created an article critical of specific people on Wikipedia (Wikilante). Again, this is something that is in fact on record that you did and you can't deny it. Davidpdx 10:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, I don't want to piss you off, that is not my intention. Oh, yes, there is a record of that too, and that you again called me a liar while I'm trying to get you to act with proper Wikiquette. I noticed that you dinn't thank me for bring COOL to you attention below. I just want to make peace with you and have honest, progressive dialog with you. I really don't know how i have misrepresented the truth. You pointed, out that arbitration is a "last resort" based on what you read, and that is why I'm suggesting that we ask the help of a mediator. You said that I am sadly mistaken that there are no witnesses, but what I mean is that what we have published is the only witness that we need and it is 100% perfect, unlike human witnesses. It is just my opinion that your unwillingness to accept mediation will work against you. It shows my good faith, and your lack thereof. I wasn't threatening to take you to arbitration, only let you know that that would be my next step (last resort) if you don't accept mediation. Would you prefer I just start arbitration without my giving you the opportunity to reconsider mediation? I didn't mean it in a way to threatened you! Why would I deny the fact that I wrote to you my only remedy is arbitration if you don't accept mediation, and why would I not know there is now a record of it on both your talk page as well as mine? That again is my point that the record is the only witness needed. For mediation there isn't any witness needed, but the record will help the mediator to figure out what is going on between us and give him/her ideas of what direction to go in finding a solution between us. I didn't mention your name on the article I created for Wikipedia (Wikilante), you only gave me the idea from your Vigilante behavior. Remember, I also complimented you for your vigilance. I'll say it again, I admire your vigilance even though it verged if not became what I call Wikilanteism. Again, this is something that is in fact on record that I'm proud of, can't deny it, but neither can you deny the things you have written. BTW, mediation isn't binding, it is only for a third party to help us work out our differences. Arbitration is binding. Cordially, Johnski 05:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly have much better things to do then argue with you. For now, I've decided to stop messing with the DOM articles and to go back to the editing. Yes, I do in fact work on non-DOM articles. If someone else wants to revert your mess, then that's their business. At the same time, that doesn't mean I'll be totally out of the picture. I will keep an eye on things. If you want to take me to arbitration for that, then so be it. Davidpdx 05:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Dear David, thank you for these civil good words (all but "mess"), which I take as a sign that we are becoming more peaceful with each other. Yes, the DOM article is a mess, but I don't believe any related articles are so messy. Although you can't see it in the future, and despite our differences of opinion, I do hope we become friends over time. Other than good family relations, outside friendship is the best thing in this world to find, but it doesn't always come easy. Cordially, Johnski 05:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your todo list

I formatted and wiki-linked your todo list. I hope you don't mind; I'll revert if you do. Linking to articles that don't yet exist can sometimes prompt others to write the articles. :) Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Cool

Dear Davidpdx, An admin just brought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COOL to my attention regarding wikilante. I encourage you to read COOL so that we may get alone better, if we can both attempt to follow its advice. It may be hard for you to understand why it is important to me to bring balance to the Melchizedek article and the reason for my keen interest. As a Christian Scientist, I don't like seeing something connected to it, even indirectly not given a fair and balanced article. The connection is that the Melchizedek Bible is based on the writings of the founder of Christian Science, that is, Mary Baker Eddy, the author of "Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures". An example of this would be like a mainstream Morman finding something on wikipedia about the Reformation Church of Mormans being given an apparently biased article. Although the mainstream Morman wouldn't necessarily agree with there being Reformation Church of Mormans, he probably wouldn't want to see it given unfair treatment, and may become zealous about improving the article. Also, please don't miss the other message to you above. Sincerely, Johnski 08:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Johnski

Thanks for your message. His vandalism is certainly reaching epic proportions. I am happy to support any disciplinary process against him. --Centauri 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I also am willing to completely support any action performed against this user; I will sign any WP:RFC you place against him. Samboy 21:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

kim jong il

thanks for your recent comments on the talk page. in case you missed it, there is an actual poll on this issue, & your vote there would be appreciated. Talk:Kim Jong-il#Poll Appleby 16:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Section headings on talk pages

I noticed you were changing some section headings on talk pages to have headlines with one = sign instead of two. If you click the "+" button at the top of a talk page (which used to be labelled "add a comment" and is one of the most common ways of starting a new discussion) you get a == level heading, so in general it's best to keep them all the same or the tables of contents get thrown off and new comments look like they are subheadings of those.

I have no idea why == is the default instead of =. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this to your attention again. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Solkope

I noticed that you were the last person to edit Solkope, yet you did not remove the DOM content. Why did you keep this content? Samboy 08:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to remove the content, go ahead. This was something I was doing to lay down the law in terms of the junk Johnski puts in the articles. I didn't remove all the content, but edited it back to a version I had added to the article as a something Isotope and I agreed would be a good alternative. I have no problem with it being removed. Be ready to be attacked by Johnski after he logs on. Davidpdx 08:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I am sorry that I suggested your case would not be suitable for mediation. I said that I didn't feel mediation would be useful because I had seen the comment higher on this page about vandalism. When you list someone as having multiple sockpuppets, it doesn't bode well for mediation. Mediation is about resolving differences, not punishment. I couldn't see your dispute being helped by mediation. RFC seems a better course of action. Best wishes, [[Sam Korn]] 10:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree; WP:RFC time. I don't like the word punishment; I like to assume good faith and assume the editor in question may make positive contributions to Wikipedia once they let go of their DOM obsession. Samboy 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Johnski

Yeah, I've seen the "we had consensus" stunt pulled before, by Johnski and others, and I'll be ready to point out he doesn't have it if and when appropriate. (In fact, I pointed that out preemptively this time. :) ) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the kind words. I'm asking you to look at the article Karitane Shoal; it is really bad form for one editor to directly do a revert war with another editor (see Wikipedia:One-revert rule. Samboy 21:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to call me sockpuppet? You dudes might want to read more carefully. Just looked at Taongi talk and what Johnski wrote is that there is concensus on the DoM article about Taongi's Iroijlaplap granting a lease to it. Where has he or I ever claim other consensus on points that there is no consensus for? Put up or shut up!SamuelSpade 04:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your passive agressive behavior is noted. It's strange when one of you disappear, the other one suddenly shows up. Then suddenly new sockpuppets appear. There is in fact proof that you have constantly reverted articles against consensus, exactly in the same manner as Johnski. Putting the sockpuppet issue aside for a moment, that is still inappropriate. Although you have not done it near as much as other "user id's" it is still inexcusable. Like Johnski, et. al., you have not shown good faith when you revert articles without consensus. That is exactly why this is going forward in terms of arbitration. I would say the same back to you, "put up or shut up!" Davidpdx 06:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, I'm sorry that you are so angry with my efforts to edit for a better article about DOM. Checked the Martha Stewart article and it says she maintained her innocence. Are you going to go and change that article and remove that fact? Probably not, as you'll most likely use the consensus word, right? Good luck on your research. Even if you can't believe it, I wish the best for you and hope that we can work out our differences. Sincerely, Johnski 07:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Micronation Infobox

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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 06:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existence of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Samboy, I understand your concern. Certainly your problem with Gene Poole is exactly the same problem I have with Johnski and all his sockpuppets. It is frustrating to feel that way. I don't really have much knowledge of the "micronations" in general, except that I've tried to learn as much as I can about DOM. I appreciate your stance.

My goal is to try not to get involved in the dispute. At the same time I would like to try to persuade both of you to put your diffrences aside to work for a common cause, which is to get this problem with DOM taken care of. It's a balancing act. I really want to go forward with mediation against Johnski/KAJ/Samuelspade/etc. and show him we mean business in terms of his reverting articles against consensus.

I hope you can appreciate my take on this. I think together we can stop this nonsense and maybe get the people responsible banned for awhile. Thanks for listening. Davidpdx 11:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Davidpdx. I'm more than happy to support any arbitration against Johnski. Thanks for letting me know. Concerning Samboy, you should be aware that he has longstanding personal "issues" with me, because he and 1 or 2 other editors believe that all micronations should be deleted from Wikipedia, and I and many other editors disagree. The fact that he has failed to convince any other editors of his POV in more than a year of trying has been a source of constant frustration to him, and this has had the effect of severely impairing his rational judgement on the subject. It's best to just ignore any provocation or inflammatory comments from him, and just focus on the problem at hand. Sorry to have to air this dirty laundry on your talk page, but I don't like being lied about by people with a highly selective view of reality. --Gene_poole 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Minerva

Hello. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the above article, as we seem to have the same problem there as with Dominion of Melchizedek - namely, one editor who seems to be a member of the group adding POV promotional content (most of which is either wrong or unverifiable), and reverting like crazy anything that disagrees with him. --Gene_poole 22:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm on wiki-vacation

Just letting you know that I'm on Wiki-vacation until MaraDNS 1.2 is released. GOod luck with our DOM vandal. Samboy 10:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

WP quote in DOM article

I feel that the use of the Washington Post quote is fine as it is. The purpose of the statement is to offer the opinion that the Central African Republic would recognise the state of denial if it has a letterhead. Adding "you get the feeling that..." to the quoted section is unneccesarily verbose, and changes nothing. It's just another of Johnski's red herrings. --Gene_poole 03:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. The version I've read was from the DOM site but it did look as they did no more that adding inline comments. That they considered it a ruse is pretty explicit. What do you see as the problem.Dejvid 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, that's just one of the things he's complaining about quite a bit. It seems small and I thought perhaps we could try to compromise on that one thing to prevent any more reverts for the time being. I'm trying to get everyone to leave the article alone while arbitration is decided. Maybe it's a stupid idea. I know that one person has already expressed displeasure at the idea, which makes me wonder if the group consensus will be the same reaction.

I'll wait to hear back from some others, but by your statement I'm taking it your ok with that. Which would you prefer, leaving it out or just putting in the rest of the statement. Please let me know. Davidpdx 08:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, Thank you for finally taking an interest in solving this problem of the WP's statement being misrepresented by Gene. He doesn't understand the difference between "you get the feeling" and "probably". It seems that Dejvid is stuck on the point about the word, "ruse" and isn't aware that we are on another part of the article. The ruse thing still bother's me because the actual article didn't say it IS A RUSE, but that it MAY MERELY BE A RUSE. There again the WP is being falsely quoted. The title of an article doesn't necessary make a statement of fact, nor does it necessarily give an opinion, as it may just be a title written to catch the readers attention, so that he or she will be drawn into reading the entire article. The problem remains that Forbes didn't call it "a ruse", and the WP also, wrote that it "may be the ultimate post modern state." Writing a fair and balanced article requires that if an article gives two opposite opinions, that you use both, not just one. You can certainly come to the conclusion that DOM is a ruse after reading the article, but you can also come to a different take, taking into consideration all of the different opinions and facts stated in the WP article. In any case, the article here should be somewhat like the WP article, giving different views, instead of just one sided, and let the reader come to his or her own conclusions. Sincerely, Johnski 09:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too excited at this point. I may have jumped the gun at offering this as a solution. At best, it seems like I'm getting a lackluster response in terms of a consensus. If I could put together a group of at least four people (five including you and myself), that would agree this should be changed, I'd do it. At this point, if I did make the change I feel it's going to cause the situation to blow up and get worse.

Honestly, looking at the arbitration page, it appears that the case is going to be heard and pretty soon. Last time I looked it was 3/1/0 which means one more vote is needed to hear the case. There is one other case in line ahead of us, so I think that by the end of the week this is going to go forward. Right now, I'm asking for a cease fire. As I said, I've left messages with several other people and I'm not hearing anyone that is wild about the idea. I wish I could have come up with something. Davidpdx 13:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice to have someone in authority let us know where we have gone wrong and help get us on the right course. It would be better if we could figure it out on our own. It seems like we were close to doing that, but I just realized that our inability to work together may have more to do with Gene's influence in this matter than our different ideas of how the rules work. If you see something that is clearly wrong, i.e. mis-characterization of the WP article, I think the rules tell us to boldy edit. It dawns on me that Gene is a bit of a bully, and if you be the one to boldy edit, he might back down. Right now you only have one person against correcting an error, and more than one in favor of it. Sincerely, Johnski 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not blame Gene for the lack of consensus, others have not answered messages left on their talk page or questioned why we should change it. At least one is "away" for awhile. I know you don't want to hear this, but there are some serious things that do need to be worked out in arbitration. I'm not going to go into the reasons, because it's pointless, second because it's repetitive (in fact they have been said over and over again). At this point, it's the only thing I can say. I do believe we are close to getting some movement on the arbitration case. It is logical to wait a few days and see what happens. Davidpdx 10:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

(note to all users: Please leave any questions or comments about the arbitration case under this heading. If you are looking for where the arbitration case is located you can click here: [1])

SpadeSam

Already done, David. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Jbregehr

Please consider reverting the weird changes that this user is making to the DoM article so that I don't violate 3RR. Thanks. -EDM 02:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

EDM, will do. I'll keep a close eye on it. Davidpdx 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be better if you didn't edit directly in my comments on people's talk pages, please. Supplement or clarify if you want, but independently; I'd rather have things that I sign be my own words rather than my words, edited. Thanks. -EDM 05:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

(note to all users: Please leave any questions or comments about the arbitration case under this heading. If you are looking for where the arbitration case is located you can click here: [2])

My evidence has finally been compiled and submitted. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

Hi; You may have already figured this out, but you may want to post links to the diffs, as for example this one. It took me a while to figure out, so I thought I might save you some time. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for the advice. I'm working on the links. It's going to take quite a bit of time however. Especially since I'm covering two months of edits. Not sure how to show evidence for some of the things I'm trying to prove, but I'm learning. If you have any more tips, I'd appreciate it. Thanks... Davidpdx 02:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to help with evidence, but I may be a bit slow due to external comittments leading up to xmas. --Gene_poole 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll try to get some evidence together later in the week. --Centauri 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Embarrassing admission

You left a note on my Talk Page a while back: it wan't until now, while refactoring the page, that I noticed that you said I was a plaintiff in an Arbitration, and that my names was being used in it. Unfortunately, the link you left goes straight to the main Request for Arbitration page, so now I have no idea which case you're referring to. Which one is it? --Calton | Talk 06:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am on Wikipedia vacation

Hello there. I can not help with this arbitration until MaraDNS 1.2.00 is released. I am on a self-imposed Wiki-vacation; I will be able to help if you still need help after MaraDNS 1.2.00 is released. In the meantime, please look at my user page to see if I'm still on vacation before leaving comments on my talk page.

Thank you. Samboy 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Pft!

I just now saw this. Oh brother. I love the concocted "I was just happening to read this" explanation. :)

I'm also just now looking at some of the other evidence presented by Johnski, et al. Amazes me how they are unable to stick to what the case is about:

1. What did Johnski do?
2. What does Wikipedia policy say about it?
3. If Johnski violated any policies, has he retracted his actions or does he still stand by them and intend to do them in the future?

Most of what they say has to do with:

1. What did Davidpdx do?
2. What did other people say to or about Davidpdx?

Utterly irrelevant... sigh ... Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hang in there

Hi, David; hang in there. The arbcom is not easily fooled or misled, nor do they often fail to see clearly when someone like Johnski has been up to mischief. They may or may not ever accept that any sockpuppetry was going on, but that was never the issue; they will see the real issue of Johnski's behavior and, I trust, respond appropriately. I also trust that they will not be distracted by the exceedingly bizarre (and yet commonplace in these proceedings) reasoning offered by the other side attempting to turn the case into an accusation against you when they are the ones who have failed to behave themselves.

It's a busy time of year, and I know most of us live lives that are far too busy. I hope that my lateness in posting evidence and everybody else's absence did not give you the feeling that you stood alone. You are not alone. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I wanted to mention that the text of the "Wikilante" article is available to the arbcom, as I'm pretty sure they're all admins. In my evidence I linked to the undelete page where they could view each revision. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Roberts

If you notice, your first change to the article was fine [3] and has now been restored. Since then you made two "minor" changes, which, in fact duplicated the article: [4] and [5]. FireFox 14:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism. In case you are not aware, this duplication of articles is really serious and is screwing up Wikipedia, basically. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thanks, FireFox 14:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem! simply integrate the changes and I think the article will be great. I noticed the error on recent changes and fixed it then quickly broke it down into the different sections which makes scanning the article easier. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 14:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bluebot

I do believe you, but it is meant to do what it did, someone asked me too, see the links in its edit summary. p.s. could you not leave messages on the user page. Martin 15:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oregon gubernatorial election, 2006

Thanks for pointing out Oregon gubernatorial election, 2006 and working on Oregon politics stuff. Unfortunately, I don’t have much time to contribute to the wiki these days.--Clipdude 08:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

More Melchizedek nonsense

Hi. I wonder if you could keep an eye on the Melchizedek entry in the micronation article. I've just edited it to remove the weasel wording the Johnski previously inserted there in an attempt to confuse things, and of course he keeps reverting my change. I've already reverted it 3 times today. I've added a comment at the bottom of the discussion page concerning this. --Gene_poole 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Davidpdx, why don't you show here that you can be fair and balanced? Here is a chance to show that you can stand up to a bully. BTW, I never said you were spineless. I did say that you cowarded to Gene when you let him get away with (or enforced) his mis-quoting the WP. Sincerely, Johnski 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing to say, other then what is being said at arbitration. Yes, you did call me spineless. Davidpdx 01:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you think that saying that you cowarded to Gene makes you spineless, I apologize. Certainly you would show more spine if you showed us your ip address and helped me correct a mis-quote, etc. Sincerely, Johnski 01:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said many times, I don't have to reveal my IP address. If you thought about it enough I'm sure you could figure it out, but I'm not going to do your investigative work. I have no sockpuppets or meatpuppets. There is going to be a finding of fact against you. You can argue all you want about it, but it will happen. Thanks for calling me spineless yet again.

By the way, the entry of DOM on the micronation page has been there for almost a year. If you go back into the history of the page, you'll see it probably wasn't put there by GP, but someone else. It wasn't until July 31st when you began removing it on a regular basis that it became a problem. Feel free to look for yourself, I'm not lying.

This is my last reply to you, anything else needs to be on the record in arbitration. Davidpdx 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I never called you spineless, and apologize again if that is what you thought I meant. If you read it, I'm not trying to remove the entry on the micronation article just reverting to the version that has been there for long time, and that Gene hold off on adding his POV until after the arbitration is finished, or cite credible sources for his POV. Doesn't that seem logical to you? If you don't agree with this I'll have to assume that you are Gene in disguise. Sincerely, Johnski 01:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vicki Walker

Nice work! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)