User talk:Alabaster3000

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Note that even if the Dominion of Melchizedek "no longer exists" the article will remain on wikipedia for historical purposes. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 19:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Dominion of Melchizedek. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Dominion of Melchizedek was changed by Alabaster3000 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-12-03T21:44:47+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Dominion of Melchizedek. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Alansohn (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Dominion of Melchizedek has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you.  Thatguyflint  undefined 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Dominion of Melchizedek. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Yopie (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Following our recent conversation on IRC
Hi Alabaster3000.

First of all, may I apologise if things got a bit uncomfortable on IRC. Please be assured that we were not having a 'go' at you.

No one was saying that what you were saying was false. We have no indication of whether it is true or false.

You mentioned about the problems of believing what Wikipedia calls reliable sources like the New York Times, etc - that you believe that they "lie" to their readers.

How much harder, then, is it for someone to believe in the President of a micronation (well, ex-President I suppose I should say)? The DoM is known for fraud - how can we be certain that this isn't another example of it?

Dismantling websites is easy. Removing references to the DoM on many other wikis and online sources is easy.

If the DoM truly no longer exists, then the procedure for adding this information to the article is as follows:
 * 1) The ex-President makes a public declaration of the cessation of the "nation" - this should be in a source which Wikipedia counts as reliable - such as the BBC, FOX NEWS, CBS NEWS, New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, London Guardian, etc. This should be an article/feature about him - not just a press release/statement. An interview would be ideal, where the questions are raised by the reporting body themselves, rather than given to them by McDonald
 * 2) Once a verified reliable source has reported it, the article can have a section added to it about the dissolution of the DoM.

Please note, the current information would basically remain in place (although reworded to the past tense). If there is any specific part of the current article which is demonstrably false (using - you know what I'm going to say! - reliable sources which are independent of the DoM), then these can be discussed on the article's talk page - along with the sources - and a consensus can be reached on what will or will not be added/removed/reworded.

I am sorry that you feel that this is "unfair" (for want of a better word).

You asked why we can't accept the word of the president. There are a couple of reason:
 * 1) We can't verify that the president said it. Even if you gave us a phone number, how can we be sure that we are talking to the president?
 * 2) The president isn't a neutral or independent party. On Wikipedia, we rely on information from sources which are independent of the subject.

Again, I am sorry that you are unhappy with the advice which you were given by a few editors in IRC. However, the advice we gave you is what the policies that govern Wikipedia say. Those policies talk about verifiability of information, about reliable sources and independent sources. As I advised you, both in IRC and above: get the president to do an interview. Personally, I would suggest doing it with either Forbes or The Washington Post, as these are two publications mentioned in the article about the DoM (for having called the fact that the DoM claims to be a recognized sovereign entity as a "ruse").

Anyway, I've got to go now.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)