Talk:International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty

message: I was at one of their conferences recently (April 22 and 23, 2006). I am not a member but a friend who is a member brought me, and from the material which I have it clearly appears that their main office is now based in Mexico at this point in time. They still have their old mailing address in Washington DC too, but the Mexican address was listed first and the phone numbers for the organizers were all Mexico City numbers. This should be mentioned in the article and it is a reflection of the multinational nature of the work that this group does. Note, however, that the conference was held in Washington D.C. and the vast majority of the participants were Americans. - Mauco 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just edited the article to reflect this but it already mentioned their activities in mexico before, too. - Liliana Dioguardi 07:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

message: To the anonymous user who just edited: I discussed this conspiracy theory last week with another very well-respected editor, TSO1D, and to not push one POV or another we need to present both sides or none at all. Unless proven, this aspect of the article (the conspirary theory part) should be brief and not dominate the main body. - Mauco 20:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I shortened the section and removed strong POV to make the article comply with Wikipedia policy. The edited version kept the links to each side of the argument. So now readers who want to research this in more detail can follow the information and decide for themselves. - ConsultantJoe 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I can't help you but check with the original author or editor. But as a rule of thumb you shouldn't edit the entry as substantially as you have done without discussing changes here in Talk first with the other editors. See the notice above on top of this page. Two of your IP addresses (194.129.60.10 + 88.108.113.17) appear in the log with substantial changes and it is not good Wikipedia practice for one of the involved parties to push a POV fork like that using anon IPs. Don't be surprised if someone reverts you for that reason alone. Your claims may be true, or they may not, but we must still observe the encyclopedia's policy. To me, personally, it seems like you have a lot of circumstantial evidence. Some of it sounds pretty convincing. But it also sounds like you still need something real, which you don't have yet, or you wouldn't be posting your public plea for more information. - ConsultantJoe 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry to much about breaching etiquette, we don't bite the newcomers on Wikipedia just be bold. Mieciu K 17:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not so fast, this is more of the same, conjecture. Even if it is true it borders original research because the only claim we have of ICDISS citing the above is Edward's article where ICDISS (in the article itself) tells him that he is wrong, so how much else is right or wrong. At the very least wait for their reply but even then it is iffy. - 87.118.96.153 13:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I wouldn't say that. It is not obsession. But there is nothing wrong with sleeping on it. The really good Wiki articles tend to evolve over time. The bad edits are when we all rush in and individually push to include facts which do not reflect general consensus, and like someone says above, there is a lot of conjecture still and you don't seem too sure of everything yourself yet, so there is nothing wrong with taking it slow little by little. Plus: I note that since I started this subsection a few days ago, we still haven't heard their side of the story. I'll knock on some doors and see if I can't get some more info on this. My opinion: It is important too, as the subject of the article. - Mauco 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theory 

message: *These articles were created, apparently as a "cover story", by User:Liliana Dioguardi. The current content is entirely or almost entirely produced by her. In light of recent events, I have made a request at several corners of wikipedia for expert help in rebuilding these articles Bwithh 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Westphalian sovereignty]] and [[Contingent sovereignty]]