This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Gene

Well I can see that you are into this micronation subject in a big way. I agree that it is interesting but it can also be annoying when reality is crowded out by fantasy. The problem is that what exists in cyberspace about "Sealand" does not exist in the real world. By the way. the "Sealand" discussion page is running, or I should say has run out of space. Either someone needs to delete old stuff or file it or whatever and start a new page. Anyway, I just wanted to stop on your page to say a friendly "hello". MPLX/MH 02:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I take your point that a lot of media coverage has established a subject called "Sealand". Yes, I agree that is a fact. I also agree with you that Roy and Michael can claim what they want to claim because it is their right to do so. Freedom of speech, etc., etc. So I agree with you on that as well. Now this is where I am coming from:

There is a disconnect between something existing because someone claims that it exists and establishing what exactly it is that exists. Let me put it this way. What if I mounted a campaign and I claimed to be a person from the Planet Glob, but that in order not to frighten people I appear to be a human being. However, I claim, we people from Glob are so different from Earth people that the mere sight of us would cause the average human person to become scared and possibly want to kill me. So I have the ability to appear human. Now what is wrong with that story? The answer is nothing at all.

But then if I ask is it true? Then you have to decide whether or no it is true. If you decide that you want to know the answer you have to investigate. First of all you find that I have human parents and that my human birth can be verified. So then you check on my human parents and verify that they are human. Next you wonder what my motive is for creating this story which is obviously not true.

I have investigated Roy and Michael and Joan - I have spoken with them. I have investigated their British and other claims and guess what? They are full of holes. They are simply not true. This is not what I have read in a paper, this is what I know for a fact. I also know what the UK says from the Crown solicitors on down. I know this for a fact. I know what the Police say. I know that although the Bates family have claimed many things, most of them are untrue. I know this for a fact. So you ask, why are they there? Well they are there because unlike the USA who would blast them away, the UK has a habit of letting things be and when they get out of hand they slap the person down behind the scenes and this is what has happened to the Bates family over and over again. The problem is that they have created a hoax and no one really cares. It is "buyer beware". If you get suckered in to their schemes you only have yourself to blame, is the official response.

But should an encyclopedia help to promote a hoax or should the hoax be exposed? I say that the hoax should be explained but the encyclopedia should not be a cause of more people falling victim to a hoax in which they can and have lost money. MPLX/MH 05:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Art Deco and Sealand

It would seem that we have more than Sealand in common because I am also interested in Art Deco. Art Deco as such is a well-documented modern term dating from the 1960s in England which has been retroactively applied back to the French exposition which did not use that term at all. There is in fact an actual starting place, date and time and author for this term. I have the research somewhere and I will pass it on to you if you are interested. I will not touch your art deco page and you may wish to incorporate the material I was referring to. But since I will have to find out where I put this material I am not going to look unless you have an interest. Let me know.

On the Sealand thing we are basically in totally agreement except on the hoax and fraud issue. The fact is that I personally know a lot of the inside legal story of this set-up and I can tell you that the British government has quietly slapped down every one of Roy Bates' ideas. He managed to con Ryan Lackey and he got stuck like the people who bought the Lichfield I ship got stuck, because there was no jurisdiction in which to sue Roy Bates.

That is the key to this whole thing. He claims to have postage - but he only has stamps which cannot be used. Same for money. Same for law. There is no population and there is no law because there is no court. The UK knows this and therefore the problem is finding a British venue in which to sue Roy Bates. It should be where he lived near Southend (that is where his home was and Michael's is at Leigh on Sea.) But Bates has now moved. Then there is the problem of proving what it is that you are suing him for. To sue Roy Bates as a British citizen means using UK courts. Ryan Lackey is a US citizen and he cannot sue Bates in the USA because Bates does not live there. Lackey cannot sue "Sealand" because the US courts have already ruled that "Sealand" does not exist. So that means that he has to sue Bates in England with a British lawyer. Now we are talking money. The first question is how much money does Bates have? If you sue someone who is either broke or who has hidden their money somewhere else you are stupid to sue such a person because the only person to win is the lawyer who gets paid by the client.

So if you tried to sue in "Sealand" (believe me I know this issue first hand) you would be laughed to scorn. First of all the UN and the nations of the world say that "Sealand" does not exist and therefore there is no "Sealand law". Second, to sue in "Sealand" you would have to be on the barge. But the barge is just that - a barge with a caretaker most of the time. So how could they even constitute a court when the only people they could muster would be Bates' family friends?

Knowing this Lackey looked at the ship case and he saw that those people were swindled and lost thousands. Lackey has to eat his losses in the same way. There is no redress. On to top of that Lackey stuck his neck out and at first defended the myth of "Sealand" and attacked the UK. So the UK is quite happy to let Lackey rot = serves him right! = is their response. More than this Bates is protected by an army of people creating a myth which the press loves just as it loves stories about man bites dog and flying saucers.

So if Wiki is to retain any degree of authority it has to get rid of this silly "Sealand" page and dump it under the Roy Bates' Sealand Hoax or some similar title.

Keeping up this present farce is enough to make me want to quit Wiki and it is also a slap in the face of everyone who has been swindled. MPLX/MH 17:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New Utopia

I'll take a look. But I'm involved in a number of other conflicts right now (including before the ArbCom) and can't really pick up another. Very Verily 23:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism

Hi! Thanks for your post to my talk page. I also think that people are spending too much time destroying the work of others instead of making their own articles. I suggest you and everyone keep copies of articles up for deletion, in wikiformat, just click edit, and copy it into a text file :).

The inclusionist's talk page might be a useful place to put up articles that might not deserve to be deleted. It will save us hours of having to review that delete page, which is also a big waste of time that could be better spent on making articles instead of putting up with deletionists :). Bye for now, --ShaunMacPherson 02:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Gene. I saw your message on Shaun MacPherson's talk page. Good to see your support for historically verifiable topics on Wikipedia, continue to fight the good fight and don't lose hope. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Same goes for me, I don't have time to fight Ambi, and frankly I am afraid of that editor. She messaged me (over AIM) and threatened to have me banned if I broke any rules in our conflict. I eventually gave up because sealand is not such a big deal and my time is limited as it is. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 04:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism and Arbitration

I'm very much for preserving the Micronation articles, so thanks for pointing that vote out to me.

As far as the arbitration goes, your supposed bias is only the icing on the cake of your rules violations. You need to stay cool. Discourse, not edit wars, will win the day for inclusionist Wikipedians and responsible editors. Be willing to compromise and defer to other editors, even if you don't agree with them. Backing off on an edit and commenting on the talk page (and citing sources) will often result in support from friendly editors and respect from opponents. (And, if not, that may mean consensus is against you. That's how it goes sometimes in a democracy). Don't be adfraid of mediation (especially since it can avoid the more extreme measure of arbitration). But I guess that's enough of a lecture, eh?

I read the whole case, and left some comments for the arbitrators, but I was limited in what I could reasonably do. I did:

Protest the use of your alleged identity in this case, as your right to privacy should be respected and its use in this case was prejudicial, as it implies bias in and of itself, and bias should be evaluated purely based on your actions in Wikipedia.
Request that your sanctions be temporary instead of permanent, as the proposed sanctions seemed quite extreme.

Please feel free to point out Micronation or other inclusionist issues in the future, and I will consider all of your suggestions. --L33tminion | (talk) 06:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought such use of past record was patently unfair, since it had nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's pretty clear that Samboy does have some personal issues with you. He more or less said so when he requested mediation. But the arbitrators were more concerned by three revert violations, which are considered to be very serious, and etiquette issues (calling someone a "crackpot stalker" or "poisonous" won't sway friends to your side, no matter how mean that person actually was to you). I try to view such editors not as enemies or radicals, but rather as teammates that I don't agree with on specific issues, and treat them as such. --L33tminion | (talk) 17:32, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

And you're ranting on the arbitration page now? Gah! That's kind of shooting yourself in the foot... --L33tminion | (talk) 17:56, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Just calm down. I don't support Samboy, but you're not helping your case. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Pyramid pictures

Hi! I hope you still check this page every now and then, because I need some answers.

To be more specific, the following pictures have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and we need to know their source to make sure they are free to use. So, did you take them yourself? Get them from someone who allows GFDL, or similar? Please let us know!

Ranveig 17:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Bent Pyramid

Gene Poole, please add origin information to your bent pyramid photobent pyramid photo

Imperial Post

is now listed on VfD. I was wondering if you would have any interest in input. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I've never heard of any article with that name before. What was it about? --Gene_poole 04:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image source

Thank you for uploading Image:Araucania orelie 01.JPG. Its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. Please leave a note on the image page about the source of the image. Thank you. --Ellmist 03:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

Thanks for finally getting rid of the neutrality tag on Sealand. I've just removed it again after someone restored it without giving a coherent reason. You might want to keep an eye on it too. The article seems to be a magnet for those with bizarre opinions. --Centauri 08:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please let it go

Dear Mr. George Cruickshank,

I noticed that you have posted this personal attack against me. I am sorry that you are still upset with me. I do not think I have ever taken the time to properly apologize to you, so I will do so now: I apologize for any personal attacks I have directed against you. I have also removed any and all personal attacks I have made:

I have removed any personal attacks directed against you on my user pages.

I have also removed any personal attacks directed against you on my web page.

I have also removed a peronsal attack directed against you on another user page.

If there are any other personal attacks directed against you that I have posted, please let me know and I will remove them. This is my request for a truce; I am asking you to please not continue posting personal attacks against me also. Samboy 05:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Garden Palace 01.jpg listed for deletion

An image that you uploaded, Garden Palace 01.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

This image can be deleted. A better version with appropriate copyright tag has since been uploaded and used for the intended article.--Gene_poole 22:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

You're a sockpuppet!

Thought you might want to know that you're my sockpuppet- so you better start behaving! --Centauri 22:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it for now. If they're stupid enough to take it to RFC we can deal with it then. --Centauri 23:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Centauri 06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on expanding the Umm Kulthum article. Danny 00:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Celestians Unite

Thanks for recruiting me to save your article. ---Isaac R 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Radio mast articles

I am contacting you because you have contributed to the VfD discussion on radio mast articles. I just wanted to let you know that a proposal has been put forth at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts to address these articles en masse. Your comments are welcome. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"High school" articles

This Newsweek article on The 100 Best High Schools in America is certainly food for thought in the frequent debates over the notability of high schools... certainly every one on that list should have its own article! -- BD2412 ^thimk 01:05, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

As discussed

Here's the link: [1]. --Centauri 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Political religion

On political religion's vfd, you state that "everything from the name of the article down is original research". Can I ask whether you've read the article recently? Or noted that Eric Voegelin wrote a book on it as long ago as 1938 (Die Politischen Religionen, the political religions)? Rd232 10:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

you remarked on Eric Voegelin, but that was a long time ago; the concept isn't "his". And never was - Paul Tillich "along with contemporary Karl Barth, the most influential Protestant theologian of recent times" also used it early on. However, you're right that something on the term's usage (mostly academic history/politics, but not mainstream there; maybe others) is needed. Rd232 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of Melchizedek Request for Comment

You have shown some interest in Dominion of Melchizedek, so I wanted to let you know that I created the following RFC. Bollar 13:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

*Talk:Dominion of Melchizedek (Also Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, Micronation) - POV over the validity of Dominion of Melchizedek's sovereignty, and claims over numerous small islands in the Pacific plus Antarctica.

Avram editor

Hi GP, I just thought I would let you know that I am attempting to make contact with User talk:144.131.41.53 (the Avram vandal) at his talk page! -- Chuq 08:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to know more about the article subject itself than me - I was just reverting to help out - you can do the reporting if you like, if I did it I wouldn't know how to answer any questions about the edits. -- Chuq 23:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've temporarily protected your user page. Hopefully this is enough to alleviate the vandalism problem. After a short while, I'll unprotect the page. If at any time you want to have your page unprotected, let me know, and I will follow through with your request promptly. See you around the Wiki! --HC 00:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The IP seems to jump around all over the place, I'm not sure a block would be effective in that situation. For the moment, we'll have to (unfortunately) deal with the nuisance... --HC 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a week of protection has been sufficient...if your user page becomes cluttered again let me know and I'll come back to protect. --HappyCamper 02:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...guess not! I am actually running another idea by another administrator to delete your entire page history and recover only the non-vandalism edits. This way, the edit history on that page will be clearer, and will have less clutter. What do you think? Afterwards, I'll protect it again. --HappyCamper 21:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Micronation template

Discussion of template moved to talk:Sealand table

re Wik?

You're certainly more familiar with Wik+ than I am, although I have looked through the various things that are relevant as best I can, and read what I could bear to read. That's nothing compared to dealing first-hand with him, although I did with NoPuzzleStranger — there he was trolling against Lucky6.9 so acting differently to here. There is something of a fingerprint to Rivarez (though there's the whole AGF thing to consider), and I must confess to playing anagram games with RIVAREZ wondering if I could conjure something along the NoPuzzleStranger lines, but it doesn't yield. It seems that, on past experience, he can't help but reveal himself sooner or later so, if it is Wik, I expect we'll stomp on him again. We can even hope that Jimbo may be able to fingerprint him more effectively. Oh, and don't think I was implying that you were making baseless accusations; I see my AN/3 post could be construed that way — I meant it, since admins can (as you know) shoot this one on sight. -Splash^talk 05:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Rivarez certainly is Wik. I suggest posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and point out the evidence - like he appeared right after NoPuzzleStranger was blocked, edit wars on the same articles, and has knowledge about "the system" that a new user wouldn't know. -- Netoholic @ 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the posting on my talk. I didn't have the time to get involved in an edit war last night, but was happy to see others did. -O^O 14:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You were happy to see others get involved in an edit war..? 24ip | lolol 01:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Numerous contributors spontaneously and co-operatively addressing a reprehensible instance of trolling by a suspected hard-banned editor doesn't constitute an edit war. --Gene_poole 01:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks

for your assistance with reverting the Wik psycopath and his ever-growing army of puppets. Is there a practical way of permanently blocking his IP range/s ? --Gene_poole 04:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, but he's easy enough to rollback. Let me know if he moves to other articles so I can watch those.

Could we lay off the personal attacks by the way? I know nobody's very fond of wik right now, but making personal attacks doesn't help. --fvw * 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe the nerve of this guy, especially in light of the name he chose for his sockpuppets. What a freaking idiot. Consider him gone and consider a nomination for an admin position if you want it. I'd be glad to nominate you. - Lucky 6.9 17:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You may continue to "smirk beatifically." I've just had the overwhelming satisfaction of making those two socks go away for good. Another admin protected the Sealand and Atlantium pages. Chalk one up for the good guys and don't hesitate to let me know if our little Wiki-poo puts on another set of "Groucho glasses." :) - Lucky 6.9 17:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

DOM Consensus

Gene, well you were correct about it being a waste of time trying to get a consensus on the DOM article. I tried though and those who push the DOM idea were not able to provide sufficent facts to prove their case. I would appreciate it if you would continue to check in on that page and the pages that are associated with it to confirm the fact that what they are posting is fraudulant and without adequate proof. Thanks for your help! Davidpdx 10:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Voting on the category deletion

Gene, I'd encourage you to look at what I wrote in terms of my nomination to delete the page Johnski added for . I also have nominated the article about David Even Pedley for deletion that was created by Johnski in an attempt to further POV push DOM. If you would, please consider voting for deletion of both of them. Davidpdx 04:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User page

Done! -- Chuq 07:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

DOM Reverts

GP, I saw your note on the talk page. I'm going to be in and out this afternoon. Please keep a watchful eye on the page for me if you can. I'll try to pop in and check in on it. There have been a lot of reverts and I'm in the process of trying to figure out what's going on with the diffrent user names. Thanks.. Davidpdx 04:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Gene, you (or someone else) is going to have to revert the DOM page for the next few hours. If I do I'm going to get a 3RR violation, which I don't want. Davidpdx 04:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that this is categorized as ecclesiastical government. Gene, didn't you claim not to be involved in Atlantium somewhere? It is interesting what wikilantes you and David have become over Melchizedek, that you can't leave a subject alone for 2 hours. I'm glad when you honestly interact with me, even though you want to exclude balance from that subject.Johnski 06:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Micronation poll

Thanks GP, I will take a look at it in the next day or so. I wanted to make sure you saw that I have threatened to file for arbitration against Johnski and his fembots (ok, bad Austin Powers joke). Anyway, please take a look at it on the DOM page. If you have any comments, feel free to leave them on my talk pages as always. Davidpdx 06:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [2] Davidpdx

Did you happen to see Johnski's reply on the arbitration case. Supposedly, I am the "ringleader" of the group. He's making wild accusations and lying through his teeth. It looks like one member of the arbitration team has voted to accept the case. They are pretty backlogged so my guess is it will be later this week before anything big happens. If you want to add a statement you can, but it's up to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Davidpdx 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you've looked at the arbitration page lately, but since you put your statement on the page, Johnski has launched a rebuttle attack on you. He now claims your the "ringleader" and you misuse Wikipedia (I'm paraphrasing of course). Anyway, I left a message under his statement for the arbitration committee stating his rebuttle should be removed. We'll see what happens.

Right now it looks like were pretty close to this going forward. It's still 3/1/0 so I guess we need a few more votes still. Davidpdx 14:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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 04:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Minerva

I took a look at that page, I agree with you. We have another "Johnski" on our hands, but not maybe as bad because the changes he is making are only in the info box. Davidpdx 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The information you have provided is inaccurate and unfair, as any depth of research on the topic could provide. I am simply aiming to show all sides of the issue, including the most vocal recent group. You are passing judgement on a strictly legal issue, only appropriate for courts to decide. Wikipedia should be a forum of which all information is provided to users so that they may make up their mind. Your information does not allow for such ends. I would gladly like to initate an arbitration, so long as it is fair. Minervan 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)