Talk:Micronation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Araucania

It hasn't disapeared on1962 as the article says.It still exists and its king is Phillip II --AleG 14:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a linkspam

I added a new external link to enhance the article:

• NationStates — A free nation simulation game on the Web

It has to do with this article because it is a Web project involving micronations. People who get interested in the hobby of micronation development due to the article might be interested in taking a look at that site. It is not personal propaganda, because that website is not mine (in fact, I do not even know who is the website creator). A wikipedia user erased it, arguing he was reversing linkspam. I have added the link back, but I accept the reversal provided a good reason is presented here. Thanks. --Antonielly 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I am a proud player in NS, I don't think a link to it is needed in this article. The nations in that website are hardly micronations. And PS the creator of the website happens to be in the NationStates article, Max Barry. I won't erase the link becasue it will obviously spark some argument but I am simply providing my two cents. Ace Combat Fanatic 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren't those nations legitimate kinds of micronations? Why? So far they conform to the characteristics of micronations mentioned in the article, and to my current knowledge on the subject. The reason for them not being micronations, if valid, could be used to improve the definition of micronation on the article. Thank you in advance for the information. --Antonielly 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe the countries in Nations Sates as micronations - but the concept is tangentially related, so I don't see any harm in including the link here. --Gene_poole 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How about we break up this article?

A lot of the argument seems to be over disagreements about the validity of various categories of micronation (and specific examples thereof).

Why don't we just split it up, and put links to the various categories along with a generic intro to the topic here? I don't see much disagreement (I think) on what micronations fall in which category.... Georgewilliamherbert 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Micronations named for real places

Under the heading Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction are listed "Upper Yafa and Oeccusi-Ambeno, two of an extraordinarily diverse and entertaining array of micronations invented by prolific New Zealand-based artistamp producer Bruce Henderson since the early 1970s."

However Oecussi-Ambeno is a very real exclave of East Timor with its own Wiki article and Upper Yafa was a real sultanate in the Federation of South Arabia that became part of South Yemen (Upper Yafa at worldstatesmen.org). I'm not familiar with the Bruce Henderson productions but the places themselves can hardly be said to be fictions or inventions.

LuiKhuntek 19:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Page division

One division would be to separate out those entities which did at one point have general recognition (ie could be seen as microstates]] and those which never had such recognition.

Where would Moresnet fit in the micronation discussion as it now is?

The "guidebook" to Molvania that was published 2004 should be included on this page (I think that another volume of a similar kind is due to be published shortly.)

Jackiespeel 18:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think what you're proposing is unneccessarily confusing. I'm not aware of any recognised states that have become micronations. Moresnet was never a micronation - it was a legitimate historical entity, created by treaty between recognised nations, and jointly subject to their authority. I'm not really sure that Molvania or Phaic Tan belong here either, as they are literary fantasies, like Middle Earth or the Star Wars universe; they are the stage on which wider stories are played out, not self-contained projects. --Gene_poole 02:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

Gene Pool: Any reason why did you remove the entry for Azores? I did not add it myself (simply corrected the geographic location) but it does sound pretty much to me as a Micronation. Maybe you should learn Portuguese before getting rid of things you do not comprehend:

From the website: O Reino Unido dos Açores é uma simulação micronacional

In English: The United Kingdom of Azores is a micronation [simulation]

Regards, --Asterion 20:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly. It's just not significant enough to list within the article. This article is not a advertisement for every micronation in existence, but a resource that lists ony the most significant, well-known examples of each type. Sorry, but unless you can point to some dedicated media coverage that proves otherwise, Azores doesn't qualify. Oh, and don't use false edit summaries like "revert unexplained deletion" - when the reason was clearly explained - it's considered very bad form and doesn't do anything for your personal credibility. --Gene_poole 23:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this, I don't think you're being very nice. You have accused another editor of making "false edit summaries". You describing his editing as being "very bad form". You imply that making what I consider to be perfectly good edit summary (it was unexplained in the sense that it was only briefly explained in an edit summary) hurts his "personal credibility". Considering he's only been here a little over a month, with 302 edits, I think Don't bite the newbies applies. About the micronation issue, I personally don't think his micronation belongs here; I personally don't think your Micronation belongs here; I think the micronation article should be changed to only include Sealand and maybe a coupld of other really notable micronations; but, then again, I'm an exclusionist and you're an inclusionist. Asterion: I see that you have made a lot of valuable contributions to Wikipedia and am glad that you're an editor. As someone who has been here for a while, I need to warn you that getting involved in any article having to do with Micronations will greatly increase your Wikistress level. Samboy 05:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, Gene_poole, it was an unexplained deletion as you did not talk about it before hand in the talk page as for Wikipedia "unofficial" rules. It was not my intention to offend anyone. My point is that this sort of significant removal of data should be discussed and a consensus reached. (Many thanks for your kind words Samboy) --Asterion 07:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out here that Gene_poole is actually a member of a micronation - Atlantium - and has been using this page to promote their agenda, deleting the micronations less serious than them under the argument that they are "not notable". When protests are made, he gets his buddies in to claim that micronationalists from the simulationist sector have a conflict of interest, whilst failing to point out that he too is a micronationalist. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that is also applicable where deletions are made in order to keep a sector of micronationalism off the wiki in order to promote a secessionist agenda. --Graius 11:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting false and misleading comments such as those above. The public record shows that I have created, expanded and maintained a significant majority of Wikipedia's approximately 40 articles about micronations (including this one) over a period of more than 3 years, and furthermore, that there is a long-established consensus - supported by dozens of regularly contributing editors to Wikipedia - that micronations whose existence cannot be independently verified in multiple third party sources are insufficiently noteworthy to be documented within the context of this article, nor elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 12:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this represents the view of Wikipedia. I don't see dozens of editors who have a long established consensus; there is a general legitimate opposition to micronations but nothing as clear as "It's OK as long as it's supported by N 3rd party sources". Personally, I wish they would all go away (except for Sealand). I don't think your micronation belongs here. I don't think it is fair that we keep your micronation here while you delete other micronations. It makes members of other micronations legitimately upset. Samboy 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

a question here, as my article on the NFA is on the verge of being deleted...how many third party sources are needed to qualify as a notable micronation...I'll assume the 2 referenced in the nfa article are not enough, but then how many are? I ask because some of the deletion votes for the nfa seem to stem from a dislike of the whole concept of micronations as much as a dispute about the notability of the nfa...my point being that if 4 (or 6 or 8) articles is determined to be a reasonable measure of notability, then I will simply wait until more articles have been written about the nfa before re-submitting, but if it is likely to be attacked as non-notable regardless, than I would argue that a more "hard and fast" guideline/criteria be agreed upon in this talk section. Jamie 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule about what to include and what to delete, not in this article, not in any article. Look at Wikipedia:Be bold. Samboy 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jamie. You might want to take a look this, which I documented 12 months ago, as it represents the Wikipedia consensus that has evolved over the last few years on the subject of micronations, through dozens of AfD votes and talk page discussions involving many, many editors. The ones that conform to the principles I outlined are almost always retained, while those that don't are almost always deleted. Feel free to contribute to the discussion - informed new opinions are always welcome. --Gene_poole 02:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up what Graius was talking about. Those are qualifications for secessionist micronations, which are completely different from the hobby of simulationist micronations in application and treatment. The focus of micronationalism, at least on the simulationist side, has completely drifted from the secessionist movement. They only share the same name of the hobby. At the very least, some bits on simulationist micronationalism should be noted here, not simply dismissing the whole section of the hobby as "not notable." While the simulationist section of micronationalism may not be well centralized, that does not mean that every single simulationist micronation is not notable. -Bill3000 16:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood my comments. What I documented was not merely my opinion, but a summary of Wikipedia precedents concerning micronation articles that is the result of many discussions and votes involving many editors over many years - that happens to conform with my personal opinion. If you don't like it, by all means try to change it by influencing the opinions of others, but as of today it represents the nearest thing there is to a consensus on the subject. Aside from that your comments about battling "sides" and "movements" in micronationalism seems ill-informed; there is no "secessionist movement vs simulationist side" - merely people who create entities that are state-like without being recognised states. Many of them are notable. Many more are not. If they are notable - in other words if they can be independently verified in third party sources and are known to involve a reasonable number of people (these are basic criteria for the inclusion of any content in Wikipedia) - they generally end up being kept. There are many "simulationist" micronations documented in this very article on that basis, so claiming that they are dismissed out of hand is simply not true. On the other hand a micronation invented 3 months ago that consists of 1 badly designed geocities website run by a 12 year-old who can barely spell and who can't afford $10 for a domain name most certainly does not belong in Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 12:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the content says otherwise. Nova Roma, Reunion, et cetera are not really simulationist micronations and are more of the secessionist side. Meanwhile you have an section on "Exercises in fantasy or creative fiction", which simulationist micronations still are quite different from, as they still include quite a bit of political simulation. I'm amused that you would say that I am ill-informed about a concept in micronationalism, given the fact that I have been in micronationalism for over six years and am known as an (in)famous expert on internet micronationalism in the sector that I am in. (If you try to bring up that I'm biased or something to that extent, you're a micronationalist as well - simply being active in articles about micronationalism, or participating in the Wikipedia in other articles, does not make you any less unbiased on this issue.) I am just trying to state that what is actually true in micronationalism, and not merely shown by this article, which isn't very good at describing all of micronationalism, honestly. (By the way, the term micropatrology is used by simulationist micronations as well, so there is no need to deny it explicitly in that article.) A simulationist micronation is a micronation on the internet, whose intent is to be a simulation of a nation and purely is a hobby, as opposed to a seccessionist micronation, which has an intent of becoming a real nation in some way or another. Even so, nations such as Talossa and Nova Roma are different from simulationist micronations, as their main form of communation is not over the internet - one of the major qualifications for a simulationist micronation. I never said that a micronation that you described would be worthy for this page - of course not, although the statement is quite condescending and elitist. A webpage isn't even really the centerpiece of a micronation; where the actual discussion lies is the lifeblood of a micronatuion. However, there are a lot of successful micronations within what is considered to be the Anglophone Sector of micronationalism online that have lasted quite awhile, being a couple of years old. I'm not expecting this article to be a soruce on fully explaining micronationalism - it is impossible to simply put that in one page. That's what the links are for. What I am saying, however, is that there is a sector of micronationalism, (The Micras Sector) which is most definatly notable in whole at the very least, if you do not want to consider individual nations, and that this article needs to be drastically improved. It makes no real mention of the actual influence of internet micronationalism, its history ending in the late 1970s. Micronationalism has changed a lot on the internet since the early 1990s. By the way, quite a couple of your links are dead, the LoSS has died years ago, and I am suprised that there is no link to Microwiki yet.- Bill3000 21:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, for someone who claims to be an "expert" in your "sector" (whatever that is), you don't seem to know very much about micronations - or the terms "secession" and "simulation" for that matter. Reunion is a group of Brazilian kids pretending to rule an imaginary island empire that exists wolly and solely on the internet as a web site. If you class this as "secesionist" you're using a different definition of the term than the rest of the world. You also don't seem understand how Wikipedia works, or to have read or understood this article, which disusses the whole internet phenomenon at length, and includes plenty of references to micronations founded after 1970 (ie the vast majority of those discussed in this article). Secondly, if you think your "sector" is important enough to be included, include it - bearing in mind that whatever you write needs to be factual, NPOV and verifiable in published third party sources, just like all other Wikipedia content. Finally, if there are dead links, fix them. --Gene_poole 22:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I am just amused by your completely snobbish comments. I do know quite a lot about micronations - it's a matter of fact that you do not understand the rest of the micronationalist world, sticking to nations that you consider "notable" by the criteria that you have created, like your own micronation. The fact that you do not even know the concept of a micronational sector is proof of this, considering that it is a term used by non-english speaking micronationalists as well. (By the way, you can stop putting things in "quotations" now, as that implies that the things you are quoting are inferior, when in reality all you have shown is that you do not deserve your snobbish attitude that you have, as you really don't even know as much about internet micronationalism, as you have shown yourself.) Your critera for third party sources - "at least 5 offline sources which has "thousands" of viewers in "5 countires" - I seriously doubt that any micronation other than Sealand has that critera, and if that is the case, why even bother mentioning micronationalism at all? It is ridiculous to use the notability concept, as micronationalism is a diverse hobby - plenty of other online hobbies have more central communities. Micronationalism is more spread out, and this article doesn't even touch the surface of a significant side of micronationalism. The few successful micronational organizations (Which there are very few) tend to form groups of micronations within themselves rather than furfill a supra-micronational organizations or forums. As well, what is the point in me editing it if you are just going to edit it out, as you have just been doing recently anyways? - Bill3000 22:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be going nowhere fast, so I'm not going to spend any more time addressing the many logical inconsistencies, contradictions and factual inaccuracies in your comments. The bottom line is that you don't need to convince me - you need to convince the Wikipedia community, and the only way you can do that is by being able to back up your claims with supporting evidence. If you can't do that then you're just not going to get very far here (or anywhere else for that matter). --Gene_poole 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bill, I welcome your contributions here. A good Wikipedia editor keeps in mind the policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks; please watch for comments like "you do not even know the concept of a micronational sector"; comments like this are petty and do not make you look good. The fact that "Gene Poole" responds with the personal insult "many logical inconsistencies, contradictions and factual inaccuracies", and does not honor Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers does not make him look very good. I am sure that you already know that "Gene Poole"'s article about what makes a micronation notable is not general Wikipedia consensus; it is his personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less. While there is some opposition to micronations, there is no consensus; feel free to make the edits you want to make, but remember that anyone else can revert or change your edits. Also remember Wikipedia:Three revert rule and, better yet, Wikipedia:One-revert rule. Welcome to Wikipedia! Samboy 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Question About Editing

I'm not an experienced Wiki user, so i hope you'll forgive me if I made an error of ettiquette or something. I tried to edit the entry for the Aerican Empire, adding something about the nation's long history and removing quote marks around the words "interplanetary empire." Mere seconds later, i found the context of the age reference I put in changed and the quote marks back on. I'd like to know why Gene (I think it was Gene; I'm still learning ho to read who did what) felt the need to alter my change and why everyone seems so intent on leaving that bit in quotes. If it's considered polite to make a post explaining any changes one makes, I apologise for not knowing it and will try to be better in the future.

You might want to review Wikipedia's editing policies before contributing. In short, anyone can edit anything, anytime, so long as they conform with those policies. I restored the inverted commas around "interplanetary empire" to properly illustrate the joke-like nature of the claim. Removing them suggests Aerica really does posess an interplanetary empire, which is a ludicrous proposition. The reference to its age was moved for better word-flow. It was not deleted. --Gene_poole 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a joke claim, that's the issue here. They take it quite seriously, and I don't think you've even investigated your interpretation of their claim. The fact that something is laughable doesn't make it false. Furthermore, what you gain in word flow, you lose in accuracy, but before I change it again I'll try to find a better way to write it myself.

It's not about what "they" claim. It's about presenting their (laughable) claim using a neutral point of view (NPOV) - which is exactly what the inverted commas do. This is a fundamental Wikipedia content requirement. If you are unfamiliar with it you should probably refrain from editing articles until you are. --Gene_poole 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I read all about the NPOV, and that's where I think *you're* making your mistake. By adding the quotes, you're not showing a neutral view; you're taking your beliefs and inetrpretations and shaping the article accordingly. I can see why you woy that adding quotes makes it just, but you're saying yourself that you're highlighting the illegitimacy of a claim based solely on your feeling that it's illigitimate. Is there anything you might consider a valid compromise? Something like "a self-proclaimed interplanetary empire..." or "a nation claiming semi-ficticious interplanetary land..."?

This is not a process of negotiation, and it is not about anyone's "beliefs". It is a matter of fantasy versus reality. It is NPOV to include the inverted commas because no sane person could ever seriously assert that neither Aerica nor any other entity currently in existence posesses an interplanetary empire - which is what removing them implies. There is no evidence to suggest Aerica is anything other than a joke created by a group of adolescents with over-active imaginations and a website. There is really nothing else to say on the subject unless some evidence to the contrary can be produced. --Gene_poole 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Diplomacy having failed (at least partially my own fault, I freely admit), I've just added the NPOV-section dispute tag. Seems like that's all that can be done, though i'm happy to discuss things further. --User:Timcrow 14 December 2005

Please don't add inappropriate and/or misleading tags to articles to try to prove a point. There's nothing NPOV about putting an unverifiable, unenforceable fantasy claim within inverted commas. You might also want to consider making a broader contribution to Wikipedia than editing 2 lines of 1 paragraph. Single-issue contributors are not considered part of the community, for obvious reasons. --Gene_poole 03:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is neither an inapropriate tag nor a misleading one. You and I disagree about each others' neutrality, therefore the neutrality of the section is disputed. Your use of otherwise innocuous terms as pejorative is hardly neutral, as is your taking it upon yourself to decide what is and is not, in your words, sane. You can keep re-adding the quote marks after I remove them, as is your right (and in fact, I quite respect anybody who holds onto their convictions as tightly as you obviously do) but you can hardly claim that I'm in the wrong for putting up a tag which says simply that someone, somewhere, disputes the neutrality. As for single issue contributors not being part of the community, you're quite right... I'm not part of it. I'm just a guy who sees a single factual error and feel the duty to correct it; I leave writing encyclopedias to people with grander designs than mine. --User:Timcrow 15 December 2005

And taking the link out after it'd been there for the gods only know how long without you objecting... that just feels petty to me, although if you had a reason to do it I'll gladly listen to it. --User:Timcrow 15 December 2005

If you'd bothered to read the discussion archives you'd see that it was established as a consensus at least a year ago not link to individual micronation websites. I don't see why yours should be the sole exception out of the dozens discussed within this article. --Gene_poole 00:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You can always come to Wiki to watch silly bickering... that's half the fun of being here. Out of curiosity, what's the big deal? I'm not involved with any of these "micronation" things, but it seems to me that anybody coming to this page will know that an interplanetary empire is unrealistic even without the aid of inverted commas. Why not leave the inverted commas off and let people make their own judgements? That's what these articles are supposed to do, and if it'll make mister Timcrow happy (and quiet) then it's a small price to pay. You should probably also leave that link up; I plugged it into a site stat generator and it looks like, for some reason, the "pejorative" article still brings these kids plenty of nice hits as it is. You should take down that silly NPOV tag, though... Gene is right that this is an argument about semantics, not neutrality. --The Random Unregistered User

Hey, according to IPs, it looks like Timcrow uses a computer at the same university I do (although that accounts for about thirty thousand computers...). If you want, Gene, I could probably track him down for you... --The Random Unregistered User

Thanks for the offer but my knowing who he is is not really going to help him see reason. I've already wasted too much time on this. I really wish people would bother to read these discussions properly before jumping in to promote their pet project, so we don't have to repeat the same discussion every time another one crops up to tell us that their micronation is different from all the others. --Gene_poole 00:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Given how things have turned out, I'll drop everything now. I'd prefer if the link was back up, but since all the offsite links came down, and even I freely admit that Aerica doesn't merit its own wiki entry, I can't really criticize that. For what it's worth, George, I've made a note of some of the other articles you list on your interests page, to make sure I can stay away from them; I'll try to spare you my company in the future. --User:Timcrow 16 December 2005

More Melchizedek nonsense

I have modified the entry on Melchizedek so that the nature of this entity is stated as plainly as possible, without recourse to weasel-wording designed to obscure the facts. The previous convoluted statement concerning "banks it licensensed" falsely suggests that Melchizedek and the non-existent banks that were used by its members to defraud people are somehow unrelated. This is arrant nonsense, unsupported by any third party source, and as has no place in this article. --Gene_poole 00:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gene, you need to cite credible sources to back this up. Which members of DOM used the banks to carry out fraud? Furthermore, where do you read from credible sources that DOM has been "condemned for promoting fraud"? Johnski 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, both of you are now at the three revert limits for the immediate future, and reading the history and comments all I can say is that you're dragging a personal flamewar into the editorial process. The actual edits were not that significantly different to justify this sort of behavior on either side.

Keep in mind that further reverts in the immediate future by either of you will invoke the 3RR policy upon yourselves and get your write access locked. Do we need to nominate for page temporary locking to stop this nonsensical edit war? Georgewilliamherbert 03:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Micronation

(I started to paste this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles, but then it occurred to me that I only need to do it here. If anyone wants to finish the job of inviting people via indvidual talk pages, please feel free.)

I've just started a template for the micronation infobox, based on the Sealand box. I've also written usage guidelines on it's talk page. I'd like to please invite any interested people to go over its talk page to discuss the template itself, along with my guidelines. As a demo of the template, please see Lovely (micronation), which I just edited to use the template. --Billpg 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

1990s neologism?

I read a book published in 1978 which uses the word "micronation." I know no details, and ask that someone with knowledge as to the origin of the term correct the part saying that the word originated in the '90s.

We can't really make any such change without actual evidence of usage. I'm not personally aware of any use of the term in the current context before the early 1990s. --Gene_poole 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Micronations

I know there's already a Micronation category, but I'm going to create a new page List of Micronations later tonight. This will become the place where it's ok for everyone to list their favorite otherwise poorly known micronation. The main article can then abstract itself backwards a little away from the minutae of who hates or promotes which micronation, into categories and general information, with agreeable specific notable examples where appropriate.

Please don't jump the gun and start this list until I get it started and formatted. The objective is to organise and order the information, not just create a swamp full of it, and random formatting or content will be detrimental. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 02:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I hope it will decrease those additions and subsequent reverts. mahlered 03:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh, it's already there, and pretty useless. I'm going to try and fix that. Georgewilliamherbert 04:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Point of view

This article does not take into consideration micronations that are trying to become "real countries." It assumes all micronations are fantasy and dreams of the founders. All micronations are not fantasy, and this article does not account for that. Kilroy Collins

I disagree with that. A number of micronations are legitimate aspirants to microstate status... Sealand, at least, and arguably the Hutt River Province and a couple of the new island projects which failed were good tries at it as well. (I make no prediction as to whether any of these, or anyone else, will ultimately succeed... but some are making credible runs at trying). Please don't generalize from the negative feedback you're getting on Middle Korea to 'the whole article'.

If you have a better case to make that Middle Korea is justifyably more real, including some real world actual reference material etc, please feel free to post it. I personally have no objection to expanding the list of credible aspirants given reliable evidence. Georgewilliamherbert 20:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Reunion

I have just added a few informations about the Holy Empire of Reunion, for it was cited with no characteristics whatsoever, differently from ALL other cited micronations.

Also, I´d like to point to whoever said that "Réunion´s a group of kids" that the Empire is formed by 156 members, whose age range from 12 to 76 years old. So that´s a lie. Our discussion list can be found at http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/chandon/ and there anyone is able to see the number of members and ALL the messages of our political simulation.

Claudre 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please sign all comments in the future; use four ~ characters in a row to do so (this creates the name/date signature you see everyone else using... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On "Cybernations"

I would support a "Cybernation" article, but the problem with this is that it is not a term used within the hobby - for example, micronations.net, within its community and its website, does not use the term at all. ("Apart from a few serious secessionist movements, most micronations are essentially nation-state simulations, with varying degrees of seriousness.") So the issue here is how exactly this should be resolved. - Bill3000 07:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reunion

There is NO reason why Reunion cannot have a small overview done using the Talossan example and template. It´s as notable. Each cited nation MUST receive a small explanation. That should work for ALL micronations cited. Claudre 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At most Reunion is of marginal significance, worthy of a 2-line overview. We don't need to add extraneous minutiae such as the name of its mailing list, as such details are "padding" that are of no relevance to non-members of the group. --Gene_poole 01:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reunion is one of the largest (if not the largest) non-anglophone micronation. How is that not significant? - Bill3000 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In the greater scheme of things that doesn't mean much. It's still just a web-based simulation, and not a particularly original one at that. The fact that it's Brazilian is of minor notability, which is why it's been included in the list in the first place. --Gene_poole 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So a micronation that's very notible within the micronational community, is not notable according to wikipedia because it is not secessionist? How about vice-versa? That's kind of an odd statement. - Bill3000 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A micronation that exists largely or solely as a website is of extremely marginal notability unless there's some verifiable evidence of it actually interacting with the real world or having an influence in some way on events documented as taking place in the real world. Wikipedia exists to document reality. It does not exist to serve as a promotional tool for the owner of every minor website, mailing list, bulletin board or blog in existence. --Gene_poole 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd even take a step further; the micronational community can't redefine the common standard usage of the term micronation, and Wikipedia should document first and foremost for the outside user looking in, though specific internal details of the movement may be notable and appropriate. There are a lot of simulations and protest movements and such which dont' fit under the secessionist or independence-seeking common definition... Georgewilliamherbert 04:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's probably better to call it "simulationist micronations" rather than simulations, really, considering that political simulations are a different thing altogether. (For example, a simulation of the US Congress as opposed to a micronation simulated on a fictional world) The problem I find here is that it seems to be misleading here - namely, te example micronations arn't good. While they are picked for their notability, not all of them are good examples of the . For example, if someone wants information on internet micronations, even Talossa is not a good example, because they have blockaded themelves from the micronational community ages ago. Another good example is that the article mentions both the League of Micronations and the League of Secessionist States, but the LoM has been disbanded, and the LoSS is completely inactive as well. I got a question. Is there standard rules for Internet phenomena on Wikipedia? In other words, I wish to know what it means for something on the internet to be considered "notable" - I find it way too vague. Perhaps there can be different factors for notability for online micronationalism (and have its own section in the article), or it can merit its own article to describe its differences from other micronations? - Bill3000 05:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

People can check www.reuniao.org/media to see that the country DOES interact with the real world. There are almost 30 proofs of that there. Claudre 00:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Create List of minor micronations?

How about an extra page for the micronations deemed not-notable enough for their own article? This could be a middle way to the Keep/Delete choice when a micronation comes up for deletion. --Billpg 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We're trying to be open to using List of micronations for both major and minor ones; the main article would include truly notable ones, and the List would be open to just about anything, though particularly credible ones would be tagged per the list notes. Gene opposes inclusivism to some extent, Bill3000 is enthusiastically for it; I am trying to stay practical and neutralish in the middle. The primary barrier so far has been lack of my time and focus to actually move info about all the more minor micronations into the list. Georgewilliamherbert 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally missed that one. Thanks for the link. --Billpg 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems some merit to the idea in my view, it would be a place to house things not worthy of an article (and redirects of those things to it would perhaps forestall needless recreation of articles sure to be deleted again). ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Category_talk:Micronations#Comments on criteria sought

based on some comments in various current AfDs it may be worth talking about the criteria that are posited and empirically supported in the category talk page. This cross pointer is to raise awareness. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

im up for making a list of minor micronations. Would like to help start the article

"several dozen members" of reunion

Someone said:

(cur) (last) 01:01, 3 February 2006 Cdc m (→Social, economic, or political simulations - rm minor project with "several dozen members", article resoundingly deleted on AfD. also delink self-redirect)

That someone could visit http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/chandon/ and check the number of messages and different members. Reunion has been in this article for years. No reason to remove it now.

Claudre 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[Empire of Atlantium]

If this survives its current deletion attempt, should we include it in Micronations, and if so under what section?:[1] Harvardy 08:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As can be seen above, I'm on record as suggesting that Atantium should be in the article and I've never intentionally removed it. But there is a section for those established for self-aggrandizement/entertainment. If this isn't a case of self-aggrandizement, what is? furthermore, Atlantium claims to be an advocay group which is not a micronation. Anyone besides the empire disagree with this assessment? Harvardy 04:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I got kind of interested in this topic and might come around and do some clean up, referencing and so forth, after I finish another project. So far regarding Atlantium I have found one large feature article in an Australian newspaper from 2001 (I think) via LexisNexis but I didn't print it out. I'll have to go back and see how they characterize it. (It will always be better if we can find a source that categorizes the micronation rather than doing it ourselves.) I also have access to an academic library so any sociological-type studies on the phenomenon should be available to me if I look in the right place. For the time being I would rather leave it where it might not belong than edit war over its position. Thatcher131 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Look forward to working together on this. Harvardy 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Artistic creations

I've removed Grand Fenwick, Syldavia, Borduria and one other from the list of "artistic creations" as they are all merely settings for fictional stories. As they are not self-contained creative projects that exist in their own right they are not micronations. --Gene_poole 22:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cascadia

I've removed Cascadia from the list of Micronations furthering an agenda on the basis that Cascadia, to my knowledge, does not exist in micronation form, and would be roughly the size of western Europe if it did. Reveilled 20:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of micronations as micronations by real nations

The press has recognized the existence of micronations, but are there any samples of real nations making reference to micronations as a category or specifically recognizing any micronation as a "micronation", using that term? Harvardy 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I found an example of such over at Talk:DominionofMelchizedek but it is an agency of a government, and calls the micronation a virtual nation instead:

“UNDR reincorporated in the Dominion of Melchizedek in 1996, and filed bankruptcy petition in Melchizedek in 1998. Melchizedek is essentially a virtual nation that exists at www.Melchizedek.com, although its website makes claims to treaty rights to some uninhabitable atolls in the South Pacific.”

http://sec.gov/litigation/opinions/34-53122a.pdf

No one can find other examples? Harvardy 07:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: Harvardy is a sockpuppet of Johnski who was recently banned by the Arbcom for various editing abuses over many months at Dominion of Melchizedek and a swathe of related artricles. His comments above are more of the same nonsense, and are designed merely to insinuate DOM content into other articles. --Gene_poole 03:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that found the reference to "virtual nation" from the SEC web site. I really don't see how Harvardy is trying to insinuate DOM content into other articles with this question? What other articles? This article on micronations already mentions DOM, and the question seems legitimate. I'd also like to know if any real government or agency thereof has identified any so-called micronation as a "virtual nation" or a "micronation". If DOM is the only micronation to have been classified as such, it seems worth incorporating that in this article. Does anyone see any difference between a "micronation" and a "virtual nation"? Whatsupdoc 02:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Whatsupdoc is also a sockpuppet of Johnski due to his limited contribution and obsessive comments about DOM. Davidpdx 07:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't DOM being opined by the SEC to be a "virtual nation" something to consider at micronations? Looks equally like Davidpdx is the one obsessed with DOM and only a few other items due to his limited interests[2] 207.47.122.10 21:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good try Johnski, but no dice. I've edited far more articles then you have. Yes, most of mine are political in nature, but that's because I'm from Oregon (something you've accused me of lying about numerous times). It just proves what an idiot you are. Davidpdx 23:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. David: I'm not Johnski. No dice, the fact that the SEC opined that Melchizedek is "essentially a virtual nation that exists" is relevent to the subject of Micronations? Why no dice? It is funny that the Melchizedek Bible, which you might read sometime, says that if you call someone an idiot, you bring that liability on yourself. Think about it, and if you are wise you will not answer, except with an apology. Kindly, 207.47.122.10 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnski/SamuelSpade/etc I don't subscribe to your cult, so I wouldn't know what its bible says. The fact is that you have continually caused problems on Wikipedia, which in turn got you banned. You have lied, misstated the facts, pushed the agenda of DOM, called both myself and Gene_Poole bullies (among other things), written harrassing articles attacking myself and Gene_Poole, accused me of lying about who I am (when there is proof to the contrary). Did I leave anything out? Who do you think you are God? Davidpdx 03:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

He's not the messiah. He's just a very naughty boy! (with apologies to Monty Python --Centauri 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You never know who you are talking to, and if you are a solipsist, yes, you are talking to God, because who else would there be to talk to? You left a lot out. All of your lies. Who cares who you are. I don't. Yeah, you might be able to prove that you are who you are. Wait a minute, we don't know who you are. Who are you? We do know that Centauri talks to himslef when he's talking to GenePOOPOO. Whatsupdoc 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Abaco Independence Movement and some others

1. It seems there ought to be some reference to Abaco (an island group, NE part of the Bahamas) here, especially as the Abaco entry in Wikipedia mentions the effort in the 1960s and 70s to get Abaco to secede from the Bahamas. As late as the 1974 Libertarian National Convention there were libertarians talking up the idea of the Abaco Independence Movement (AIM) complete with bumper stickers.

2. Within the US historically there have been other micronation anomalies besides Indian Stream, VT. For example, the Free State of Franklin (then western NC, now northeast TN, 1780s) and the short-lived Republic of West Florida (1810) which actually lasted longer than the later Bear Flag Republic in California, the Florida Republic (1817), and Freedonia (east Texas/Mexico, 1836).

3. Didn't the Knights of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem and Malta - aka Hospitalers, and later the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) - issue passports from its HQ in Rome as late as the 1960s?

I don't hang about here enough to know how to write up an article or edit one, but I would like to leave these thoughts for someone who might have the expertise and interest to do so.

SMOM is a special case covered by other articles, for a start go to microstate. -- Omniplex 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Atlantis

I have just added this to the "Entities created for allegedly fraudulent purposes" section then noticed it had been removed from the main list. The UKA were a definate scam and actually attempted to scam the government of a real nation (Palau). I thought for this reason they should be included in that section. I have included a good reference (a local news report containing a quote from the President of Palau) Fork me 23:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

peerreviewer script output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

• Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City. (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
• Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
• Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
  • allege
  • apparently
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • To assist you with this, add {{subst:js|User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js}} to your monobook.js file (mine is located at User:AndyZ/monobook.js) and then bypass your browser's cache by pressing: Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), Internet Explorer: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5. In editing mode, click on the "Footnote creater" tab that appears.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Koronis

IMO the Koronis paragraph is not notable at the moment:

Another active Australian-based micronation is the United Federation of Koronis [3], which has "laid claim" to the Koronis family of asteroids. Koronis minted several coins in 2006. Most of its citizens, who come from mainly South Australia and New South Wales appear to have an academic and scientific background [4].

The geocities site isn't very good, some folks minted fantasy coins, so what? If I'm wrong and it is notable, why's there no link to the Koronis article, and a note about this micronation in the Koronis article? If Koronis is the first entity claiming parts of outer space okay, but if it's only an imitation I propose to delete it. -- Omniplex 09:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If they manufactured coins then they've done more than 99% of other micronations in history and are probably worth a 1-line mention, but I can't see any way of verifying anything about them apart from that. There have been plenty of outer-space micronations before so there's nothing original in that claim. --Centauri 11:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

CFs vs Off-site Links

I'm a citizen of the Aerican Empire and I just noticed that the article's been changed from linking to our site to linking to our (non-existent) wiki entry. Given that Wiki editors tend to get annoyed when we try to create an article, is there any reason why we can't just keep our offsite link in the article itself? We get a lot of traffic from this page. - 8:48 am, July 5

"Getting a lot of traffic" is precisely the reason why folks including me hate abusing Wikipedia for "search engine optimization" or in other words link spam. You need the link inline as justification why your entry should not be removed. One style for that purpose is to enclose the URL with square brackets, [http://www.example.org/] resulting in [5]. -- Omniplex 22:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly this issue was causing so much controversy, and attracting so many dozens of link spammers daily that several years ago it was decided to remove all inline links to individual micronation websites from this page. The logic goes that if it's a truly important example it will have it's own article with a link to its website anyway - and if not there's nothing to stop people using Google to look it up. --Centauri 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I like that as part of the "notability criteria" for the micronation pages. -- Omniplex 00:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I've removed a large number of links to this article. Links to geocities and anglefire are so far outside the bound of the external links guideline that words fail me. If there are some links that I have removed that may offer a "unique resource" via the guideline, here is a good place to discuss them. - brenneman ^{L} 13:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that there were too many and it needed cropping, I think you have cut way too many. Since when did a site being hosted by angelfire or geocities automatically exclude it from being linked here? In actual fact possibly the longest running and most informative (as well as regularly updated) site about micronations, as well as genuine small states, fraudulent states etc etc etc, is hosted on Angelfire. Not only that, but every bit of information on there is fully referenced making it a very reliable source. It is one of those you cropped (although for some reason several of its pages were linked to independently). Its homepage is here: http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/enter.html . I have taken the liberty of adding it, on its own, back into the external links. Fork me 21:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the links until a more reasoned discussion on this subject is forthcoming. The vast majority of those removed are perfectly valid reference sites - and whether they're hosted by geocities or otherwise is totally irrelevant. Aside from which a whole slew of those deleted are not Geocities sites. --Centauri 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above I've now cleaned up the links section, removing a number of multiple links to 1 site + redundant entries. The remainder should probably be alphabetised for ease of access. --Centauri 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Melchizedek

Just because Melchizedek has been connected to, or even directly involved in banking frauds, I can't see why the success of this "eccesliastic sovereignty" isn't better covered. It seems to have had more success in recognition and proliferation and a wider impact on the world than any other than I have read about.4.232.222.75 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, Johnski. The only "impact" Melchizedek has had is on the wallets of those it has defrauded, and the criminal record of its founder. --Centauri 23:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles IP huh? Wow, I guess President McDonald and his merry men are at it again. I've had several messages left on my talk page left from another IP address in the Los Angeles area as well. Maybe they should take another look at this:

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. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Johnski/Proposed_decision.

Associated articles DOES mean the Micronations article as well. If you want to continue having a dishonest discussion about DoM go ahead and waste your breath, know however there are people watching the articles you are attempting to change. Davidpdx 00:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

My message was for anyone that has an open mind and deals with the subject rationally. Something you are incapable of doing at this time. I've never left any messages on your talk page. Los Angeles is one of the largest populations in America. Looking at your talk page, however, it is clear that you are really Gene Pooley, so don't give me your self-righteous indignation. 4.232.222.214 17:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Johnski aka Mr McDonald. Please keep your comments to the point, and refrain from personal abuse. The only person using sockpuppets here is you. In case you've forgotten it is the main reason you are permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Centauri 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Looking at your talk page, however, it is clear that you are really Gene Pooley, so don't give me your self-righteous indignation." Wow, that's why I live in Korea, have a Korean wife and teach at a Korean school. Now that's funny. It sure is a long commute to Australia.

You were removed from the Wikipedia community for your forceful POV edits. If you want to change your ways then you are welcome to contribute. My money is your back with the same motive as before. If that's the case, then don't bother. Davidpdx 09:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

...and I live in Sydney, work in sales and am unmarried. But I must say the daily commute to my other life in Korea is becoming quite a strain. --Gene_poole 02:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And I was writing to Poole aka Centauri not you David, but thank you for the invitation to contribute. Why don't you have your Korean wife look at what is written about Melchizedek in micronations compared to other micronations, the comparative extent of its activities, and see if she agrees with my assessment.

Akhzivland

guys, i live in israel for 22 years, israel is a very (very!) small place, and i have never heard about "Akhzivland". i think it's something only a few people are aware of (maybe less then 100). just saying. --84.108.246.168 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There's an entry about Akhzivland in the recently-published Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations (Lonely PLanet are the world's biggest travel publisher), so I'd say that it's probably rather better-known than you believe. --Gene_poole 00:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Acadame North

Should Acadame North be here? They are recognized by both United Micronations and the Union of North American Micronations (UNAM) also the Aerican Empire [6]Ljublonia 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Being "recognised" by other micronations is irrelevant from Wikipedia's perspective. What have they done or produced in the real world? Are there any reliable third party reference sources that can be accessed to verify this? If so - yes, they should be included. If not, no they shouldn't. --Gene_poole 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of quite a few Aerican Empire

United Micronations Union of North American Micronations theres lots more

These are not reliable third party reference sources - they're links to websites belonging to internet based micronations - none of which have had any impact on events in the real world. The existence of Aerica can be verified in press articles - but that has no bearing on any of the others. There's no such thing as verifiability by association. --Gene_poole 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

good point I will look for more, there is tons

More? One would be good for starters. --Gene_poole 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For your information, one can be found here [7]under page articals.Sloveniaiscool 21:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a bizarre website. The "news story" is even more bizarre. It looks like some 5th grader's creative writing project. It certainly is not a reliable source. --Gene_poole 03:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Poole Gene_poole: Your thoughts on the website is irelevant, and since I did not direct the statement towards you I would apreciate it if you did not involve yourself in this matter since you are not an administrator, and also I would apreciate if you kept your comments on Wikipedia positive. Also I do not think a fith grader would be interested in SFR Yugoslavia, a topic in which you know nothing about. Sloveniaiscool 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a rather strange comment. My thoughts are as relevant as yours, and I can and will write about anything that interests me, thank you very much. Whether I'm an admin or not is irrelevant. You're the one trying to introduce references that don't comply with Wikipedia's standards, not me. That's really not a good way to get people to take you seriously. --Gene_poole 10:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Take me serously? This topic is one of my artical projects along with Akhzivland, it deos not matter to much to me if it is not created but I would like to see it happen. Also you do not contribute to anything good in this conversation just rather you make fun of a random link.Sloveniaiscool 16:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you're talking about concerning "artical projects". I'm not "making fun" of a "random link". You said you had numerous reliable references concerning Academe North - a micronation you seem intent on having included in Wikipedia (in fact, you've done nothing else here but talk about it). I asked you to provide those references. You responded by supplying 1 link to a barely coherent website that you probably wrote yourself. Sorry, but you really need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy concerning citing reliable reference sources. This has been pointed out to you numerous times before. --Gene_poole 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A website that I created? You have some great conspiracy theories. Also, I think you should familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy because you seem to not comply with the no personnel attacks policy which you continue to violate. Also, another off topic comment is Atlantium is non-notable garbage. Is it a micronation or not? They seem not to be able to decide. Them and there one man government that claims to have 800 citizens, nice trySloveniaiscool 19:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your comments relevant to the subject being discussed, and refrain from making personal attacks. If you don't have any valid references for your micronation, please stop posting comments about it. --Gene_poole 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this not the micronations talk page? You are the one creating statements with no relevance towards the micronations article, instead you where talking about the nature of the source, you know the fith grader site. Also, a further note, Acadame North is not my nation but a fellow user who in fact started the discussion as you can see and left a comment on my talk page user ljublonia but of course you will probably accuse me of being a ljublonia sock puppet. So I suggest you get your facts straight. Last stating my opinion on the atlantuim article is not a personnel attack, unless of course you call non-notable garbage a swear word or a statement directed at personnel attacking a user, so YOU should familiarize your self with Wikipedia policies and refrain from making pointless and negative statements. Sloveniaiscool 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is reserved for content discussions concerning the Wikipedia micronation article. Keep your comments to the point, and refrain from posting personal abuse. If you keep doing so your account may be blocked. --Gene_poole 22:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

user Gene Poole please take some time to review wikipedia's Civility policy regarding your statements earlier, feel free to join this conversation again when you are able to contribute positively. Wikipedia:Civility Sloveniaiscool 00:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is reserved for content discussions concerning the Wikipedia micronation article. Keep your comments to the point, and refrain from posting personal abuse. If you keep doing so your account may be blocked. This is your final warning. --Gene_poole 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i did view your further comment so you can stop posting the same comment over and over, in the mean time review wikipedia: Civility and follow it or I will report you.Sloveniaiscool 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

could we continue on the original article of wether or nor acadame north should be accepted

You can create as many sockpuppets as you like Sloveniaiscool, but unless you actually come up with some reliable references, Academe North is just not going to be included in Wikipedia. You've been told the same thing many, many times now. Repeating yourself in this way is not going to change Wikipedia policy on the matter. --Gene_poole 00:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So now I am being accused of sock-puppetry? I would not be talking considering the fact that you are also user Centauri, the reason there is not progress in this discussion because you keep accusing me of things instead of talking about the topic. Sloveniaiscool 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gene_poole that this discusion should accually go somewhere more than just insults, Gene_poole has done his fair share of insults as well. I am sure there are plenty 3rd party sources so we should focus our efforts.Pony trekkie 19:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

All arguments should focus on established Wikipedia standards of Notability as established through Reliable Sources. Acadame North has consistently failed those standards every time it's been created or proposed. I have seen nothing here to change that. Fan-1967 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because the micronation does not have an article in the New York Times doesn’t mean it is not notable Sloveniaiscool 01:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Academe North doesn't have any articles about it anywhere, so it's definitely not notable. That's all there is too it, and no amount of whining here is gonna change it. Maybe you should spend more time doing something that something in the media thinks might actually be worth covering, then you wouldn't need to continue this interminable, pointless whinge of a discussion. --Gene_poole 12:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary for anyone to prove that Acadame North is not notable. It is necessary for any proponent(s) of an article to demonstrate that it is notable. Not one reference has been put forward from anything that comes close to being a Reliable Source, and the Notability standards ask for "multiple, non-trivial reports". Fan-1967 13:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For the last time I am not ‘Acadame North' or am affiliated with Acadame North so I suggest you read a little better and am not 'whining' about it there is plenty of other things that make something notable. Also I think you need to check your grammar a little, quote: Maybe you should spend more time doing something that something in the media. Yah, that really makes sense. Sloveniaiscool 20:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Australian micronations

I have restored the Empire of Atlantium entry to the list of Australian micronations, as it is documented as being an Australian micronation in many reliable sources - for example, here, here and here. If other editors believe that it is not an Australian micronation, they should first discuss it on the talk page, providing supporting references. Blanking content without justification is not acceptable Wikipedia behavior. --Centauri 02:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There are some difficulties with the entry of the Pricipality Dubeldeka. I have in my posession newspaper articles regarding its foundations, but no web links. I have also seen the fax from the govenor general but have no copy. There is no doubt that it exists, just not in the realm of cyberspace. To whom and where do I mail these copies to prove the point, if electronic copies don't exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.85.118 (talk) 18:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Not everything exists in electronic form, that's alright. But you can still cite offline sources. Refer to WP:CITE to see how to create citations for the articles you have. Then you can at least point out to other editors where your sources can be found, if not online (what publications they were printed in and when). PubliusFL 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been promised a package of all newsclippings related to the formation of the Principality Dubeldeka this week. With luck I will be able to add citations soon. 140.247.85.118 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rah Rah

What about Rutland? 83.70.236.106 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Rutland? 12.72.32.73 21:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Atlantium removal discussion

After Centauri (talk · contribs) was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Gene Poole (talk · contribs), there have been a number of removals of the Empire of Atlantium entry from the article page.

Though Gene and Centauri are apparently associated with this entity, it was not added in bad faith or through abuse of WP process by the use of sockpuppets. As someone who is not either of those two people, I have restored the entry a couple of times.

The entry was deleted by RWFfaer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now indef blocked as suspected Wik sock), Harvardy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now indef blocked as a suspected Wik sock), 80.86.82.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (blocked for 24 H by User:Matt Crypto for repeat vandalism / 3RR vio, after 2 prior blocks in 13 total edits), and now 211.107.250.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), whose only contribution has been to this page.

The material has been restored variously by myself (Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs)), Gene Poole (talk · contribs), and via anon IP editing by Centauri (talk · contribs) who is as noted above is currently blocked as a suspected Gene Poole sock.

Following this series of events, Thatcher131 has protected the page (with the content currently deleted) to sort out what's going on.

Several admins are now following this series of events.

Centauri: as I mentioned on your talk page, please stop editing via anon IP while the sock block is active. It's not helping clarify the situation.

To anyone who believes they have a reason to delete the Atlantium info: please post a discussion here to justify your claim rather than edit warring on the article. Please do so from a logged in account.

Georgewilliamherbert 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Georgewilliamherbert's summary is spot on. I just reviewed a week-long edit war from September 2004 between Wik/Gzorneplatz and Gene Poole/Centauri, and it seems you two are still at it today. The best solution may be to place the article on article probation and block or ban anyone who edit wars over Empire of Atlantium as either a Wik or Centauri sock. That's not going to make anyone happy, is it? Another suggestion would be to place the article on WP:1RR parole, and drop a 24 hour block on anyone who reverts the article twice in one day (treating obvious IP evasions as obvious, of course). I doubt a 2 year long edit war is going to be solved by a few talk posts now, but something needs to happen. Thatcher131 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a simple matter of trolling/vandalism by Wik. No surprise there. It's merely the latest episode in a losing battle he's been revisiting periodically during his 4-year self-destruction. Block his socks and the problem disappears. As has already been pointed out, the content in question is uncontroversial, being supported by numerous third party references. --Gene_poole 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: Mike Harvardy sent me an email indirectly confirming that the IP edits were his (complaining "Wholesale reverting my edition"). Given that the only change I made was the Atlantium restoration, and after Harvardy was blocked... Georgewilliamherbert 03:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Harvardy has now claimed in email that no, this was a misinterpretation, that he first emailed me because of something completely different, which I find completely unlikely. However, I do note on his behalf that he disputes the above claim. Not that it seems likely to make any difference in the blocks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lucky 6.9 has unblocked Harvardy, unconvinced he is Wik. I am convinced he was responsible for the IP edits; checkuser shows two open proxies among other things, and the odds of some random person doing the exact same thing Harvardy was doing are astronomical (the same goes for the Aussie IPs which are either Gene Poole or Centauri or both). I'm going to switch the article over to semi-protection and see what happens. Thatcher131 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Montevideo Convention, Sovreignity and Micronational Recognition

Please reference the Montevideo Convention: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Montevideo_Convention

The "Legitimacy" section should be updated with a counter-argument based on Art. 3 of this treaty, which explicitly defines what a nation is.

The Montevideo Convention does not define what a nation is at all. It is merely one definition of what constitutes a sovereign state. I'm not sure what you mean by a "counter argument". Micronations have no legitimacy in international law. If they did they would no longer be micronations. --Gene_poole 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a nation can be a state but a state is not necessarily a nation, for example; Vatican is not nation. However, I'm not sure there is anything in international law that takes the position that micronations have no right to legitimacy. Micronation should also refer to a very small nation, or a small nation that has or has not achieved statehood, such as microstates are small states. Harvardy 07:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on references

I think the references tag is in the wrong place, an now that I've unprotected the article I'm going to move it and make some other suggestions. Basically, I suggest that any micronation that has its own Wikipedia article does not need a reference in this article, since presumably the main article is full of references (or else it should be stubbed or deleted, but that's another problem). On the other hand, micronations which do not have their own article should (or must) be referenced here, or else not listed at all. Thatcher131 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

representatives making fraudlent claims

Marshall Islands did not say that Enenkio was fraudulent, but that its representatives made fraudulent claims. Is there a difference? If Enenkio has to be a fraud, then also every micronation that claims any territory claimed by a recognized "state" anywhere should also be called the same. Enenkio's "king" is also the paramount chief of the northern most Atolls of the Marshall Islands. Harvardy 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Principality of Ponderosa

Has this been considered for inclusion in the list of Australian micronations? It seems to have had a bit of fame. See: http://www.google.com/search?q=principality+of+ponderosa&hl=en&lr= Harvardy 07:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New York Post Categorizes U.S.A. "micro-nation"

Who would have thought? http://www.nypost.com/seven/11272006/business/nation_of_flimflam_business_christopher_byron.htm?page=0 (unsigned by User:Harvardy 00:09, 02 December 2006 (UTC))

Who would have thought indeed. Funny that the article acually says nothing of the sort. Why does that not surprise me? Oh, I forgot - it's because Harvardy is another member of the Johnski sockpuppet army, on a holy crusade to spread the word of DoM POV throughout Wikipedia. --Gene_poole 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Emperor George! Read the article again as this is a direct quote: "This pushes the mightiest economic power on earth into the category of a micro-nation scofflaw, with just two years to correct the problem before facing outright expulsion from FATF itself." The article starts and ends with mention of Melchizedek but it is really mostly about the U.S. government. Don't you think it is interesting how the author tried to tie DOM and micronations into the story? Here is an article that called citizens or people of the Melchizedek dominion "Melchizedekians". Harvardy 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote Johnski. It shows that, as I said before, the article does not "categorise the US as a micronation". It says that the US risks ending up with a similar reputation as Melchizedek - a micronation that regularly flouts the law. --Gene_poole 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously smarter than I, but it also says that micronations are tying the mighty U.S. up in knots. Do you believe that? Harvardy 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

As I am sure you all know, this article has gotten quite long. It strikes me that a lot of the information contained in the Section "Categories" is contained in List of Micronations as well. I propose that all of this section in this article be migrated to that subarticle (and over there, the micronations can be listed by type and alphabetically). Does anyone have any comments on this proposal? --- Deville (Talk) 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much relationship between the categories section here and the list of micronations article. Many of the ones listed here don't comply with the inclusion criteria there - and if we change the inclusion criteria there we'll end up with a list a mile long. --Gene_poole 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

New Project

I've been trying to start a micronational project based on the STAR WARS Galactic Republic for sometime now. If anyone would be interested, let me know in my talkpage. :) Crud3w4re 09:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

cybernations.net

ummmmmmmmmm ?--66.203.34.135 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it not included in the links? It's an online nation simulation game like Nationstates but with more active users.

A better solution is to remove Nationstates from the links, which I have done. Nationstates has nothing to do with micronations. A micronation is a small group of people, on a small (or nonexistent) amount of people, claiming to be a nation, without recognition from the international community. Nationstates and games like it are simulations of macronations - a person pretending to control a nation of millions or even billions. PubliusFL 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cybernations.net should have it's own page, instead of the redirect from it to this page. Is there any way to put this to a vote? As an avid CNer, I'd love to see the CN page resurected(sp). Quadrius 19:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Nations has been repeatedly deleted and is now protected to prevent recreation, because it keeps getting recreated without valid content. If you think you think Cyber Nations is notable and have adequate sources to verify it, you can take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. PubliusFL 20:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)