Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek/Archive 3

message: I guess it is once again time for page protection. As I have stated above, the actions of those who continually revert this article are being question in the case before the arbitration committee. It is very clear that those individuals have no respect for the process (the very same process they threaten me with), which is evident in the way they question whether arbitration has any effect on the outcome of this article.(see previous section of the current talk page)
If they choose not to respect the fact that there is an arbitration case against them (which is still pending}, then one can easily assume that they will violate any outcome that comes from this hearing. It is high time they start respecting the rules and the process.
I've contacted both an administrator and a member of the arbitration committee asking for a page protection and/or a temporary injunction. As many of you know, at this time the arbitration committee is in flux due to the elections being held as well as resignations. There needs to be a short term solution to deal with the problem, until such time the arbitrartion commitee can finish with the case. Davidpdx 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Davidpdx: It seems that you don't understand what went on between Mr Gene_Poole, Mr. El C and myself as we finally worked out the issue regarding the Washington Post reference to CAR, and there was no revert war involved. Best, KAJ 17:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see what happened, however by no means do I believe this is the end of it. There is nothing that leads me to believe that you or Johnski won't go back to reverting the article chronically as you have done in the past. While I am glad the minor issue was resolved, I don't believe it's the end of nitpicking of this article by you two. Davidpdx 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Dear El C, here I've tried to make clearer my request for your help in resolving the US OCC issue:
The article currenly only states:
*In an address to the 4th International Financial Fraud Convention in London, 27 May 1999, John Shockey, a former special assistant in the office of the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, stated: "The Dominion of Melchizedek is a fraud, a major fraud, and not a legitimate sovereign entity. Persons associated with the Dominion of Melchizedek have been indicted and convicted of a variety of crimes." 
However, it seems significant to me that there is an actual reference to DOM on the US OCC's official web site, and to give balance to the article and something more official from the US OCC I'm requesting that you consider starting with or following that former employee's statement with something like following:
*The U.S. Comptroller of the Currency website is less vocal and only refers to Melchizedek in one of its published warnings, as a "non-recognized sovereignty" that "licensed" Caribbean Bank of Commerce. 
If it helps, this is the actual text from the US OCC's web site found at:http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/Alert/98-38.txt:
*"Information has been received that the subject entity holding a bank license issued by the Dominion of Melchizedek, a non-recognized sovereignty, has an unauthorized address in the United States.  This entity, subject to Alert 98-14, dated April 21, 1998, subsequently had its Antigua license reinstated. However, the government of Antigua and Barbuda, through its supervisor of banks, has recently given notice that the subject entity's license will again be revoked.:
El C, As you can see, the US OCC is much less vocal than their former employee, and as it stands now, only their former employee is quoted in the current article, but not the US OCC's official web site regarding DOM. Why withhold this official reference? I have no problem with rewording the way it is introduced. Can you see my point for the opportunity to bring more balance and more substance to the article? If you don't like the words, "less vocal", please suggest something else, or ask me to. Sincerely, Johnski 06:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another insidious Johnski attempt at trying to water down highly negative reportage about Melchizedek and calling it a "consensus" discussion. Yawn. --Gene_poole 00:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US OCC balancing act 

message: Based on the proposed arbcom decision, I am going to implement this unless some authority tells me not to:
:Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski, or any other editor I believe to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely. Tom Harrison Talk 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom thanks, right now the lack of arbitrators to finalize the decision is the only thing holding things up. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough to help the problem. Honestly I have my doubts, but we'll see what happens. Davidpdx 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending final arbcom ruling 

message: http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2006/March/03-06-14.htm  
Harvardy 07:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this who I think it is? Special:Contributions/Harvardy. Davidpdx 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this Dam Dom story got wikipedia some press coverage 

message: Well it seems Johnski is back once again as User:Whatsupdoc.
 This is a firm warning, if you start reverting this page, I will immediately report you to an administrator. You will be banned and the page will be semi-protected again. The arbitration committee has issued its ruling and I will make sure it is enforced.  Davidpdx 11:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnski Reincarnated 

message: The article about David Evan Pedley has been merged into the main DOM article. If someone has time, the entire article should be edited for clarity and if possible tighten it up to make it shorter. Davidpdx 13:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Evan Pedley Article 

message: Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, , 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 00:01, 1 May 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 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Case 

message: How can this be a criminal organization?
Wouldn't some court of law first have to make this determination?
The cases I can find involving people of DOM never make any determination about Melchizedek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_organization
People convicted of organized crime as a category also seems a little excessive because a racketeering conviction does not necessarily result from organized crime, unless the indictment states that there was organized crime.  I can't see where organized crime was used as the basis for a racketeering cause of action in any of the cases mentioned.  "Racketeering" can also be used as a cause of action in a civil case and does not necessarily mean "organized crime".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_organized_crime
If those responsible for adding DOM to these categories can, please give references that substantiate same. (unsigned by user:70.137.153.72 16:31, September 25, 2006) 70.137.153.72 16:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess who's back Davidpdx 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories according to definitions in Wikipedia 

message: I added the To-Do List up top as proposals and the  and  tags to the article based upon entries there and the fact that this page's categories list it as such. CyberAnth 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up agenda

message: Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, , 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.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision
It's clear that User:Harvardy and User:Oregonic‎ are User:Johnski meatpuppets and needs to be dealt with under the terms of the arbitration decision. Davidpdx 01:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatpuppets 

message: The link to angelfire.com may be considered linkspam as per 
Is there a better source that could be referenced as anyone could put up anything they wamt to on the angelfire web site.  An angelfire web site should not be cited for government documents or statements. Harvardy 05:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linkspam 

message: It appears that there is editing decisions going on outside of the talk page. I found this page  which was started by CyberAnth and was edited several times by User:Johnski meatpuppet User:Harvardy. It seems at best a bad decision for discussions to be made about an article outside of the articles talk page where anyone else can see them. 
I am therefore asking that this page be deleted since only one person is contributing to it. Davidpdx 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have redirected it to this page. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only a Sandbox which could allow others to experiment in before jumping into  the real article.  It could be that no one else edited it because no one else knew about it.  Why not revert back to the version before I played with it and link to it from the talk page? Harvardy 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need another forum for DoM to promote its interests. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, thanks for your quick response. Davidpdx 06:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Decisions Outside of the DoM Talk Page

message: :Image:Arms Melchizedek.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Arms Melchizedek.GIF