User talk:Bssmith117

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Dominion of Melchizedek.

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dominion of Melchizedek has been reverted.
Your edit here to Dominion of Melchizedek was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/user/dpashore) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yopie (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoM and conflict of interest

There's a chance, given your edit history and the similarity of you name to the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs on the DoM's website, for a conflict of interest to exist here. Either way, you'll find adding material is far easier if you can get something halfway like a reliable source to run a story on the shiny, new, hopefully non-fraudulent DoM.

If you want things like the motto changed, then a statement on the DoM website is fine for that (although the fact the seal remains unchanged will be problematic). Likewise, if you want to distance yourselves from the previous activity, then a statement will help (although the language here will treat it as an unverified statement attributed to the DoM website). We can't have the unsupported detail/fluff that's recently been added to the DoM entry over on MicroWiki. Bromley86 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) - Thank you for your advisement on Conflict of Interest. Conflict of Interest or not, this particular page is skewed, bias, represents material from over a decade ago, and does not tell the accurate history (as stated on the Dominion of Melchizedek Talk page) or the current situation of the Dominion of Melchizedek today. From the beginning the statement - "was a unilaterally declared, internationally unrecognized micro nation known for facilitating large scale banking fraud in many parts of the world during the 1990s and early 2000s" is bias and false from the standpoint that the Dominion of Melchizedek is a recognized Ecclesiastical State with Treaties of Peace and Recognition from multiple Nation States. (every time I attempt to post those treaties they get removed..even if it comes from the DoM's Official Webpage, those Treaties are third party sources being signed by the Heads-of-State in which the Treaty is made). This statement is also an opinion and based on a source (Quatloos) whose links which are used as "sources" for his article are mostly non existent or dead today. Based on the amount of dead links, this site should not be classified as a "reliable source". The Dominion of Melchizedek is also engaged in humanitarian aid and Diplomatic Communications with other States such as Haiti, Liberia, Uganda, and the Dominican Republic. To claim that the DoM is unrecognized is completely false. To claim it is a cyber community is likewise false as we operate in the real world and do business in the real world. This is a problem when it comes to individuals who don't understand or know International law or who haven't taken the time to read the various treaties that are out there....i.e OAS Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, or the Vienna Convention Series, or Treaties on Domicile or Naturalization. OR THE LAW OF NATIONS.

Also, to begin the page with accusations about past criminality from individuals who were never charged as DoM members, rather as US Citizens for violating US laws and who were using the DoM for their own nefarious reasons, automatically puts a seed in the minds of those reading about DoM, that is negative.

There should be a notice that the information on this page is outdated and based on sources that are over a decade old at minimum. The best source of information comes from those who are directly involved with the State who are actively working to build their own society, like many other societies have done throughout man's existence. We follow and subscribe to the Law of Nations, like all other members of the Family of Nations. We are Peacefully Exercising our Right to Self Determination which all Nations agree ALL People have the right to do. We do not have Our own bank, nor do we create Our own currency, and we are not involved with anything related to the financial industry. We (the current Members of the DoM), do not subscribe to the Melchizedek Bible, in fact we have outright denounced it on Our Website. We are not engaged in War or the financing of such activities. WE focus on Humanitarian Aid and Education. You can Google Prime Minister David Williams (who was recognized by the US Courts in 2006 as an Ambassador for the Dominion of Melchizedek) and come up with all sorts of information about him and his website Matrix Solutions where he has been teaching about International Law and the Right of Self Determination for the past 5 years. He is the leader of DoM's current Administration, therefore to understand the current mindset and direction of the DoM, researching who he is and what he is about would go a long way towards bridging the gap between what is "perceived" to be the old DoM vs what the New and Current Members of the DoM are doing.

It is completely double-minded to hold current members of the DoM to past allegations of criminality by those who were never really members of the DoM by law (which is why they were never charged as members of DoM, but rather as US Citizens), when every new administration that takes over from the previous one states they should not be held accountable for the actions of the previous administration! The DoM has never gone away and there has been no reports of illegality AT ALL by the DoM in over a decade. There is not a State on this Planet that can make the same statement! But yet, Wikipedia continues to focus on the negative and continues to keep outdated and bias half truths on this page.

I am sure this will be a long road to cleaning up this page, but it will be cleaned up because it is asinine to hang onto allegations of past events without having any current information to balance the equation and create a neutral explanation of who the Dominion of Melchizedek is, what We are about and what We are doing. I have no intention of denying that which is true and accurate. We have no issue with helping to expand on some statements so that there is a deeper understanding of the situations alluded to. I am not here to "fluff" the State as something it is not or to make the DoM out to be a perfect State. No State is perfect because man is not perfect and all states are created by men of like mind who come together to secure Their interest and to separate themselves from the collusion of others that do not believe in the same things. WE are about Peace as stated in the LAW OF NATIONS: Book IV

PEACE is the reverse of war: it is that desirable state in which every one quietly enjoys his rights, or, if controverted, amicably discusses them by force of argument. Hobbes has had the boldness to assert, that war is the natural state of man. But if, by "the natural state of man," we understand (as reason requires that we should) that state to which he is destined and called by his nature, peace should rather be termed his natural state. For, it is the part of a rational being to terminate his differences by rational methods; whereas, it is the characteristic of the brute creation to decide theirs by force. Man, as we have already observed (Prelim. § 10), alone and destitute of succours, would necessarily be a very wretched creature. He stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his species, in order to enjoy the sweets of life, to develop his faculties, and live in a manner suitable to his nature. Now, it is in peace alone that all these advantages are to be found: it is in peace that men respect, assist, and love each other: nor would they ever depart from that happy state, if they were not hurried on by the impetuosity of their passions, and blinded by the gross deceptions of self-love. What little we have said of the effects will be sufficient to give some idea of its various calamities; and it is an unfortunate circumstance for the human race, that the injustice of unprincipled men should so often render it inevitable.

The Declaration of Independence states this very clearly:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." - The DoM has made its Declaration. Likewise the DOI States:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed".

The US Constitution clearly states that it will punish all offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS which is titled "PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS" This is what the Founders were referring to when they made Their statement in the beginning of Their Declaration.

Article 1; Section 8 - Paragraph 10 To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations

The DoM simply wants a neutral and real explanation/description of who and what it is. Bssmith117 (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Bromley86 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case and Point! Another problem with today's "Soundbite" Generation. Can't even take time to read relevant information on such a serious topic. Forget the fact that I took time out of my busy schedule in order to attempt a serious dialogue about the content on this page. Regardless, it has been documented for future use when used as proof that diligent dialogue has been attempted.

Bssmith117 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please refrain from editing an article which you are intimately involved with. If you want to edit WP, there's plenty of pages where you don't have a COI. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bromley86, please give me the credentials which give you the authority and knowledge base to edit this page or any page regarding societies developing themselves in accordance with International law. The introduction to this page is highly inaccurate and further, there is no such quote from the cited source attached to the introductory statement. This is highly disingenuous and not proper procedure for making claims about something which you know little to nothing about outside of articles you find online that are over 10 years old.

Provide me proof that quatloos, the Security and Exchange Commissions, The Comptroller of the United States or you have the authority to determine which states are recognized in International law and then we can have an honest and true discussion. The fact of the matter is you or any of the entities listed above do not. That power is reserved for the State Department of the United States and similar departments in other Nation States.

My team and I, regardless of what you consider a COI will continue to do what we can to see that this page is correct and reflect the RECOGNIZED State of the Dominion of Melchizedek. I don't know what why you have such personal involvement in this particular page or why you are so adamant about having neutral and factual information presented on this page, but regardless of your intentions and motivations, it does not change the reality of the DoM, who we are, what we do, and our Status under International law, something which is obviously outside your expertise. Bssmith117 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, Bssmith117, that Bromley86 is so adamant about having a neutral point of view not having a conflict of interest is because we have rules and policies that we, as editors here, must follow. This is partially because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. We also have policies regarding that say that no one owns articles. Another policy says paid editors must say they are being paid and who is paying them. (That last one is from the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use and has legal ramification if not followed.) I've linked the text to all the policies I mentioned here to their respective policy pages if you care to read them. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestrid, Please see talk page on the Page in discussion. As for the suggestion that I am being paid, I am emphatically denying receiving any payment for the attempt to get accurate information reflected on the page "Dominion of Melchizedek". Why that suggestion is being presented, I don't know. (sorry if tags are not being applied properly, I have still not figured out how you tag individuals in these communications. Bssmith117 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|Gestrid}} is what you use, and if you save it and there's a mistake, you need to start a complete new post. What do you mean by 'your team'? Doug Weller talk 20:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Dominion of Melchizedek shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bssmith117 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have reviewed the 3 revert policy and do apologize for breaking that policy. I have no problems learning and abiding by the Wikipedia policies as I am continuing to learn while contributing. I also have no problem contributing to more than the page currently in focus. In actuality, I plan to. It has been said that I am pushing a POV, have COI, and NOTHERE to contribute to the building of the encyclopedia or have a desire to promote the DoM. Everything is a POV, even the current slant on the Topic of focus as it currently stands. COI is an easy term to throw out. I have done everything possible to stay on facts as I will lay out below. as for not contributing to building an encyclopedia... I do not understand that position because if I can contribute and show that there are errors on this page and help to get those errors corrected, then that in itself is a contribution. I am not here to promote the State. I am here to correct errors within the confine of Wordpress policies. I have seen dead links, I have seen misquoted citations, I have seen external links which violate rule 6 of WP external link guidelines, etc.

My focus, now I know you can submit drafts for review change will be to create said drafts and submit them for review. Also, I understand that in order to get a page to be heard in an "open forum" for wrong information on a topic, you must first show you have made an attempt to work with editors to correct such differences using reason, decorum, and logical arguments. It is my intention to show where such bias are on this page are being stated, where unreliable sources are being used, and where misquotes and double-minded statements are being used. I know you must first discuss reasons for your differences and show a record of attempting to work through differences with other editors both on your talk page and the topic's talk page which you can see I have been doing with cites and references.

If you review my comments, you will notice my focus is one one particular point and that is the lead of the page. The statement that the State is not recognized is a false claim that cannot be verified by a reliable source. There was a cite to Quatloos for the lead which was eventually taken down through my efforts (discussions) that the cite was wrong. There are documents which show other governments recognize the State which are verifiable and reliable (as these documents come from official government offices). The Article itself uses what it considers a reliable source which states the DoM has been Diplomatically recognized. Editors are violating WP policies my continuing to keep statements (especially in the lead) which are contradictory to what is in the article. Not to mention by leaving unsubstantiated claims on a topic page.

My intention is not to promote the state, it is to show where errors on this topic are. Facts can be skewed based on the editor who writes them. I have had an editor tell me that it is not WP Policy nor an Editors ability to discuss or determine International policy. Yet I have caught him doing so because of his opinionated statements and POV. This to me shows a COI, because this particular Editor doesn't seem to understand when he is actually engaging in determining international policy. A topic such as the one we are discussing requires editors who have an understanding of International law, Policies and Procedures. It requires someone who is not bias towards the information that is on the page and is willing to look at how the information on the page is being presented. I only wish to help organize the information that can give a more proper and deeper understanding of this particular microstate and this article. It is very much a fact that certain individuals who associated with this microstate have committed crimes in and around banking. Some have been caught and convicted, some have only had allegations. I have never denied this nor do I wish to see these points omitted.

This Page as it currently stands from the beginning to end assumes the State does not exist, is not real, and is unrecognized. Because of this point of view, there is no ability to create a History section, current administration section, or sections about projects the state is currently working on or a timeline of events that would normally be seen on any state page that currently exist. The framework of the page is designed to be a one-sided perspective on what the editors (who have no experience in international law) consider a dead state or a non-existent state. The Page focuses on three main people who were a part of the state over two decades ago but does not reflect other notable individuals who have been and still are members of the state. The page focuses on all the alleged crimes committed by the state but does not talk about the good things the state has done.

So this is the reason why I wish to be unblocked and feel I should be unblocked. I am not here to cause problems or get into editing wars. I pan to make drafts, submit them, and continue to have dialogue with various editors until enough editors are willing to see the perspective I bring to the table about the slant of the page, the need for it to be corrected, and my willingness to collaborate with others to produce and develop a fair, neutral and effective encyclopedia page. Keep in Mind that up until a couple of days ago, I was interacting with only 2 or 3 editors over the past couple of years. I am happy to be collaborating with many other editors. Bssmith117 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The micronation does not actually exist, unless you have reliable sources that it does, pushing the agenda that it exists is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. PhilKnight (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight: Sources for the existence of the micro-state is as follows:

The Republic of Cameroon
The Republic of Nigeria
The Republic of Burkina Faso
Central African Republic
- This source is also cited on Wikipedia and does help in substantiating the Washington Post article which states that the Two States have entered into Diplomatic Relations thus acknowledging Diplomatic Recognition. (This is the part I cannot get past. This Article ACKNOWLEDGES with a source, the Diplomatic Recognition of the State! But yet, for some unknown reason, the position of multiple editors is the State does not really exist!?) I genuinely wish to know how this reasoning can stand.
Diplomatic Note from Liberia 2015
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

- Article 1 - The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
  - The State does possess a permanent population
  - The State does have a Government
  - The state does have the capacity AND HAS entered into relations with other states.
  - there are many debates within the realm of international law about the issue of defined territory especially with the consideration that all the land has been discovered through the technological advancement of Satellites.
- Article 3 - The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition, the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
- Article 6 - he recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

This convention and the two articles cited above is provided to show where in international law all states derive its right to exist as a separate but equal member of the Family of Nations as agreed upon in international law.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

SELF-DETERMINATION

The United Nations Charter
- Article 2 - To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
- Article 73(b) - to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;
- Article 73(c) - to further international peace and security;
UN General Resolution 2625 - 1.Solemnly proclaims the following principles:
- The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations
  - Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.
UN General Resolution 70/143 - Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination

As for who has the ability to determine the Sovereign Immunity such as Heads of States... The Maryland Law Review quotes and cites on page 265 of the review and page 8 of the PDF the following..." Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and transferred the determination of sovereign immunity from the executive branch to the judicial branch.

These articles are notable because it shows who has the authority to determine a states status of immunity and thus recognition whether implied or formal. In the US and in many States, the Courts determine the status of individuals and states, not agencies within the government, not organizations within a society, and especially not reporters, citizens, editors, or websites.

This is not a magnanimous thing that we are discussing here. Societies are created, changed and/or merged all the time. These procedures, recognition, and relations are discussed at length with the concept of Self-Determination being at the center of International legal discussions today. This principle is how the United States was formed. Anyone who has done the study on the history of any state that has existed will know that not all states are not perfect. The DoM is no exception. however, we are not discussing the less than perfect track record of the State while under the control of the Founder and former Members. They were ignorant of international law and is well evident considering the activities they thought they could get away with. They lost the State, but the State did not go away.

I have taken the time to gather the requested sources and documentation. I have taken the time to highlight certain points which should be understood, but the topic of self-determination, statehood, international law, and recognition is not something which is easy to express to those not versed in international law.

The fact is, and why I have been very diligent in pointing out the errors of the Wikipedia article in relation to the Dominion of Melchizedek and its Statehood is simple. The DoM does have recognition, the treaties are there to be viewed and seen. One of the Treaties is sourced on Wikipedia, and the fact that the Members of the DoM have sent Containers of Aid to a foreign State and received letters of thanks from a physical office of that State as late as last year is a contradiction to the claims being made on the main page and the introduction to the Dominion of Melchizedek.

You made the statement that to continue to push the "agenda" that the state does not exist is contrary to Wikipedia Policy, yet I have continuously provided sources and proven the contradictory nature of the Page itself in regard to this claim and the fact that the state does, in fact, exist based on multiple sources of law, principles, agreements, and commercial activities. To deny these facts and findings is also contrary to Wikipedia's Policies WP:5P2. I am told to maintain a level of good faith when it comes to editors, however it is hard to maintain such good faith when you are dealing with individuals who do not understand international law and continue to dictate international policy with no standing or authority to do so and in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of currently held belief maintained by the editors involved in this discussion.

In the court of law, the one who makes a claim is the one who must prove the claim is valid. Each of the editors wishes to maintain the State does not exist, however, they have not provided any evidence to back up their claim. I am presenting a claim that the State does exist 1) by showing, in international law, where such rights of a state to exist are and 2) The actual documents signed and accepted by two Heads-of-States from multiple States recognizing the State which this page says doesn't exist. If you truly wish me to refrain from pushing this issue, then provide solid, valid proof that the State does not exist. Bssmith117 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress policies do not apply to Wikipedia, I'm not sure why you mentioned them.

Editors who are not involved with the nation do not have a COI. See WP:NOTTHEM. You cannot reasonably claim that someone has no understanding of international law while simultaneously claiming they have a conflict of interest regarding an unrecognized micronation.

Wikipedia doesn't care about supposed or self-proclaimed expertise, it only summarizes professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. It prefers those that are unaffiliated with the subject to form the basis for the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: - Excuse me for that typo. Obviously, I was referring to Wikipedia and have made the correction to not confuse you or anyone else.

To your point about the editor in question. I digress, that was a wrong category to put said editor in per the Wikipedia policies description of COI. Instead, I should have used WP:TE. I have read WP:NOTTHEM and will abide by those procedures and take up any such issues with an arbitration committee. However, you are assuming the micro-state is unrecognized ignoring the facts I have presented on the discussion page regarding sourced and reliable treaties and sources used with the article in question. That can be discussed in more detail later.

Again, I have reviewed some of the pages presented to me regarding various policies on Wikipedia Including WP:TE, WP:COI, WP:HERE, WP:SPA, and others. It is clear that I have been blocked because a few editors believe I don't have an interest in "building an encyclopedia". It is equally clear, my job at this point is to somehow "prove" my case is the opposite, that I have a genuine interest and improvement of the articles I contribute to, I respect the core editing standards, have a focus on building the encyclopedia, and learn from my mistakes. I will be adding a Tag on my user talk page which states I do have a conflict of interest. I will begin to offer edits through the proper procedures laid out in the WP:COI, more specifically, using "request edit" I have a genuine interest in improving this page as stated numerous times already. I am not here to promote the State, I am not here to paint the State in a manner that is untrue, or "fluffed". This is a matter of removing clear and obvious opinions and bias, unsubstantiated claims, and improving the facts which surround the topic at hand. Wikipedia does state that having a narrow focus in itself is not grounds for being banned. Editors with a niche focus is useful and helpful. My niche is international law and procedure. My contribution to this page and other pages in the area of international law will be my focus most likely.

The sources I have presented with my arguments are material sources acceptable by Wikipedia. I have to first show and prove that certain edits, opinions, statements, and bias exist before I can offer a "request edit" or before I can send my disputes to an arbitration board. Although I have a conflict of Interest due to my relationship with the micro-state, I will build a history of focusing on the facts that can be verified, and focusing on updating the topic or any others which are considered bias or opinionated and not being founded on facts. I am solely focused on helping Wikipedia to build a positive and informative online encyclopedia through my area of interest. I will also build a record to show that I do not emotionally edit nor do I engage in disruptive behaviors by attacking other editors character. IF something is wrong, I point it out. If I am wrong, I will admit it, as I have done. Bssmith117 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned because there have been several editors who have stated that this user has a clear conflict of interest and yet there has never been a clear denial. The unblock request does not state that Bssmith117 has even looked at our conflict of interest policy. It does not state that he understands it. It does not state that he intends to abide by it. We are left with a categorical statement that he regards himself as having a 'right' to edit the article in spite of the COI declared in the same statement. --Elektrik Fanne 16:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this has now been addressed in the reply above, which means we are moving foward. It also means that my post above may be moot. --Elektrik Fanne 17:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]