This page 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.

WP quote in DOM article

GP, I was looking at the Washington Post quote in the DOM article. It does seem like the quote is a little sloppy. I'm not sure who put it in there, but I wanted to get your take on what we could do. What do you think about just putting the words, "you get the feeling" back into the quote, or even just removing the quote completely. Please let me know what you think ASAP. Davidpdx 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Talk Page

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here:[1] Davidpdx 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have begun to post evidence. Hopefully some of you can help me a bit with this. It's turning out to be a lot of work. Davidpdx 10:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

GP thanks for your message. You might want to look at the evidence page. Johnski has begun to post all kind of strange accusations, including the fact that you are now our "ringleader." I don't know if I should bow down before you now or not? LOL He claims you've been nasty and mean to him. So you might want to post a rebuttal of some sort. Anyway, hopefully we will get some stuff on their about content soon. Davidpdx 16:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New Sockpuppet

It seems like there's yet another Johnski sockpuppet/meatpuppet to now contend with: Immigrationissues.--Gene_poole 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

GP, yeah I noticed that. I didn't say much other then to point out the arbitration. I'm not sure what we should do at this point. What do you think? Davidpdx 23:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore it, and add it to the evidence. --Gene_poole 23:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Wikipedia as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Phantom Islands

A note regarding the Melchizedek entry. Granted that Melchizedek isn't the name of a regular phantom island.

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:[2].

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: [3].

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the proposed decision talk page. It seems like we need to try to keep the pressure on to get the arbitration committee to make the sanctions stronger. I'm a little surprised Johnski hasn't been anywhere to be found lately (short of the reverts). I am sure he's probably lurking waiting to disrupt the arbitration hearing at some point. I will try to continue to keep a close eye on the pages and keep everyone updated. Davidpdx 06:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi; Johnski has messaged me complaining about your reverts on Micronation. I think it might be better to leave the the wording in question as it was until the dispute is resolved. I also have to say it's probably not fair to characterize these edits of Johnski's as vandalism merely because they are Johnski's. To an objective observer, which I hope to remain, this can only be seen as a disagreement over content. Best regards, Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

GP, will do. I'll be at work this afternoon, but I'll try my best to check in every once in awhile. Davidpdx 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw, but Johnski put comments on the proposed decision talk page. He complained his "evidence" wasn't being considered. On my talk page, he said if I didn't revert the Micronation article he would "assume I was Gene Poole." His accusations are getting rediculous. Anyway, thought you'd get a good laugh out of that.

Merry Christmas Davidpdx 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This article contains a good deal of text in common with that of the reference given at the bottom of the page. I'm seeking confirmation that you wrote the article or asked for permission. Matt73 13:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I can vouch for "Gene Poole"; he is the owner of the website in question. Samboy 21:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

dbenbenn | talk 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the owner of the image linked to the above article that has been tagged for deletion. I'm not sure why it's been so tagged, as I assumed I'd added the appropriate copyright tag at the time I uploaded it several years ago. I'm currently travelling internationally and don't have the time to look into this in any detail until my return in a week's time. If you can make any necessary modifications to prevent deleteion of the image please do so, as I don't want to have to upload it again. I authorise the image to be published under the Creative Commons license. --Gene_poole 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You tagged Image:ANZAC War Memorial 10b - 28012002 x640.JPG as cc-by-nc-1.0, a noncommercial license. Images here have to allow commercial use. Of course, you can't "authorise the image to be published under [a different] Creative Commons license", only the author George Cruickshank can do that. dbenbenn | talk 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can. I am George Cruickshank. --Gene_poole 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I recommend you tag it as {{GFDL-self}}{{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. dbenbenn | talk 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gene. Actually, part of the point of the new list in List of micronations was to create an inclusive list which could include all the marginal or internet-only players, while marking the real-world one simultaneously (see the tags...). This would relieve pressure from them all poking into the main Micronations article, where the non-notable ones don't belong. I am going to partially revert your last back to make the list header more inclusive. I would not object, if you are so inclined, if you want to do something like swap the order of the old (exclusive to historically verifyable credible) list (now on the bottom) with the new list (now on top). Anyways, followup to the talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 07:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Poole: I feel like we are finally learning to get along and thank you for working with me on the issue of the Washington Post quote. Hope we can work together in the future as well. Best, KAJ 06:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please exercise more care with your edits. You accidentally clobbered my Robert A. Heinlein link disambiguation edit on Micronation and I had to re-instate it. Hu 00:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've no idea what you're talking about. There's no record of my making any edits to the the section of the article you're referring to. Am I missing something? --Gene_poole 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This edit of yours. Hu 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Gene, Did you noticed on my last edit that I cited CBS as stating that the State Dept called DOM a fraud, etc? I was certain that you would like this, but Davidpdx reverted it without giving a reason. Please let me know your thoughts on my last edition, and if you think it should stand? Sincerely, Johnski 05:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gene, You might want to keep an eye on the article for the next few days. Davidpdx 07:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gene, I don't know if you saw, but Johnski was banned. I guess we should open a betting pool on how long it will take before KAJ shows up? I would guess it will be pretty quickly, given their past behavior. Davidpdx 00:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Proposed decision. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. Davidpdx 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoo boy! GC, if there's one thing about that guy, he's consistent. You'd think that if he managed to come back on via another IP, he'd at least change his style. That way, he can stay longer before I inevitably block him.  :) Thanks much for the notice. - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Psychotic" is putting it politely. I only knew him from "Gzornenplatz" forward and he basically singled me out for some of the edits I was doing at the time. Talk about stirring the pot. Trying to reason with the guy was the most impossible thing I've tackled in a long time. I tried doing the "live and let live" routine with him; no go. He basically drove me up the wall by formatting deletable garbage and accusing me of being deletionist. When I got the adminship, the "NoPuzzleStranger" version put most of my deletions on the Articles for Deletion page with the usual snide remarks about how was acting unilaterally, blah, blah, blah. The NoPuzzleStranger talk page is still up and you can see how I tried to reason with him.

I still want to nominate you for an adminship. Give the word and you got it. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

YES! Consider it done as soon as I get home from work. Just swung by for a moment to do a bit of new pages patrolling. - Lucky 6.9 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You're on, GC. Good luck!!!! Head on over: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gene Poole - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This might sound bizarre, but this is one time I'm glad he showed up as a sockpuppet. It shows the depths he's willing to stoop to and it just strengthens your case. Someone already blocked him; wish it was me that did it! - Lucky 6.9 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Gene Pool, I believe you are a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I have two suggestions that may improve your likelihood of becoming an administrator.

1. The evidence for sock puppetry is compelling. If I were in your position and had indeed used a sock puppet, I would apologize and reaffirm that I would never do it in the future. For example, Aaron Brenneman's RFA is currently going well despite his prior blatant sock-puppet vandalism, for which he apologized. It's not too late to change your position.
2. Many users are concerned over your Micronation POV. If I were in your position I would promise to be very conservative in using admin powers w.r.t. micronation-related issues, e.g. wait for another admin to close non-unanimous AFDs on micronations.

Cheers —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 07:21Z

GP, I made a joke back to you on the DOM talk page, you might want to take a look. In all seriousness, why didn't you tell me you were up for an Rfa? I voted for you, but only because I saw something about it on your talk page. RRR..ok you owe me now! Just kidding! Davidpdx 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Gene...you should at least cook those infants before eating them. Seriously, this is all just wrong. The latest two Wiks are wiped but the RfA isn't going like I'd hoped. There's always later and I "got your back" regarding that whack job should he come back again. - Lucky 6.9 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Add a can of tomato soup and a dab of mustard for some really great Sloppy Joes. Beyond that, I find myself wondering for the umpteenth time if all this is worth the effort. Here you are, a shining example of what this site should be...and all you get are hassles by some really bitter indiviuals of rather questionable merit. What a freaking world. - Lucky 6.9 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gene, would you consider allowing Tony Sidaway to send me a copy of your emails related to your RFA? See his talk page for discussion. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my ambiguity. I consider personal attacks vandalism. I will clarify that on the RFA page when I get home. My school's firewall won't let me on the RFA page for some stupid reason. Also, some of your insults were fairly random (at least a few of the ones posted on the RFA page) and that could constitute vandalism. But I will clarify that when I get the chance. --

Hello my evil twin! Can you believe it's been almost 6 weeks with no Johnski! OMG (knock on wood) I have to believe he's lurking though, waiting for the right moment to pop back into action. Anyway, keep your eyes open and I will as well. Later... Davidpdx 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

GP, interesting. I've made sure to put that page on my watch list again. Notice that the monkier he used is red, is there a reason for that? I'm going to archieve the DOM talk page at the end of the month. Want to make any bets on how quickly he reposts the same old crap? Davidpdx 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

GP, not sure if you saw the new post on the DOM talk page. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Is this Johnski reincarnated? Davidpdx 12:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

!أهلاً Hey there, I have added a section at the bottom of the Umm Kulthum article for citations. You mentioned a Lonley Planet Guide to Egypt which reffered to (perhaps erroneously) her sexuality and I was wondering if you could go ahead and enter the citation of the specific edition of the guide. The article needs to be cleaned up somewhat and that means tracking down sources. Thanks Angrynight 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why this ended up under the larger section on arbitration, I tried to move it out but could not, sorry. By the way I have borrowed your "countries visited" template for my own userpage. I don't know if you created it first, but if you have- it's a good idea, thanks. Angrynight 06:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag Bumbunga.GIF. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

Hey GP, long time no see. I don't know if you saw that Centarui removed some words from DOM. My main concern is that messing with the article is going to set off an edit war. I reverted his edits to the previous version. If you could keep an eye on it, I'd appreciate it. I left a message on his talk page as well. Thanks... Davidpdx 09:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw your message on the DOM talk page. I've been keeping a close eye on it. I was thinking of merging David Evan Pedley into the DOM article. What do you think? Davidpdx 11:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about the impending revert war that's probably going to happen. I warned Centauri that this was going to happen and that we should leave the words in there just to keep the peace at this point. We went almost two months without problems on the article, which is pretty good. Anyway, I think we are going to really have to watch it from now on. I put some stuff on the talk page warning both of them. Davidpdx 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

GP, That's good to hear. I wouldn't rule out his coming back though. He's kind of like a virus that won't die out. I'd put money on the fact he'll be back. Keep an eye on DOM I'm going to do some stuff to it within the next week, which will probably not sit to well with him. Davidpdx 04:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey GP, I don't know if you saw the latest revert by the Johnski clone. I reverted back and left a rather nasty message. I think I offended him. HAHA Davidpdx 07:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

GP, well things have calmed down on the DOM and micronations page. If you look at the micronation page, I'm almost sure the IP and log in of User:Whatsupdoc matches that of SamuelSpade. I'm not sure about User:Harvardy. Looking at Harvedy's contributions though makes me think he's another Johnski clone. Let me know if anything else comes up. Davidpdx 09:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. But, "All of this means that I have a need to be efficient with my time, and as a result I have a very low tolerance for fools, the wilfully stupid, pedants, dogmatists...."

You must have been tearing your hair out after perusing the article talk page. :p Deeceevoice 04:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aw, dammit! I was gonna! :p Deeceevoice 05:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Umm Kulthum 02a.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

GP, I'll do my best. At this point all hell has broken loose here. I just lost my job. Found out on Thursday. I just started this one in Feburary and now I have to move again. As you may have seen, Johnski is on the prowl again, although Tom Harrison caught the changes and reverted it. I just cleaned up the DOM talk page. At some point in the next few days, I'm guessing Johnski will be along to post his crap again. We ought to keep a watch on that as well. Davidpdx 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a slow writer and occasionally my telephone rings in the middle of things; next time, I'd appreciate it if you'd wait a little longer for an explanation to show up on the Talk page before assuming a bad-faith edit on my part. I hope the explanation there now makes clear that I had good reason for considering that particular section to be somewhere between 'POV' and 'inaccurate'. --Calair 09:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no problem then. Easy to miss that sort of thing. --Calair 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you one guess who's back on the prowl again. [4] Davidpdx 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you can't stop yourself by offending people. There is nothing eccentric in the notes that I've added in Ambient music, they are just normal point of view for anyone that was born before 1970 and that began listening to music in late 1970s. Ambient music IS an experimental and minimalistic kind of music, do you want to argue on this? Which Pink Floyd tracks are influential for Ambient music? How many Simple Minds, U2 and New Order tracks can be regarded as ambient? Though, I am aware that New Order were greatly influntial on the whole techno scene, it has no relevance with ambient music. Ambient music and ambient techno are two different genres, as it is clearly stated elsewhere.Brian Wilson 10:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Gene. Brian has raised your reversion of his edit with me as I had posted a welcome message on his talk page. I have noted that his comment above is not as

civil as is expected by the community, but it would be helpful as he is a new editor if you could discuss the changes he has made with him and the other Ambient music editors on the article's talk page before reverting them again - I'm not in a position to assess them myself. Many thanks, and happy editing. —Whouk (talk

) 12:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed only not-factual information or POV. You can improve my sentences, of course, thank you. But please note that the structure now works better than before. If you dont agree, please give other users enough time to discuss it in the incoming day. Brian Wilson 03:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another WP, Peter G.Wiener, suggested me to remove Pink Floyd, they actually are simply overstated by their fans. Ambient music is: a landscape, static landscape, a picture, a gallery of paintings, a museum, a sunset, calm clouds, a bright but not hot day, calmness, sometimes nostalgia. This is what Eno was and is. This is what real ambient musicans do. Pink Floyd's instrumental music is movement, sometimes chaos, exploding emotions. maybe they have some resemblance with some "krautrock", but definitely not with Ambient. Eno never quotes them, they didn't ever meet or collaborate, so why you insist?Brian Wilson 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new article, I moved there the content from "organic ambient music". please see

Robert Fripp, Andy Summers, Russell Mills, Harold Budd, Jon Hassell and David Sylvian are remarkable artists whose past and present works are regarded as Ambient music (in some cases new age).

Orb, Boars of Canada and Aphex Twin are Ambient House, Ambient Techno, IDM. These info were put in the article before i edited it. I'll talk to the largest WPs is possible. Ambient is a subgenre of experimental music, that's all. I am noticing you are offending me again. thank you. I am suspecting that you are a sock puppet. Brian Wilson 04:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gene Poole, I dispute the claim that the Conch Republic is a real micronation. The template is not necessary for this page. The place to discuss is at Talk:Conch Republic. Let's discuss there, I've already left a comment. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• It looks like this template was created a few months ago....I don't think there is such a universal concensus about where to use it. Please discuss at Talk:Conch Republic. If the concensus is against me, I will drop it. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "micronation" template does not belong on Conch Republic at all; it is misleading. Leave it off, please. Jonathunder 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 23:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)