User talk:68.123.207.17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.

Contents

[edit] Bokak Atoll

Please stop putting nonsene on this page. The atol is not guilty that some not-notable fraudster used its name. Therefore the information is irrelevant to the article. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 14:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Pavel, an atoll can't be guilty of anything. Melchizedek has a sovereign lease from the Iroijlaplap of Taongi. The Iroijlaplap's declaration of this fact was televised on SBS TV in Australia. I saw it on TV myself. Why do you ignore this and other facts about Melchisedek. It seems as if you have some ax to grind, so what is it? Did you lose money in a bank licensed by Melchizedek, or do you find something offensive about their translation of the Bible? User talk:68.123.207.17

[edit] WP:3RR

Please review the Wikipedia three revert rule. You have reverted Microstate 4 times today, three against myself and one against Samboy. Rather than report you, I'm allowing you time to revert yourself, back to my last revision. Otherwise, you may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hrs. Thanks. El_C 23:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I see you are still reverting, and now committing 3RR violations in multiple articles. Please give me a sign that you have read my comment above. Thanks. El_C 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I have already reported him. I do not think we need to assume good faith with this user. Samboy 02:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that someone has already placed another edition over my last contribution.

Why can others repeatedly put their spin up, without question, but my versions never stay very long. It seems there is a small group working together to block the truth about Melchizedek and its claims. User talk:68.123.207.17

It isn't, but regardless, you must adhere to policy like anyone else. Thanks for reading. El_C 04:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't continue to violate 3RR just because the case has yet to be attended to on the Notice board. Six-hour block for disruption, the blocking admin can deduct that from whatever block period they choose to issue (if any). El_C 14:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello El C and Samboy, I needed a break from this new hobby, so thanks for the block. I'm tired of this subject, so i'll probably pick a new one to work on. I was searching the biblical Melchizedek which led me to see also the link to Dominion of Melchizedek when I discovered Wikipedia. I was astonished to learn about DoM when watching SBS TV that such a government existed and had so much publicity, but I had never heard of it before that, which led me to read everything on their web site and that I could find in external sources. I even called people to verify certain facts that seemed unbelievable. This Wikipedia is a great source of information, but it seems that you all want to limit what people read about certain subjects. My only attemtp was to bring balance and completion to the subject which seemed so one sided and brief. I noticed i wasn't alone as a few others seemed to show the same interest. User talk:68.123.207.17

I am dissapointed to see you are still reverting. Please discuss the contested contents on the talk page. El_C 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you all stop reverting and discuss here, why are your editions better than mine? I always add more relevent content and/or more balance. I'm not saying that others contributions are not important, but I don't understand why you can't accept the facts which are clearly supported in each case. I'm tired of this subject, but it is hard for me to let falsehoods, misleading stuff stand on this issue. It is crazy to link Melchizedek hoaxes, etc.

So what if Melchizedek has been asscoiated with those indicted or convicted of crimes (assuming that is true), so has the US and other governments, on many fronts. Even the Vatican had thier own banking scandals. OK, I kept Shockey's statement stand but it needs to be followed after Shockey's quote with the response from the Washington Post to give balance on the issue of the points of "phony" and statehood? User talk:68.123.207.17

Ye,s you are effectively saying that by breaking the rules, allowing yourself more reverts than others — but everyone is equale here in the number of reverts they have. Because we want to discuss it on that article's public talk page. Your reversions are desruptive. Please revert back, or I may have to cite with disruption again. Considering the aforementioned policy, which I am increasingly led to believe you have yet to review, I feel I have been more than lenient with you here. I suggest you tread lightly. El_C 03:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


In any event, the WP article is satire, does not support the Melchizedek position and does not give balance to the issue. From Lileks' article:

It is a sad fact of the modern world that anyone with a fax machine and a few spare nuclear devices can declare war nowadays. France, for example, is threatened with atomic hellfire by the Dominion of Melchizedek - -a nation that isn't just the size of a post office box, but actually is a post office box.[1]

Bollar 04:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bollar,

Perhaps I don't understand all of the rules, but why aren't you all distruptive every time you cancel my more complete and balanced articles? Sorry but i've studied this subject a little more than you as the article you quote is the basis for which the Washington Post did a more complete article, and subtracted and added, with a new author, one Richard Lieby who is actually with the Post, yes with satire, but it is more than satire. From my understanding, the person that sent the fax with the treat of Nuclear war wasn't from the Melchizedek government. The actual article doesn't say that Melchizedek is a box so please don't misquote that prestigious paper.

[edit] Last warning

Unfortunately, my point (3RR policy) is not getting through. I won't allow you to continue to revert simply because the case is not being picked up expediently enough. If you make another revert to the DoM in the next 24 hours (or violate 3RR anywhere else), I'll block you from editing for 24 hours for disruption. That is my final warning to you. You must adhere to policy, or you will be censured. Your own voice is not worth more than any other contributor. If you choose to edit here, you must make a concerted effort to grasp our rules. El_C 08:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't you answer the distruptive one's questions and points

That guy or lady didn't get answers to his/her questions and seems to have stopped posting/reverting. I'd like to know the answers too.

[edit] 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 04:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)