Talk:Bokak Atoll/Archive 1

message: A lot of relevant information culd be written about such atol. That some low notability fraudster used its name is IMHO the least important think here and therefore has no place here. Pavel Vozenilek 14:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Samboy 22:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, and don't know where you get your information, because what I have learned is that far more than some low notability fraudster simply using the name of Taongi, when in fact, there is not only a sovereign lease from the recognized Iroijlaplap of Taongi to Melchizedek documented on by SBS TV Australia, but Melchizedek has official and formal diplomatic recognition as "an ecclesiastical sovereignty" from at least one UN member state and treaties of peace and recognition from three other UN member states.  Not only has the fact of recognition been published by media around the globe, but Melchizedek has been featured on many international TV networks. I don't know of any micronation that has received the media attention nor the level of recognition that Melchizedek has received, regardless of the negative spin often presented.
67.124.49.20 06:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atol and connection to fraud 

message: I've removed a claim that the atoll consists of eleven islands: I can't see them on any  satellite views, just a single atoll. Of course, if you know different, please feel free to link to a cite, and to a satellite image at a reputable source. Note: links to the "Dominion of Melchizedek" website are unlikely to be regarded as authoritative. -- The Anome 08:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be hard to see how many islands in at atoll from a satellite view. But it took a 1 minute google search to find this: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/atolls/bokak.html which states that there are eleven islets in the atoll. Dougg 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eleven islands" claim 

message: Gotta say I like the new version much better as it's been toned down. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You would hope so. At least for now it has. Davidpdx 9/29/05 7:48 (UTC) See comments below Davidpdx 10:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Davidpdx, this may be the place that I felt you approved a version that I endorsed, and if I misread you here I ask for you to forgive me, as it was an honest mistake.  As Drini said that he liked the new version much better which was a version that was just posted before he wrote that, and your response led me to believe that you liked the toned down version, where you wrote, "you would hope so", in response. Additionally, I think you misunderstand my approach which isn't to prove that DOM is good in any way, but to let readers decide the case by putting both sides of the story there from acceptable sources and build it from things that there is already consensus for. Sincerely,Johnski 06:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment is not clearly attributed to what Drini said, obviously I didn't read it very well because I now reread it and do not agree. It is possible I wrote that late at night and I was tired. To set the record straight, I will leave the comment, but put a line through it to show that I am changing my comment. Furthermore, this conversation is old news, anything new should be posted down at the bottom of the page to keep the conversation in chronological order. Davidpdx 10:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  29 sept 

message: I have now added a tag claiming there is a dispute of facts on this page. There needs to be a consensus regarding this material. This material DIRECTLY relates to the debate going on on the Dominion of Melchizedek page as well as the Ecclesiastical State page. Simply changing it does not mean you have consensus. Davidpdx 9/30/05 8:07 (UTC)
Please DO NOT remove NPOV tag. The material in this article IS being disputed. If you remove the tag again, I will report it as vandalism. Davidpdx 10/3/05 8:53 (UTC)
== There is consensus and glad to see we cleared up part of our misunderstanding ==
Dear Davidpdx, there is consensus over the fact that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi did grant DOM a 50 years sovereign lease, so please stop removing that fact from the article.  It is in the protected article and has been in every article about DOM for months.
I'm glad that we were able to clear up that I had reason to believe you had approved one of the versions here.  Thank you for your honesty. SincerelyJohnski 17:50, 27 October 
2005 (UTC)
:No you are mistaken, there is not consensus about this issue. What do I need to say to be more clear about it. Davidpdx 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag

message: Dear Davidpdx, there is consensus over the fact that the Iroijlaplap of Taongi did grant DOM a 50 years sovereign lease, so please stop removing that fact from the article.  It is in the protected article and has been in every article about DOM for months.
I'm glad that we were able to clear up that I had reason to believe you had approved one of the versions here.  Thank you for your honesty. SincerelyJohnski 17:50, 27 October 
2005 (UTC)
:No you are mistaken, there is not consensus about this issue. What do I need to say to be more clear about it. Davidpdx 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is consensus and glad to see we cleared up part of our misunderstanding 

message: Davidpdx, Gene, here is a quote that has been left the same by every editor for very long time and is in the protected version, that both of you have reverted to, quoting from the DOM article: "the recognized Iroijlaplap (chief) of Taongi appeared on an Australian television current affairs programme in which he was quoted as saying he granted Melchizedek a 50 year sovereign lease over Taongi Atoll."  
Can we agree that the rest of the article gives the necessary discloures? I think it is best not to use more inflamatory language hoping not to upset people like Wikifacts. I think if we leave this like it is now, it is very unlikely to be the subject of a reversion war. Progressively, Johnski 07:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Centauri, The only reason that most people know about Taongi is because of the lease that Melchizedek has over it, from Taongi's Paramount Chief. Melchizedek's claim to Taongi has been mentioned in several credible news sources, and is in the Wiki article about Melchizedek, a micronation.  Micronations are one of the 500 most popular topics in Wikipedia.  We don't know if any Melchizedekian has ever set foot on Taongi, and it really doesn't matter either way.  You have been accused of being a sock-puppet of Gene Poole and as you both use "nonsense" so often that encourages me to believe the argument. Having a claim to the moon is a far fetched comparision. And a lease from a Iroijlaplpa is not meaningless. Sincerely, Johnski 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had disagreements and heated arguments with Centauri, but I agree with him on the Melchizedek issue.  I have added this page to my watchlist and will revert on sight any Melchizedek content added to this article.  Samboy 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Centauri, despite what anyone says, I don't believe what's being said in terms of you being both people. I'd encourage you to continue to watch the pages regardless of the accusations Johnski or others come up with. As I've said, I'm going to take a more passive role and get back to editing some articles that I want to improve and/or create. That doesn't mean I won't be watching him though. Davidpdx 03:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Mr. JDavidb et al: Melchizedek's claim to this Atoll has be covered by international media both in print and tele.  It is worthy of mention.  The text is from the DOM article that there is consensus for.  If it can't be said that it is quoting from Wikipedia, just take the word Wikipedia out.KAJ 06:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: KAJohnski, this claim has not been demonstrated to the consensus of editors of any article and any alleged documentation within Wikipedia only exists due to edit warring and not following the rules.  Wikipedia is not a source.  Sources used in Wikipedia can be a source, but of course they are open to examination and questioning.  As mentioned ad infinitum, the alleged claims appear ludicrous to every Wikipedia editor so far other than all your sockpuppets that exist only to promote DOM. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Johnski I don't know where you get the idea that there is any consensus on either articles for your garbage, but there is not. I would warn you that this IS going to mediation and we will make it known about the various sockpuppets. If you revert, we will push to have your access to Wikipedia limited. I would take these threats very seriously. Davidpdx 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davids: It appears you have never taken the time to read or study a subject for which you claim to be experts. The parts that are quoted come from the article about Melchizedek that you and your supporters have repeatedly reverted to, and Gene Poole, et al have edited to their liking, are those portions. The real reason, as I see it, is that you just don't like the subject, so you want to remove it from Wikipedia. To me, the subject is interesting, and famous enough like other subjects to be covered in all of its notorious aspects. Melchizedek  claims Clipperton, but I don't see that that is worth including in the Clipperton article, because that claim doesn't rise to the fame of Taongi and Solkope, nor are there leases involved.KAJ 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnski, I never once claimed to be an expert on DOM. You are wrong, I have read some about DOM and I do honestly believe it is a fraud. I have no problem with their being articles on the issue on Wikipedia, but they must (as the rules state) have the sources to back them up. You have repeatedly made claims that did not have the sources or used bogus sources (such as the blog) to try to prove points. In addition, you have reverted pages without consensus, lied about having consensus, misrepresented the rules of Wikipedia to push your own agenda and so on. If you want to continue to sit on your high horse and scream foul, that's fine. However, myself and others are not going to allow you to hijack Wikipedia to further your own cause. That's not why Wikipedia is here. Davidpdx 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davidpdx: Please don't address me as Johnski.  I haven't lied about anything, have not misrepresented the rule on Wikipedia.  However, you have done both.  No matter how many times you say it, it won't make me Johnski.  I only have one user name, KAJ.  I still doubt you understand what it is that is going on here about this subject. You are nothing but a broken record on the subject of DOM and seem to have nothing to offer, with the exception of Solkope, which you did seem to make an honest attempt to resolve. Thank you for that much!KAJ 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth of the matter is you have reverted this article as well as others a number of times without consensus and have not admitted you were dead wrong in doing so. Do you want to talk about good faith? How about admitting it? Yes, I have read about the subject. The reason I sound like a broken record is because myself and others are standing our ground and we are no longer going to allow you to revert articles because you disagree with them. As to your accusation that I lied, please tell me what lie you think I told? Davidpdx 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you that is reverting articles that you don't agree with merely because you don't want to hear or see anything about DOM, which is the issue that makes this article most worth having in Wikipedia, as has gotten the most news for Taongi that I can find. I quoted from the article about DOM that you claim has consensus, that you repeatedy reverted to, but you can't accept that, and lie that there is no consensus for the facts quoted about the Iroijlaplap lease to DOM. Another lie is that you claim that I am a sock-puppet. It may not be intentional that you lied, but when I have more time, I'll try to find the other lies I've noticed in the past.KAJ 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad your claiming self-rightously that you've never committed an act in bad faith. That should be pretty easy to counter since you, Johnski, have reverted many articles including the DOM article (60+) and yes this IS ON RECORD. Maybe you should just go put your head in the toilet and flush it. That's about how clueless you are about your own behavior. 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davidpdx: Are you ready to humble yourself and admit that you "comitted" any acts in bad faith.  It is really funny you calling me "self-rightous" when you are the one that has been saying that you are the only one right and everything that I and those that I agree with are either puppet-masters, sock-puppets or are never right about anything. I've seen efforts to bend your way, but nothing coming from you, with the exception of Solkope, which you are now taking back. Your behavior has been less that that hoped for in Wikipedians according to Wikiquette. Perhaps I should examine myself, but I doubt that I've been self-righteous. It has been pointed out to you that you shouldn't call a good faith edit/reversion attempts vandalism, but in your self-righteousness you continue in that behavior. In mean words, you have called into question my intelligence, but I have tried to be civil towards you. Nevertheless, I admit that I have not always followed the highest standards of Wikiquette. Your many false and mean accusations make you the self-righteous one.KAJ 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The pot calling the kettle black? As I said, I'm not the one that is on record reverting the DOM article 60 times. Are you claiming those are all "good-faith" edits? You just don't get it do you? Davidpdx 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This looks good.  I don't think it's a good idea to list "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" as separate users, since there is a belief that these two people are the same user (e.g. look here); however I have dealt with this editor before, so go ahead and add my name to the list. Samboy, 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good to me, although it is actually User:Calton, not User:Carlton. I would also include a list of all the other articles he has vandalized or created to promote his agenda - it's quite long. --Centauri 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I fixed the user name and added the additional articles he has been involved in. Hopefully the the mediation case will go forward soon. Davidpdx 02:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nonsense! Don't call me sockpuppet. All of my edits and reverts were in good faith. SamuelSpade 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of your edits have been to add DOM content when other users do not want the content in question.  When a new editor appears out of the blue and takes sides in a controversial edit, we assume the editor is a sockpuppet; even if it is a separate person, it is still considered a sockpuppet.  Samboy 06:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said on the DOM page, all we ask is that you follow the rules of consensus. The truth is your didn't have consensus, yet you still reverted articles. That is not good faith. If you agree to follow the rules, there is no arbitration and the pressures off. The ball is in your court. Davidpdx 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proof of consensus 

message: I have removed the Melchizedek nonsense from this page. This is an uninhabited sovereign territory of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and they haven't given it away to anyone. Furthermore, nobody from "Melchizedek" has ever set foot there, nor are they ever likely to, and hence they have no way of asserting their "claim". Indeed, the fact that they "claim" it is totally meaningless. They might as well "claim" the moon. --Centauri 13:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Centauri, The only reason that most people know about Taongi is because of the lease that Melchizedek has over it, from Taongi's Paramount Chief. Melchizedek's claim to Taongi has been mentioned in several credible news sources, and is in the Wiki article about Melchizedek, a micronation.  Micronations are one of the 500 most popular topics in Wikipedia.  We don't know if any Melchizedekian has ever set foot on Taongi, and it really doesn't matter either way.  You have been accused of being a sock-puppet of Gene Poole and as you both use "nonsense" so often that encourages me to believe the argument. Having a claim to the moon is a far fetched comparision. And a lease from a Iroijlaplpa is not meaningless. Sincerely, Johnski 18:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had disagreements and heated arguments with Centauri, but I agree with him on the Melchizedek issue.  I have added this page to my watchlist and will revert on sight any Melchizedek content added to this article.  Samboy 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Centauri, despite what anyone says, I don't believe what's being said in terms of you being both people. I'd encourage you to continue to watch the pages regardless of the accusations Johnski or others come up with. As I've said, I'm going to take a more passive role and get back to editing some articles that I want to improve and/or create. That doesn't mean I won't be watching him though. Davidpdx 03:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Mr. JDavidb et al: Melchizedek's claim to this Atoll has be covered by international media both in print and tele.  It is worthy of mention.  The text is from the DOM article that there is consensus for.  If it can't be said that it is quoting from Wikipedia, just take the word Wikipedia out.KAJ 06:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: KAJohnski, this claim has not been demonstrated to the consensus of editors of any article and any alleged documentation within Wikipedia only exists due to edit warring and not following the rules.  Wikipedia is not a source.  Sources used in Wikipedia can be a source, but of course they are open to examination and questioning.  As mentioned ad infinitum, the alleged claims appear ludicrous to every Wikipedia editor so far other than all your sockpuppets that exist only to promote DOM. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Johnski I don't know where you get the idea that there is any consensus on either articles for your garbage, but there is not. I would warn you that this IS going to mediation and we will make it known about the various sockpuppets. If you revert, we will push to have your access to Wikipedia limited. I would take these threats very seriously. Davidpdx 09:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davids: It appears you have never taken the time to read or study a subject for which you claim to be experts. The parts that are quoted come from the article about Melchizedek that you and your supporters have repeatedly reverted to, and Gene Poole, et al have edited to their liking, are those portions. The real reason, as I see it, is that you just don't like the subject, so you want to remove it from Wikipedia. To me, the subject is interesting, and famous enough like other subjects to be covered in all of its notorious aspects. Melchizedek  claims Clipperton, but I don't see that that is worth including in the Clipperton article, because that claim doesn't rise to the fame of Taongi and Solkope, nor are there leases involved.KAJ 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnski, I never once claimed to be an expert on DOM. You are wrong, I have read some about DOM and I do honestly believe it is a fraud. I have no problem with their being articles on the issue on Wikipedia, but they must (as the rules state) have the sources to back them up. You have repeatedly made claims that did not have the sources or used bogus sources (such as the blog) to try to prove points. In addition, you have reverted pages without consensus, lied about having consensus, misrepresented the rules of Wikipedia to push your own agenda and so on. If you want to continue to sit on your high horse and scream foul, that's fine. However, myself and others are not going to allow you to hijack Wikipedia to further your own cause. That's not why Wikipedia is here. Davidpdx 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davidpdx: Please don't address me as Johnski.  I haven't lied about anything, have not misrepresented the rule on Wikipedia.  However, you have done both.  No matter how many times you say it, it won't make me Johnski.  I only have one user name, KAJ.  I still doubt you understand what it is that is going on here about this subject. You are nothing but a broken record on the subject of DOM and seem to have nothing to offer, with the exception of Solkope, which you did seem to make an honest attempt to resolve. Thank you for that much!KAJ 19:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth of the matter is you have reverted this article as well as others a number of times without consensus and have not admitted you were dead wrong in doing so. Do you want to talk about good faith? How about admitting it? Yes, I have read about the subject. The reason I sound like a broken record is because myself and others are standing our ground and we are no longer going to allow you to revert articles because you disagree with them. As to your accusation that I lied, please tell me what lie you think I told? Davidpdx 00:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is you that is reverting articles that you don't agree with merely because you don't want to hear or see anything about DOM, which is the issue that makes this article most worth having in Wikipedia, as has gotten the most news for Taongi that I can find. I quoted from the article about DOM that you claim has consensus, that you repeatedy reverted to, but you can't accept that, and lie that there is no consensus for the facts quoted about the Iroijlaplap lease to DOM. Another lie is that you claim that I am a sock-puppet. It may not be intentional that you lied, but when I have more time, I'll try to find the other lies I've noticed in the past.KAJ 08:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad your claiming self-rightously that you've never committed an act in bad faith. That should be pretty easy to counter since you, Johnski, have reverted many articles including the DOM article (60+) and yes this IS ON RECORD. Maybe you should just go put your head in the toilet and flush it. That's about how clueless you are about your own behavior. 09:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davidpdx: Are you ready to humble yourself and admit that you "comitted" any acts in bad faith.  It is really funny you calling me "self-rightous" when you are the one that has been saying that you are the only one right and everything that I and those that I agree with are either puppet-masters, sock-puppets or are never right about anything. I've seen efforts to bend your way, but nothing coming from you, with the exception of Solkope, which you are now taking back. Your behavior has been less that that hoped for in Wikipedians according to Wikiquette. Perhaps I should examine myself, but I doubt that I've been self-righteous. It has been pointed out to you that you shouldn't call a good faith edit/reversion attempts vandalism, but in your self-righteousness you continue in that behavior. In mean words, you have called into question my intelligence, but I have tried to be civil towards you. Nevertheless, I admit that I have not always followed the highest standards of Wikiquette. Your many false and mean accusations make you the self-righteous one.KAJ 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The pot calling the kettle black? As I said, I'm not the one that is on record reverting the DOM article 60 times. Are you claiming those are all "good-faith" edits? You just don't get it do you? Davidpdx 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melchizedek nonsense 

message: Note: The request for arbitration has been removed from this page. The updated version of this document can be found here: . This was done to save space on this talk page as well as to keep the primary discussion on the main DOM page. If you have any questions about this, please put a note on my talk page. Davidpdx 15:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good.  I don't think it's a good idea to list "Gene Poole" and "Centauri" as separate users, since there is a belief that these two people are the same user (e.g. look here); however I have dealt with this editor before, so go ahead and add my name to the list. Samboy, 16:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good to me, although it is actually User:Calton, not User:Carlton. I would also include a list of all the other articles he has vandalized or created to promote his agenda - it's quite long. --Centauri 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I fixed the user name and added the additional articles he has been involved in. Hopefully the the mediation case will go forward soon. Davidpdx 02:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nonsense! Don't call me sockpuppet. All of my edits and reverts were in good faith. SamuelSpade 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all of your edits have been to add DOM content when other users do not want the content in question.  When a new editor appears out of the blue and takes sides in a controversial edit, we assume the editor is a sockpuppet; even if it is a separate person, it is still considered a sockpuppet.  Samboy 06:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said on the DOM page, all we ask is that you follow the rules of consensus. The truth is your didn't have consensus, yet you still reverted articles. That is not good faith. If you agree to follow the rules, there is no arbitration and the pressures off. The ball is in your court. Davidpdx 06:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration 

message: Since arbitration is going forward, no one should be editing this article. Everyone involved should 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 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing During Arbitration