Talk:Wirtland (micronation)

Censorship!

I can't understand why the article about Wirtland should be deleted since it's one of the most interesting and unique (for now) projects of virtual micronation, that can exist beyond any physical borders and give freedom even to those individuals who are denied of such opportunity. I see the deletion of this article as major violation of human rights as it is act of censorship! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.53.127 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2009

External links

Even after the article has been approved, they deleted all external links (Wirtland's social network, Wirtland's news blog, Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook group links), except for official site. No explanation given... Anyway, I have no more time to argue with them. Hope that more experienced editors will correct someday. --Witizen (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

External links were deleted, because they don't comply with WP:ELNO, as was explained. For example "Links normally to be avoided - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists."--Yopie 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. In that case, it would be nice if the rest of deleted links would be restored. Witizen (talk)Witizen —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Please, read WP:ELNO first. --Yopie 12:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to official blog in the Atlantium entry has been restored. I hope single standards will be applied in similar situations. Witizen (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Please read WP:WAX and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. tedder (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Notices about conflict of interest and self-published sources

Regarding notices about conflict of interest and self-published sources, inserted in Wirtland entry, it would be helpful to hear the grounds, reasons, or quotation from rules, on which such insertion was based. Does the assumption that major contributor is citizen of Wirtland preclude him/her from writing about Wirtland? According to that logic, US citizens cannot edit articles about America. Opinions welcome. Witizen (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

• CoI - read WP:CONFLICT. Deleting in personal page as [1] didn't hide your COI.
• self-published sources - read WP:RELY

Simply RTFM and don't waste our time.--Yopie 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite and avoiding slang on this page. I value my time, too. Witizen (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

FWIW, this isn't "your page", and that's part of the problem. Please find reliable and verifiable sources that aren't related to Wirtland. tedder (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion notice as a copyright infringement of wirtland.com

We have made all the necessary corrections suggested by the editors so far, and will follow to your instructions further. We have in a timely manner provided the requested copyright permission for the images. We are requesting a similar permission from Wirtland regarding the texts, which will be posted here once received. In most cases when texts in Wikipedia entry corresponded to text in Wirtland website, a reference was made to the original source ("according to official site"). These references will be inserted in every appropriate paragraph. We trust this will resolve the issue. Let us know if there are any other problems found in Wirtland entry and we will do our best to solve them. Witizen (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

See WP:IOWN for the process to release copyright materials for use on Wikipedia. Note that such release has to be for all uses, not just on Wikipedia, pursuant to the appropriate licenses. – ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. As requested, I've asked Wirtland to email permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I trust this is sufficient. Witizen (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

Permission received, copy follows: (Witizen (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen)

<redacted; letters are governed by copyright law>

Witizen (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Since I tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://www.wirtland.com, the site has been changed to look like it is framing the Wikipedia article. A quick look at the page's source shows that it is a copy and paste job. It is also non-compliant with WP:REUSE as it still bears a copyright notice in violation of the reuse terms. – ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not correct. Wirtland site has been like this since opening in August 2008. Its design has not been changed. I used parts of text from Wirtland site with permission, and with references to original source. I will be glad to comply with every legitimate requirement from Wikipedia. Thanks. Witizen (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Agreed. Archive.org wasn't helpful, but Google's cache shows that it was the same on 6/22/09.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't know how, but when I checked the site just before tagging for G10, the front page most definitely did not look like it does now - if the Wikipedia logo and the "According to the standard of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" text had been there, I would have been asking reuse questions rather than tagging for deletion.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Maybe the CSS file didn't load properly?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Borked intarwebs maybe. In any event, assuming the copyright issue is dealt with per WP:IOWN, I still don't understand the purpose of reusing the Wikipedia (trademarked) logo or the faux Wikipedia header text, but that's not a discussion for this page. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bottomline: Wirtland entry is still blanked - though copyright permission is in place. No sound evidence of copyvio or other evil deeds. No clear, measurable criteria behind other accusations. (Today, someone deleted even the Wirtland disambiguation page). Was Wirtland entry that harmful? Time will show. Peace, Witizen (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

I'm an outsider to this conversation but still...

Bottomline: the content of the page appears to be a copy of this site which has a copyright notice at the bottom. Hence, Wikipedia is illegally using copyrighted information and, as a precaution, the page has been blanked so that Wikipedia is not sued for these violations. Does that follow?

As for the disambiguation page, it's housekeeping. As there are only two articles mentioned, the root one linking to this one, there's no need for a disambiguation page. These actions follow Wikipedia's policies and happy every day. Please don't mistakenly think that we're targeting this article. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of procedure the page should not be unblanked until the OTRS folks have acknowledged receipt of the release and confirmed its authenticity. Once that's done, the appropriate template message will be placed on this page. – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of procedures. The funny thing is that every editor seems to follow them in his/her own way. How else can be explained the fact, that every editor finds a new violation (which was not found by all the precedeing reviewers)? Just a quick glance into Wirtland's history of edits will prove my point. For instance, OTRS has already dealt with Wirtland's permission. It was requested only for images, though. So, after so many revisions, OTRS, AfD, eventual approval, subdequent COI and even self-publishing accusations, etc. etc., a fresh editor finds a fresh copyvio. Voila! And it all starts all over again. And when I ask about objective, measurable criteria, about some grounds after all - no answer. I welcome procedures, if they are applied correctly and competently. Witizen (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Breaking out of the copyvio, sources 1, 2, 3, 4 and 12 are all undeniably self-published. Anyhow, what I think is confusing you is that the policies are not all enacted in the same way. The process of nominating an article for deletion, say, is different to tagging articles with maintenance templates (the boxes at the top, talking about conflict of interest and self-publication). Now the perfect editor should review the page and add maintenance tags, copyvio notifications and deletion nominations at the same time. This hasn't happened for two reasons.

Firstly, nobody's perfect. Not even Jimbo. When you nominate an article, you should add maintenance tags first, but people forget or don't bother. That's the problem with volunteers. Secondly, the things happened in sequence. The maintenance tags were added first, then someone nominated the article for deletion, as was their wont. After that, the copyvio was noticed (not something picked up that easily - it requires specific checking). As far as this order goes, everything seems to have followed the policies correctly. But any lack of consistent editing or policy abiding is doubtless going to happen - every article suffers it due to our ranks of inexperienced, trigger happy editors.

The system ain't perfect, nor the people who are part of it. Yet that's life and everyone suffers. I'm sorry to say this, and it's not meant to sound harsh, but you're not the first person to suffer from Wikipedia's wrath. And voicing your concern is fairly futile, as the machine will role on as policy sees fit. I don't mean to discourage you from lobbying, but we editors is just following rules. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg explained things better than I can, for sure. But I'll still add a few things.

First, I think this is a bit of a weird case. For instance, the copyvio is a bit of the snake eating its own tail. Some editors are concerned that information from wirtland.com has been copied here. Others are concerned that reusing Wikipedia at wirtland is a violation itself. Those are entirely different issues, but it is ultimately a recursive problem.

Another example is that this article, frankly, feels like a hoax or made up in a day. Combined with the obvious conflict of interest by you (Wirtizen), it rubs some people the wrong way.

There are some decent sources to indicate Wirtland has been talked about, but as Truzzi or Sagan or someone said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Until more scholarly sources are found (i.e., a few rungs above a local newscast featuring it as a human interest story), don't be surprised if more editors question the article.

I'll step on the rules a little and give some advice that is probably better suited on your userpage, but the rest of the conversation is here already. As Greg said, be careful with lobbying. Focus on the content, and know this article will be seen by some as a fringe theory. Read WP:FRINGE carefully. tedder (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm far from lobbying. I'm not even defending my entry (because so far I have not seen any grounded objections against its content). I'm continuing this talk because I am concerned about how things generally work here. I think I'm summarizing my concerns in a constructive way, hoping that admins/users who want to improve Wiki may find this conversation useful. Otherwise it's a waste of time. That's why I'm tirelessly asking my opponents to ground their criticisms on some clear, measurable criteria. However, what I see is swift use of power, lots of emotion, strong wording and assumptions (like "feels like a hoax"), i.e. subjectivity. Colleagues, you may disagree, but encyclopedia is about science and should be based on scientific approach. Witizen (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

(Resetting indents) I added the template that blanked the page as I think there are genuine copyright concerns. As stated above their are issues around whom copied whom, what permissions have been recieved etc but until these have been sorted we have to err on the side of caution so as to limit the probability of any legal problems. I posted on the relevant copyright problems notice board and hoped an experienced copyright admin would have looked at this by now and posted here. At the end of the day until that's happened I'd be unhappy with this being unblanked. Stating here that you have recieved permission is not good enough as although I believe it to be true we can't verify that it is as we can't verify who has posted it. I'm going to drop a note at the administrators noticeboard so that hopefully someone can come along who is used to dealing with these issues and so will hopefully either be able to resolve the issue or explain things to your satisfaction. Dpmuk (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw this listed at the administrator's noticeboard and thought to clarify a few things, as an admin who frequently works that area and an OTRS agent. Items listed at copyright problems remain listed for 7+1 days before administrator closure. This is to allow time for permissions to process or for regular contributors of the article to rewrite it, if necessary, in the temporary space provided. When permission clear OTRS, an OTRS tag will be applied to this article and the article restored to publication. Unless the webmaster places the release on the website itself, this article should not be restored to publication until that happens.

The letter which was published above (which I have removed, as letters are also governed by copyright and this e-mail can not be reproduced here without verification of permission from its sender that it may) is not going to be sufficient, as it did not indicate the license under which material is being permitted. An OTRS agent will communicate with the e-mail sender about how to remedy that. Meanwhile, Wikipedia's legal department has been notified about the usage of the Wikipedia logo at [2] so that they can investigate if permission was requested and received to display it. To quote our copyright policy, "The only WP content you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation about is the trademarked Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos, which are not freely usable without permission." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Permitter has clarified and the license is sufficient for publication here. The logo question, as I indicated above, has been forwarded to those in better position to handle it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A note for editors

All edits are welcome. But please make sure you really know what you are editing. It is surprising that I have to educate editors about differences between Turkish and Turkic, or between Slavic and Slovakian. Witizen (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Well excuse us! Please don't forget that you don't own the article and other editors are free to edit it in accordance with applicable policy and guidelines. Coming across as an intellectual snob isn't going to make you any friends. – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying that the article's current description of names in "Turkish" and "Slovakian" is incorrect, please fix them. Note that Wikipedia editors are volunteers who are not experts in everything. However, if you intended the sentence to refer to "Slavic languages" and "Turkic languages," that seems overly-broad given that each language is different and is likely to have, at the least, a different spelling of the name, if that language has a word for "Wirtland" at all (for example, not all Slavic languages use the Cyrillic alphabet, so using the Cyrillic-spelled name you have is automatically incorrect for at least some Slavic languages). If you must list other languages' names (which I, personally, view as unnecessary except for perhaps the country where it was started or is most popular), I would recommend you list them for specific languages to ensure that you are not casting your net too widely. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sovereign country"

Witizen removed the {{dubious}} attached to this statement. It should go back until there's some evidence that this is actually the case other than a statement on the website. An opt-in system with no means of coercion does not seem to fit the regular definition of a sovereign state. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Originally, it was "Wirtland claims to be...", but someone replaced with bold statement. I propose "micronation" insead of "state", but guess I'd would rather obstain from editing, unless errors occur. Witizen (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

It's a website. The owners put it up for sale without consulting the "citizens", so the whole point is moot. It was supposed to be a democracy until they decided it was too much trouble. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Header template

I've deleted the big ugly template at the top of the article page as it no longer seems to apply. The current article seems fine quality-wise and it doesn't need cleanup. Notability is established by the many third-party references provided. COI tags don't stay indefinitely as a "red letter". Let's try to improve the article instead of templating it to death. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's dubious that there are "many" reliable third-party references. The only two which are in English are for local Maryland news outlets, and one of those requires registration. Fully half of the current references are primary (both coin references are reprints of content from the "Times of Wirtland") and I can't personally verify any of the rest because they're not in English. There's still a huge question mark hanging over why we've got an article which was explicitly written by an affiliate of the subject in order to promote it when it doesn't appear to have received anything more than whimsical coverage from local media. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the subject is notable in other countries, as those foreign language references show. It's obviously popular over there and there are apparently reliable sources in those languages to back up such notability. However, it isn't notable in English yet for exactly the reasons listed above. It's featured in local coverage, primary sources and various blogs; but little of any substance. The only one that really appears to have any structure as a reliable source is "Fox News" who also turn out to be local media.

I'd be surprised if this wasn't relisted for deletion, but Juliancolton has the right idea by saying to leave it a few weeks first. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article is currently accurate in suggesting that there are only 700 "Witizens" then I'd be wary of taking it for granted that it's popular in other countries; if Wikipedia has taught me anything it's that it doesn't take a great many people to make a great deal of noise over any Turkey-related issues, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham is right that access to one of English articles requires registration. It is openly available under other links: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20090123/ai_n31294351/ and

http://blog.g1440.com/2009/01/wirtland/. I just do not know how to add them to Wirtland entry, perhaps you help. Thanks. --Rich church mouse (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse

Deletion of Wirtland's coins and self-published sources

All of a sudden, one of editors decided to delete almost the whole paragraph about Wirtland coin (which was quite interesting, and survived all the numerous preceding edits and did not cause any questions before). This is just an observation: I don't argue about the content of deleted portion: such discussions prove to be useless. However, I try to understand the logic why completely independent references were considered self-published, and therefore deleted. Any clear criteria for labelling sources as self-published? The funny thing is that after deleting all citations, the editor adds "Citation needed". Witizen (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Wirtland

They're all blogs. Blogs = unreliable sources = may not be used as references. Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend is correct; blogs are self-published with no editorial review for quality or truth, which makes them unreliable sources, which makes them unusable for our purposes. You can read our Reliable Sourcing Policy for more information. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read the Sourcing Policy (which is, by the way, not so straighforward: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert), but questions remain. There appears no single standard in the deletions. Some "blog" references have been preserved, others deleted. And Extrafinecoins.com does not like like a blog to me, BTW. A blog is a type of website, usually maintained by an individual with regular entries of commentary, descriptions of events, or other material. If it's a blog, then "Internet Evolution" is also a blog, but it's not deleted. Computertaal does not look like a blog, either, but was deleted. Again, I'm not disputing, I'm just trying to find logic in the actions of editors, who always find new ways to desintegrate the article. Witizen (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

As you're in a reading mood, try WP:IMPERFECT (I'm sorry not everything follows procedure perfectly, but that's how it is with volunteers), WP:WIP (the article will never be perfect or complete) and WP:OWN (we're not at your beck and call when you think something is amiss). Perhaps WP:DRAMA too. I've never been to sure when to cite that one, but you are causing an awful fuss over a rather unimportant article.

I know we expect you to know policies you don't, but you have to recognise that Wikipedia doesn't work like you assume it does. And constantly complaining whenever someone edits your article (high-5 for referencing WP:OWN again?) isn't going to change that. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I'm tired to repeat: I'm NOT complaining, and not disputing with you. Kindly hold back your emotions, Greg Tyler, your tone is inappropriate. You don't need to be in a reading mood to remind yourself to: * Be polite * Assume good faith * Avoid personal attacks * Be welcoming. Editors are free to edit. I am free to make my concerns public. I'm spending my time on this to make Wikipedia better. There are people here, who are friendly, competent, and constructive. I wish to thank them sincerely for their help. Those who have a personal issue with me, send me email. Witizen (talk)Witizen.

Enough emotions, back to business now. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wirtland article, right. My question is concrete. Sources http://www.impactlab.com, http://computertaal.info, http://governingpeople.com, http://extrafinecoins.com/ were wiped out. Other "blogs" remained. Comments are welcome. Witizen (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

Postage stamps

Wirtland, being a virtual country, has no postal administration to effect any postal service, so delivery of mail is impossible. Postage stamps are only issued by countries that can perform such services. Postage stamp-type adhesive labels that perform no postal function are known in philately as Cinderella stamps so I have rephrased the prose to reflect that situation. ww2censor (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think putting Cinderella into the header is excessive. See other entries on micronations and their stamps. Thanks for following a single standard. Witizen (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Witizen, that reads like a personal attack. Perhaps you would like to redact it? Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) They are not, and will never be, postage stamps unless they perform the function of prepaying postage and issued a postal authority. So calling them postage stamps is inaccurate and misleading and implies some official status they do not have. They are postage stamp-like adhesive labels known as Cinderella stamps. Some other non-virtual micronations do use stamps for a local post but Wirtland cannot do that either. ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In any case, saying "it's done on other articles" is a poor argument. Whether other articles follow policies and guidelines doesn't mean this article gets an exemption. Again, you don't own this article, and your conflict of interest is clouding your view. tedder (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've actually agreed. Where in the world did you see a "personal attack"? I said that putting into the header seems excessive, that's all. No need to repeat sall ths same stuff again. Thanks for not jumping to conclusions. Witizen (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Well, there we go, how can I tell if 'thanks for' is genuine or not? Your comment on 'thanks for following a single standard' could have been phrased better if it was thanks. If this is just a communications problem and you mean no criticism of me or Wwecensor, great. And your edits are not 'minor' edits, please don't mark them as such, have you got that set as default in preferences? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, accusing Witizen for a personal attack because he said something possibly sarcastic? That's pretty ridiculous. Honestly I'm very uncomfortable with Witizen's clear conflict of interest and I dislike using Wikipedia to promote a little pretend country some people made up, but don't nitpick people to death. -- Atama^chat 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I said that it read like a personal attack, not that it was one. I think he has said he didn't mean it that way, and I've explained that it was difficult to tell. If I was wrong, I was wrong, and I'm sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yopie (talk · contribs) has just undone my removal of the synthesis attached to the cinderellas section with the one-word summary "cinderellas". As I disn't actually remove the link to the cinderalla stamp article, but rather just a reference which constituted synthesis in that it described cinderella stamps but did not refer to Wirtland, this should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have source, that Wirtland have the post office? If not, they cannot create stamps, but cinderellas...--Yopie (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment and the contents of the edit in question. I agree that the stamps in question are cinderella stamps. What I disagree with is using synthesis of argument through a source which doesn't mention Wirtland to make that point. In future, please be more careful when inspecting changes before reverting them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

How is using S-G to say that they're cinderallas at all a matter of synthesis? S-G (and Scott, and I'm sure all other reliable catalogues) says that postage-stamp-like items that aren't officially government-post-office-issued are cinderellas. In other words, this applies to all such items, including these Wirtland items. Therefore, it's not at all synthesis. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, cinderella is the vocable for stamp-like piece of paper. Thus for this we not need sources. --Yopie (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is acceptable by consensus to only link to cinderella stamp without a source on the page I will go with that. My only reasoning for originally adding a source was to avoid an edit war over the term but it now seems settled. Of more concern is the use of wirtland web pages as sources littering the article. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No question that you're correct, Ww2censor. Sorry for perhaps misunderstanding everything going on; I was on vacation for a few days, so I might have missed something while reading the above discussions all at once today. Nyttend (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving Wirtland (round 2)

Today Wirtland was again moved, by Jafeluv. Though there appeared to be no consensus in the discussion about moving, I am not contesting. But I understand that the idea was to make 'Wirtland' lead to the disambiguation page. That's not what we have now. Someone who searches for 'Wirtland', finds a page with big red "speedy deletion' banner. This is unacceptable. Please, help to correct. Witizen (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

That does not appear to be the case, Witizen. A search for "Wirtland" takes the searcher to a disambiguation page, as the discussion on talk:Wirtland (building) tended to say it should. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because I corrected Rich church mouse (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse.

I corrected Rich church mouse (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse.

Hi! I did indeed move the page to Wirtland (micronation). The discussion, as Witizen said above, wasn't a clear-cut case, but in my opinion the support for moving the disambiguation page to Wirtland was greater than the support for the other alternative, which was moving Wirtland (building) to Wirtland. I closed the discussion and moved this page accordingly. Now, moving Wirtland (disambiguation) to Wirtland requires admin assistance, because the redirect needs to be deleted before the disambiguation page can be moved there. That's why I tagged it with {{db-move}}, which means that the redirect should be deleted as a technical deletion, which is one of the speedy deletion criteria. The point was to request admin assistance in moving the page. Speedy deletion tags like this usually only last for a little while before an admin comes along and deletes the page, allowing the disambiguation page to be moved to the correct location. I hope I didn't cause too much trouble. Jafeluv (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem now? Again, there is "speedy deletion" banner. For the 3st time already. What was wrong with having disambiguation page under 'Wirtland'? Something strange is happening here. Witizen (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Let me explain. Non-admins like you and me can't move page A to page B if page B has been edited by someone (it has page history), because moving involves deleting the destination page, and only admins are able to delete pages. The speedy deletion tag is there so that an admin can delete the page, after which the disambiguation page can be moved there. Just wait for a little while and the page will probably be deleted, and then we can move the disambiguation page to Wirtland. Jafeluv (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jafeluv, thanks for explanation. The deletion banner is not very nice, and we don't know how long it takes for admin to do all the necessary moves. My suggestion is as follows: if you do not consider this issue extremely urgent, perhaps you could undo you your action; at the same time you can inform any admin and ask him/her to move the page. This way, we will avoid the 'limbo' period with an ugly deletion banner. I will appreciate your cooperation in this. Witizen (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

The irony of the situation is that I can't even remove the tag anymore, because the page has been protected. Anyway, I've asked Nyttend on their talk page if they could perform the move. Jafeluv (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see. Do you know why Nyttend protected it, instead of performing the move? There are things in Wikipedia which are just beyond my understanding. Witizen (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Nyttend didn't move the page because he had already participated in the move discussion above. You see, usually after a move has been discussed on the talk page, the discussion is evaluated by an uninvolved admin (meaning someone who hasn't participated in the debate), to make sure that the decision is not influenced by the admin's own views about the issue. Nyttend decided to leave the decision to an uninvolved admin, and didn't move the page. The protection was to ensure that the speedy deletion template stays in place, otherwise the uninvolved admin might never show up. When pages are tagged with speedy deletion templates, they are automatically added to a certain category^[1], and that category is constantly watched by admins who perform speedy deletion on a regular basis. Here's Nyttend's edit summary when he protected the page. Jafeluv (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion: aside from what you said above (quite correct) and what I said before, I was somewhat confused and thought that something more than a simple move-over-redirect was being requested. Between the redirection and the specific move tag, I thought that something such as a history merge was being requested. Now that I understand what's going on, I've unprotected it and moved the disambiguation page myself. I don't think there's anything of conflict-of-interest in this way, since Jafeluv asked me to do it. Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement

This now reads very much like an advertisement. Eg, "transcends national borders without breaching or lessening the sovereignty of any involved.", "country without its own soil". How can a micronation not claiming any territory affect sovereignty or be a country"? This is emotive language, and although it may be what the micronation says, it shouldn't be in the lead. Also, what does "public initiative" mean? This sounds to me like a weasel phrase, making the subject sound good but without any substantive meaning. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But I did not add any new text. I simply moved that portion of text from section History, because previously there was tag about insufficient introduction. Ok, let's undo everything back to original. Witizen (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

And pls note the text is from official site. Copyright permission is in place. And it was added "Wirtland purports to be..." to be even more correct. Witizen (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

COI tag again

Yopie again added COI tag. If you think it's appropriate, please explain why. The tag says: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject". I used to be major contributor, but not any more: there is virtually nothing left in the article from my original text, after so many edits by many people. Therefore I believe COI tag is irrelevant. Opinions welcome. Witizen (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Simply, you are still major contributor to the article, with strong feeling of "ownership". If not, you are not hit with CoI tag :-) --Yopie (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an emotional statement without proof. What "ownership" are you talking about. May I suggest that you undo tag and discuss it in discussion page before. That would be a nice approach. Witizen (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

I'm with Yopie. The ownership is pretty clear with edits like this and this (note they are within 48 hours, not exactly "used to be a major contributor"). Akin to finding an interested party in the WP:BRD process, your ownership as seen on this talk page can make it difficult for editors to get involved. If you'd rather discuss this at your talk page than here, let me know. tedder (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Yopie and Tedder. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Witizen, don't ask people to be nice. Just undo if you disagree. Or I will do that. Tedder, you are trying to prove by referring to edits, which Witizen undid. Anybody can show anything really convincing to prove Witizen has COI? Rich church mouse (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Rich church mouse

• Intersting. Witizen and Rich church mouse are as sockpuppets. Both edited mainly this article, and Rich church mouse began editing after problems with this article begans. Of course, both have same ideas about Wirtland. Coincidence? If any have same feeling, I will report it. --Yopie (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith for the moment regarding the possible sockpuppetry Yopie is hinting at, let me say, Rich Church Mouse: What you're telling Witizen to do is a very bad idea - one that's likely to end with Witizen in trouble if he follows your advice. We have this talk page to discuss the article and changes to be made to it - Witizen is doing exactly the right thing now, by raising his concerns with the tag on this page. Please don't encourage him to edit war.

In addition, I think it's pretty clear just from his username that he has a potential COI. That he chose a username based on his (one assumes) esteem for Wirtland is a pretty big clue that he has a conflict of interest in regard to it. If there was someone who edited, say, Republic of Macedonia by adding glowing terms and removing tags, and had a username like "Macedonian", people would be suspicious of that user's intentions, too. In addition, Witizen is campaigning on this talk page pretty strongly in favor of his preferred versions and phrasings, and he's removing improvement tags on the article that make it look less than perfect. Those all add up to a pretty apparent COI. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling everyone who raises objection a sockpuppet. Potential COI is based on username. Threatening editors to 'report'. Very interesting indeed, Yopie. Perhaps it's you who have a serious conflict of interest here? Sorry I cannot judge from a username. But I can report, too. Rich church mouse (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Rich church mouse

Please, stop and discuss the content, not the contributors. COI is based on more than username, and issues of ownership are similarly vague. Let's work on finding reliable sources to continue to make this article based on a neutral point of view, okay? tedder (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And RCM, to reply to "Tedder, you are trying to prove by referring to edits, which Witizen undid.", my point of those edits was to disprove Wirtizen's statement of "I used to be major contributor, but not any more". tedder (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support, Rich Mouse and others who are objective and good-mannered. But I have not edited the article for along time (except for my attempt to meet the tag requirement, when I simply moved text from History to Introduction, which nevertheless was swiftly condemned and therefore undone by myself), and I will not edit text of article any more. Regarding COI based on my username, I explained more than once that it's as absurd as banning US citizen from writing about USA. COI tag is also irrelevant, IMHO, because there is nothing left in the article from my original text. Anyway, a discussion is useful only if it's substantial, and not becomes a name-calling session. I don't abandon Wirtland entry, however. But I will only be adding new references and facts, as they evolve. Witizen (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

There really is no question here, Witizen has proclaimed that "'I assist in building the community of citizens of Wirtland", and virtually all his edits concern Wirtland. He is also a WP:SPA as is Rich church mouse. The tag should stay. Btw, Witizen, how can you 'not edit text of article any more' and at the same time add new references and facts? That's editing the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Case of SPI is here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Witizen.--Yopie (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

He states now that I am working as PR manager of Wirtland. Absurd. But if this is acceptable in Wikipedia, that will be indeed a serious issue to discuss. Not here. Witizen (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

They don't like the way we sign. I have complained to Arbiters. Rich church mouse (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Rich Church Mouse

Deletion

At the last articles for deletion entry for this article, no consensus was reached. This was mainly because a series of SPAs appeared to defend it, and few long-term editors getting involved in discussion. A renomination was proposed, but Juliancolton (who closed the original discussion) suggested it shouldn't be done immediately, as the "SPA/sockpuppet !voting would have likely continued". Some time has passed, and I'm considering that we should now look at a renomination, this time being wary of IPs. However, I wanted to check people thought we were ready?

I also wanted to check if people thought the rationale I would nominate it under is acceptable. I'm aware there are a few issues with the article, and felt others might have more pertinent concerns than mine. For that reason, I'm requesting that we discuss and confirm the rationale before nominating.

If you do not agree with the rationale, or a deletion, please save it for the AFD discussion later created rather than posting it below. This section is merely to prepare for that nomination. This means anything saying "I don't agree with that reasoning" or "this article should stay" will be looked at discouragingly. This is simply an etiquette issue: there will be plenty of time for a full deletion discussion later on.

My deletion rationale is that the subject doesn't meet the GNG and isn't supported by reliable sources. However, I feel that the article may be notable in other languages, or in the future. But currently, in the widespread English speaking world, the subject isn't notable. There are currently four self-published sources, nine foreign language sources and two local news sources. Simply, coverage is weak and not enough to prove the subject has sufficient notability for inclusion on Wikipedia.

If people have any more major concerns that they'd like included in the lead nomination rationale, please discuss so below. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I will not edit Wirtland article any more. However, I believe the whole case of Wirtland article, history of attitudes/argumentations, may be interesting enough for general public. If, however, any editor or administrator, who participated in editing Wirtland or related discussions, is opposed to publication of his/her quotations, please contact me, and I will do my best to meet such requests. Witizen (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen.

If you're hinting at a blog post quoting Wikipedians to demonstrate that the 'pedia is fatally flawed and rally support for supporting your article (meatpuppetry) I'd like to request that you save such rousing of public interest until after we've finished our deletion discussion. Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point won't win you any kudos. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 09:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I'd oppose another deletion discussion, per Unidyne's comment at the AfD and other points raised. I'd also suggest that references to Juliancolton's post are misapplied here; it is presented as if Julian had originated a proposal for relisting (suggesting he endorsed such a move), whereas he was actually responding to Nyttend's question about doing it immediately. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading over it, you're completely right. I didn't intend to make it sound as if Julian had proposed the renomination, but suggested delaying it. I've modified the text now, I hope that it follows better. As for not renominating, I can see Unidyne's point that it may be a special case, but I can't see enough information to prove so. It may well have more members than others, but that's simply a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSTHATISSLIGHTLYWORSE. That said, if there is obvious opposition from a number of established editors to the nomination, I'd be willing to succumb. I'm not trying to push this too hard. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates removed

I have removed the ugly and pointless templates at the top of the article. My rationale for this is that if someone thinks the intro is too short, then they should improve the article by lengthening it rather than making the article worse by sticking a hideous template on it. Also, the article does not appear to constitute self-promotion, they do not appear to have anything to sell and the person who supposedly has a COI has agreed to stop editing the article. So, that template has also been removed. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

And I've replaced it as Witizen, despite anything he has said above, continues to edit the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undid my edits and therefore undid COI. Hope others will be adding content updates to this article in the future. Witizen (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

Logo's wrong

Perhaps I could get an actual Latin expert to verify this, but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 'Virtus non copia vincit', and not 'vincint'. On the official Wirtland coinage, it's the same logo, but with 'vincit' on it. Can anyone clarify this? --Arielkoiman (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

About the deletion of this article

What are the reason for the deletion of Article? -- Remux - I will never forget that i fell in love with the more beautiful flower Ĉu mi povas helpi vin je io? 07:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I closed the AFD....William 17:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is this notable?

Is thing actually notable? Why? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 12:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)