Talk:Solkope

message: This article has been kept following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate link 

message: Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should be wait for the outcome of the arbitration case before anything else is done. I would hope this is just merely common sense, but I guess I have to say it. 
If either Dominion of Melchizedek, Solkope or Bokak Atoll are edited again, I will ask for a TRO and/or page protect against editing. Honestly, I shouldn't have to do this, but if it becomes necessary I will. Davidpdx 13:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing During Arbitration 

message: Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so. Davidpdx 13:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helpful if you actually link the decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision, so people don't just have to take your word for it.--Isotope23 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: David I have reverted your edit. Please actually read edits before you choose to delete them - Your obvious bias against DOM meant you failed to read my wholly unbiased edits to the Solkope page which clearly and concisely explain the situation in relation to DOM and Rotuma without making a case for either point of view.
Irrespective of where you may personally stand, I am a Rotuman and have an intimate knowledge of the case and the history, and frankly the DOM dispute is the only thing worth mentioning in relation to that sandbank which frankly other would not deserve an article unto itself. Certainly the myth of the tupua' leptafeke (a misreported one at that) does not warrant a place on this page. 
I hope I don't come across as offensive here but please understand, feel free to wage your war on the nonsense spouted by the DOM, but do not sacrifice the truth in your personal vendetta. The DOM did claim Solkope: my article says nothing to the contrary and nothing of a bias supporting their claim either.
--Mattbray 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt, I have reverted your edit. I have also have a record of your IP address as 124.176.43.199 making similar edits not logged in under your alias which puts you in Australia . Per the prior ruling of the Arbitration Committee, I will report any and all alledged activity appearing to be sockpuppets of User:Johnski. Davidpdx (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  David I fear you suspicion is most unfounded. Please read my edits and  the above comments to you before passing judgment on what I've written. Nothing I've written on Solkope has any DOM bias. People who called themselves DOM went to Rotuma and tricked a lot of people, before being found out for what they were and ejected from the island. That actually happened and it deserves to be reported on the page. --Mattbray 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  David I want to discuss this maturely. Its clear you've paid no direct attention to my work because then perhaps you would have noticed my edits pertain not only to DOM but also to the geographic nature of Solkope which is pertinent,unbiased and could certainly be left. I'm not interested in a petty editing war: read my edits and you will see the sense in them. Look at my contribution history! I've been a wikipedian for a while and have many diverse interests outside those of DOM, making your case for me being a sockpuppet a lot less plausible. --Mattbray 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I took a look at WP:3O and did not see anything posted for a third opinion. Maybe I'm looking in the right place, but if this has indeed been done, please point where it is. In terms of the dispute, since nothing has been done after User:Gene_Poole's edits, I think the problem has been taken care of. Davidpdx (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David, we erase the request from the list at 3O when one of us replies to the request.  This is an informal process which does not specifically require participation from the editors involved in the dispute, but I like to get both sides of the issue before delving in.  Any suggestions I make will only be my opinion as a volunteer and will not be binding on you or the article.  This is just a process to help break stalemetaes in the process.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kevin and thanks for your offer. I posted the request for a third opinion when Davidpdx and I were indeed at a stalemate, which has subsequently been broken through concession and an informal third party opinion. I think this issue has sorted itself out. --Mattbray 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad to see it all worked out. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit wars between Davidpdx & Mattbray 

message: I am more then willing to go along with the changes Gene Poole has made as they remove the DoM bias from the article. At the same time I am very skeptical it will stand. Davidpdx (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Compromise Edits 

message: Hi, an editor has posted a request for a third opinion at WP:3O.  Please identify the parties in disagreement and summarize the issuse for me below, but please don't rebutt the statements of the other yet.  Let me just get a handle on the issue(s) first.  Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at WP:3O and did not see anything posted for a third opinion. Maybe I'm looking in the right place, but if this has indeed been done, please point where it is. In terms of the dispute, since nothing has been done after User:Gene_Poole's edits, I think the problem has been taken care of. Davidpdx (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: David, we erase the request from the list at 3O when one of us replies to the request.  This is an informal process which does not specifically require participation from the editors involved in the dispute, but I like to get both sides of the issue before delving in.  Any suggestions I make will only be my opinion as a volunteer and will not be binding on you or the article.  This is just a process to help break stalemetaes in the process.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kevin and thanks for your offer. I posted the request for a third opinion when Davidpdx and I were indeed at a stalemate, which has subsequently been broken through concession and an informal third party opinion. I think this issue has sorted itself out. --Mattbray 03:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad to see it all worked out. --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion