Talk:Empire of Atlantium/Archive 2

Should we have the atlantium table?
I do not think this micronaiton is notable enough to have the atlantium table; what do other people think? Samboy 22:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Now that a special info box has been created by several editors specifically for use in micronation articles it doesn't make any sense to exclude it from 1 article, unless there is a consensus to do so. --Gene_poole 23:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at Category:Micronations; this list has a list of each micronation and whether it has a table.
 * 1) Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Independent State of Aramoana Yes
 * 3) Araucania and Patagonia No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Empire of Atlantium Yes
 * 5) Avram Yes
 * 6) Province of Bumbunga Yes
 * 7) Nation of Celestial Space No  - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Conch Republic Yes
 * 9) Dominion of Melchizedek No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Hutt River Province Yes
 * 12) Republic of Indian Stream No
 * 13) Kingdom of EnenKio No
 * 14) Kingdom of Redonda No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Kingdom of Sedang Yes
 * 16) Kings of Redonda No - N/A, it is synonymous with Kingdom of Redonda in this context
 * 17) Kugelmugel No
 * 18) L'Anse-Saint-Jean, Quebec No
 * 19) Lovely (micronation) No (Flag & Coat of Arms, though)
 * 20) Gregor MacGregor No
 * 21) Republic of Madawaska No
 * 22) Principality of Marlborough No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Republic of Minerva No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Neue Slowenische Kunst No
 * 25) Republic of New Afrika No (Flag & "map", though)
 * 26) New Utopia No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) North Dumpling Island No
 * 28) Principality of Freedonia No - Yes as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) - Verified Samboy 04:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Independent State of Rainbow Creek (Coat of Arms, though) - Infobox as of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Redonda No - N/A - it is synonymous with Kingdom of Redonda in this context
 * 31) Republic of Rose Island Yes
 * 32) Free Republic of Schwarzenberg No
 * 33) Sealand Yes
 * 34) Seastead N/A (This is not a micronation)
 * 35) TRansnational Republic No
 * 36) The Great Republic of Rough and Ready No
 * 37) Whangamomona No

We have 36 micronations, of which only 8 (22%) have the table set up. Looks like if there is really consensus that each micronation should have a table, more than 22% of the micronations should have this table. If, say, 50% of the micronations actually had a table, I would feel there is a real consensus to give each and every micronation a table. Samboy 05:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reason the others don't have an info box is because I haven't created one for them yet. Eventually they will all have an info box. Your reasons for deleting this one are wrong, so I'm reverting your deletion. You can make a more positive contribution to Wikipedia by adding info boxes to the micronations that don't already have them, rather than being suspiciously selective by removing one info box that already exists because of ongoing personal issues that you just don't seem to be able to let go of. --Gene_poole 05:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As of 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC), 20 out of 34 micronations in the Micronations category have the infobox, for a ratio of 58.8%. (See my updates in italics above.) User:Samboy indicated that I will change my vote when 50% of the micronation articles have info boxes. . Presuming he continues to stand by that statement, we should assume his vote in the poll below is now a Yes, for a poll outcome of 6 to 4 in favor of infobox. Hopefully the anti-micronational crusade is now alleviated on this matter. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll: micronation info box
An info box has recently been created by Gene Poole and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category over coming weeks.

One editor, Samboy, has objected to the inclusion of the micronation info box in the Empire of Atlantium article, so a poll has been instituted to assist in determining consensus on this issue.

If you support the inclusion of the micronation info box in this and all other micronation articles, vote YES.

If you believe that the micronation info box should be removed from this article, but retained in other micronation articles, vote NO.

YES it should be kept:

NO it should be removed:
 * 1) Gene_poole 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Billpg 08:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) 141.219.44.46 16:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) HGB 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Christopher Thomas 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I think it should stay, it makes getting bare-bone facts easier,but showing its population runs into problems and should be cleared up. right direction though.Wilson(cc) 17:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) I have changed my vote as per my original vote (see Keith's notes above).  Note that it is very important that we make it clear that these things are micronations. Samboy 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Cannot be NPOV to give things without any context. For example, the article says the EoA claims to have 831 members and then discusses the verifiability of that claim and how it is arrived at so the reader can decide. The box just says members: 831. The same is true for other elements of the box. It adds nothing but a potential to mislead. CDThieme 20:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Dejvid 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Adds factoids but no context. Jonathunder 21:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) deceptive. Inserted to make micronations seem more like real states. Nunh-huh 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

I note that three of the "yes" votes voted here as a direct reply to GFC's petition to get votes here:


 * Billpg was notified by "Gene Poole" about the existence of this poll and was also contacted by "Samboy" ''
 * Keith D. Tyler was notified by "Gene Poole" about the existence of this poll. Samboy 06:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I note for completeness that Samboy himself has petitioned me in the past to opine on related matters. He has clearly has had a change of heart as to the validity of my opinion. That change of heart however is itself a matter of POV. I am neither a sockpuppet of Gene Poole nor a micronation-crusading troll, and my contribution history reflects that. I object to being mentioned above as if to suggest that my vote should be somehow discounted. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's ridiculous to remove the info box from one article when the intention is to eventually have it in all micronation articles. --Gene_poole 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If a micronation is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it should have the infobox. --Billpg 08:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Samboy, your preventive tactics are transparent. You are opposing doing something until it is done more. That's a catch-22, one so obvious that it shouldn't need pointing out. It's an illogical position and frankly shouldn't be considered serious. The only way I can make sense of such a position is to assume that you will take any position, no matter how circular, to defeate micronation articles, based on an anti-micronation POV. PS Don't call me. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the issue then. Gene Poole has a conflict of interest here; he is using Wikipedia to promote his own micronation.  The addition of this table is the latest step in this process.  Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine.  And, oh, asking me to not call you is, IMHO, a borderline personal attack.  Samboy 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should provide a link to the consensus-generated criteria upon which you determine that a micronation is worthy of such a sidebox. Otherwise, it seems to me that if one person who is not suspected to be George Cruickshank thinks the sidebox should be present, then your argument as you just put it is moot. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. See, if you support the presence of the sidebox, it is a completely different issue than when George Cruickshank supports the presence of the sidebox.  Then we bring up things like the fact that "Empire of Atlantium" has only about 1,200 Google hits, and that the last time this article was voted for deletion, 60% of the voters wanted this article deleted.  But I'm not going to bring that up in this discussion again; my issue is plain simply the issue of self-promotion and people taking advantage of Wikipedia to promote their own pet projects.  When I read Wikipedia, I know that there is a strong bias in favor of "loud minority" views and pet projects; I am trying to minimize that bias.  (Remind me to expand the BIND article) Samboy 03:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't get myself involved in these issues of self-promotion and notability. Content is defensible (or indefensible) on its own merits, not on politics. It doesn't bother me that GFC might add content to a page on a topic he invented. In that sentiment, I think the cause has been confused with the effect. But I think here (and in other micronations) it has much less to do with the misdirected principle of "don't Wiki about your own creations" and more to do with the disdain many admins and others have towards micronations in general (in contrast, if Douglas Adams were still alive, and contributed to the H2G2 article, would he get reverted?). Bringing up Google hits brings up the issue of notability, which is relevant (I suppose) to AFD, but I don't think it's relevant to article content. So ultimately, if this article is to exist, it should be treated similary with others in its category in terms of scope and structure of available information. After all, Wiki is not paper. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are making many good points. I agree that there may be an anti-micronation bias; micronations are on the border of what Wiki considers notable; hence the heated discussions.  Is a micronation simply a vanity project, or is it something notable?  This is the fundamental point that we disagree on.  Another noteworthy point is this: If an article has barely passed WP:VFD, is it a reasonable comprmise to say "We will keep the article, but since over 50% of people wanted it deleted, we should keep the article short."?  Wikipedia is about compromise; we already compromise many articles listen on WP:VFD by merging their content with other articles.  Keep an article but keeping it sort is another possible compromise.  All of this is good stuff to bring up at the Village Pump.  Samboy 23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I could go on as to the philosophy behind why micronations, at very least the topic of their existence, are very notable and valid socio-anthropological topics under the circumstances of the world since the mid-20th century. But putting that all aside, I think this notion of compromise by size is a tenuous concept on a shaky foundation. There's no consensual standard for it -- there is no definition of "article classes" that I am aware of that designates some articles more worthy of more content than others. (A Mediation agreement, or an ArbCom order, on a per-article basis, would be another matter.) And such a value-based segregation of articles would be a bad idea IMHO for this project. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider this poll invalid because of the compaign tactics that Gene Poole used to promote this campaign. Basically, instead of putting up the article over at WP:RFC, he instead posted messages on the web pages of a number of users who he knows are symphetic to his cause.  See the Village Pump. Samboy 00:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious to all by now that nobody actually cares what you think Samboy - least of all, me. That said, I would have been more than happy to invite the editors sharing your peculiar POV to participate in this poll, however Wik has been hard-banned (repeatedly), MPLX left the project in a characteristic fit of hysteria, and IndigoGenius departed in rage to start his own Wiki after telling us all that he was a god who would return to judge everyone at the Apocalypse. All things considered you should probably choose a better quality of bedfellows if you expect anyone to take you seriously. --Gene_poole 04:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Didn't you do the same thing for a poll about Micronation? In any case, instead of complaining maybe you should get your own word out. Hopefully though it's less about numbers and more about principle. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The key difference there is that I brought you in to the discussion because I wanted an objective third party. I very deliberately chose someone who had a different point of view than myself.  My interest there was to resolve the conflict, a conflict where a third party felt that "Centauri" was being most uncivil with me.  That is why I asked for your help knowing fully that you supported GFC during the arbitration against him.  That is also why I called you; I feel that when an internet conflict gets too heated, conflicts can calm down when people have more human contact with each other.  My interest was not to "bring in the vote"; I only asked for help from two different people and did not put a message on several users' talk pages trying to "get the vote out" supporting my position; something that people over at the Village Pump are not comfortable about.  Samboy 03:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Samboy, you should really stop deliberately misleading people to try to push your minority POV. Nobody at Village Pump is "not comfortable" about my letting people know about this poll - in fact those who have responded support the idea that notifying editors who have a particular interest in a subject is perfectly OK. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine clearly states that is OK for editors to add content about projects they are involved in so long as they are honest about it and conform to NPOV. I suggest you go back and bone up on your Wikipedia policies and procedures before publishing any further self-righteous rants on this subject. --Gene_poole 04:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are suggesting I am no longer an objective party -- because I tend not to agree with you? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't follow the reasoning that says delete something until there's more of it. If we did that wikipedia would have nothing in it! Its a logical impossibility, and I can't believe people here are wasting so much time on such a stupid idea. Just keep the damn thing! --Centauri 07:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keith Tyler brought up the same issue; see my reply to him. Samboy 08:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your reply doesn't make any sense either. There's no Wikipedia rule that forbids people from writing about groups they belong to. If people can't write about subjects they're familiar with there wouldn't be any content in Wikipedia. --Centauri 09:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head. All of Samboy's rants about "self promotion" and "conflicts of interest" are nothing more than hot air. None of it is supported by any Wikipedia policy - in fact the actual policy guidelines say the total opposite of what he's been carrying on about since he first started on this topic. --Gene_poole 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Re votes by CDThieme and Nunh-huh: This is a vote on the addition of a consistent infobox for micronation articles to this article. Not a vote on problems with the infobox itself. Those issues should be dealt with on the discussion page for the template. Bringing them up here to defend a no vote is an end-run around the question at hand as it relates to this article. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion on the votes you disagree with, and your opinion on where things should be discussed. An infobox on this article that begins "Empire of Atlantium" is a problem with this article, because calling something an empire which is not an empire is deceptive and misleading. Not every micronation calls itself a deceptive name; this one does, and repeating it at the top of the infobox is therefore problematic. - Nunh-huh 03:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Then the problem you state also exists in the article title. It is inconsistent to argue that placing a false name in an infobox is a bigger problem than placing a false name in an article title. Your issue is not with the infobox but with the name by which WP should refer to this topic. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why this poll is improper
The standard article dispute resolution process is as follows:


 * Put a poll on the article


 * Place the article in WP:RFC


 * See who chimes in and listen to their input

This is, for example, how I resolved an editing dispute in Talk:djbdns, since, as the implementer of another DNS server, it is not possible for me to have a true NPOV concerning DNS implementations. However, this is not how GFC (User:Gene_Poole) went about resolving the editing dispute concerning the atlantium infobox.

The procedure he did was as follows:


 * Put a poll on the article. So far, so good.


 * However, GFC did not place the article in WP:RFC. I had to do it myself:   (To his credit, he did later on add the poll to Current surveys )


 * Instead, he informed a number of users, all of whom GFC feels may support his cause, about the poll on their talk pages:

Additionally, this editor has responded to my opposition to the table with personal attacks (as can be seen above), against the No personal attacks policy. In accordance with this policy, I am ignoring any postings with personal attacks.

These are the actions of an editor who wishes to use Wikipedia to promote his own micronation, not the actions of an editor who is interested in having true NPOV in Wikipedia articles. Samboy 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why this poll is valid
One way of trying to clarify an appropriate reponse to Wikipedia article content disputes is to create straw polls. Even though the results of polls are not binding, they do often give a good general indication of what people interested in a particular subject think.

One of the ways that straw polls can be set up is as follows:


 * Put a poll on the article.


 * Place the article in Current surveys.


 * Notify people who may be interested in the poll based on previous editing contributions.


 * See who else chimes in.

The procedure I followed was as follows:


 * Put a poll on the article..

          
 * Notified a number of editors via their talk pages about the existence of the poll. It is accepted Wikipedia consensus that notifying editors about polls they might be expected to have an interest in is appropriate, and is beneficial to the project. In this case all of editors contacted have a history of contributing to articles, discussions and votes on subjects related to the poll. The editors contacted are as follows:


 * Added the poll to Wikipedia:Current surveys)

My reason for posting the poll was due wholly and solely to objections raised by Samboy to the inclusion of an info box in this article.

It is well-known that Samboy believes that all content about micronations (except for Sealand) should be deleted from Wikipedia, and that he will do anything to achieve that goal - including actively encouraging edit wars against those who disagree with him through such proxies as the hard-banned editor Wik, IndigoGenius and numerous others.

It should be noted that Samboy's POV on this subject is an extreme minority position not supported by either precedent or consensus, and that as a consequence his tactics are pointless and deliberately disruptive to Wikipedia.

Additionally, this editor consistently mis-quotes Wikipedia policies and procedures in order to deliberately mislead people, and consistently fails to accept negative assessments of his behaviour from other editors. Instead he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of making "personal attacks" - although he has repeatedly supported abusive editors himself, when it suits him.

Samboy has accused me of wishing to "use Wikipedia to promote my own micronation", however there is no evidence that my contributions to this or any other micronation article are anything other than well-researched, well-written, factual and NPOV - a reality that the results of the current straw poll already demonstrate. --Gene_poole 01:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why I reverted to the version with the table
The reason why I reverted to the version with the table is because of the following:


 * At the current time, there is a 50-50 split on whether to include this table (excluding the votes of IPs and people who GFC petitioned to vote here)
 * As a general rule, it is better to keep than to remove content at Wikipedia, all other factors being equal.
 * While Centauri is probably a sockpuppet of GFC (a.k.a. User:Gene_Poole), the other editor is probably a sockpuppet of Wik. The sockpuppets cancel each other out. :)

Samboy 04:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Not getting involved in the editing dispute
In reply to:

I'd leave this message on your talk page, but you don't have one.

I don't want to get involved in the editing dispute, and your positions may have merit in their own right (personally I think the template is superfluous, for instance), but the use of multiple sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR is disruptive, so I have to take action against this.

For what it's worth, I didn't block "User:Oneusername", someone else did. With your next username, why not make your first edit a post to here, instead of a revert? When people feel that they can have a discussion with a real person and not an army of sockpuppets, then they will be more inclined to discuss with you instead of automatically blocking and reverting. -- Curps 04:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, here we are. I think you're basically reasonable, and if you agree with my position on foreignchar and yet went to that length of reverting me because of what you saw as the right process, then that's respectable, even though I think you were wrong. I don't see much of a 3RR issue there, I'd gladly restrict my reverts on those articles but I don't see why I should refrain from reverting them at all. The template was added to 150+ articles (almost always by Stemonitis) without establishing a consensus first (which still doesn't exist), so it can likewise be removed. The first thing is rather worse; one shouldn't make a change affecting so many articles without establishing a real consensus first, when there's the slightest possibility of controversy. This is commonly done by people who know very well how potentially controversial a change is, and who want to create a fait accompli, as few people, even when they disagree with the change, will be bothered to revert so many articles (e.g. Tobias Conradi has done the same on the naming of subnational entities, moving hundreds of pages without consensus to his preferred format). Surely that's taking "be bold" rather too far. So I don't think I need a consensus to remove this template, when there hasn't been one to add it in the first place. The same applies to the unilateral addition of the POV templates to the micronations. I'm not the only one who opposes them. Thus removing them is called "editing", not "vandalism". Since I'm sure we could both spend our time more effectively than with endless reverting, we should come to some understanding here. Giflesund 11:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
Would the person attempting to alter this article's infobox heading without consensus please stop doing so. Your change is redundant and does does not comply with the established precedent for micronation infoboxes. It also makes no sense, as there is only one entity called "Empire of Atlantium", so it can't be confused with anything else. --Gene_poole 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It can be confused with an actual empire. Clearly we have a duty to our readers not to mislead them. - Nunh-huh 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments relevant to the discussion and stop making unilateral changes unsupported by either consensus or precedent. --Gene_poole 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My comments have been relevant to the discussion, and you have yet to demonstrate a consensus. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason for supporting your proposed change without changing all the other articles about micronations too - and there's certainly no precedent or consensus to do that. --Centauri 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then, since not mentioning the fact that the "empire" is in fact a micronation in the most prominent place it is mentioned on the page is an instance of intentionally biasing the article toward the notion that there is an "empire" called "Atlantium", the NPOV tag will have to go on until something's worked out. Feel free to make proposals here. - Nunh-huh 09:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no more an empire called Atlantium than there is a principality called Sealand or a republic called Minerva - however that's not the point. There are known entities with those names, reported in multiple reference sources with those names - and no other. NPOV reportage demands that they be described by the correct name and identified as the micronations that they are - which is what all micronation articles I've seen already do - in terms that even a blithering idiot cannot fail to understand. --Centauri 21:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, that's what NPOV requires. Why then do you resist it? "Sealand" is appropriately so described. The name itself makes no claims about it being a principality. The name "Empire of Atlantium", however, does make a claim, and it is relatively unknown. It is therefore appropriately described as 'the micronation calling itself "Empire of Atlantium"'. - Nunh-huh 22:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment is inconsistent and factually wrong. There's not much point trying to resolve this unless you first familiarise yourself with the basic substance of the discussion. --Centauri 00:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Micronation

 * (I'm pasting this into the talk page of all the micronation category articles.)

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 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

political advocacy group
How can a "political advocacy group" be a micronation?

Perhaps it includes a political advocacy group as an organization within its "government"? KAJ207.47.122.10 06:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The question makes no sense. Micronations can be lots of things, including online simulations, vehicles for commiting fraud, political or environmental protests, artistic projects, tourism promotions, secession attempts or, indeed, political advocacy groups. --Gene_poole 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think its right to include advocacy groups or online simulations as micronations. Usually a nation is an entity that has variable control over physical land. -- [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|25px]] RND   T  C   10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

self-promotion
Seems hypocritical that the emperor of this fake empire should be able to engage in self-promotion when he has condemned others for same behavior. Harvardy 07:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Crooked is correct as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO George/Gene should not be editing this article. Seems grounds for deleting the article if he persists. Harvardy 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

cinderella stamps and fake bank notes
George needs to substantiate that his fake bank notes and coins even exist before he should be able to put pictures of same here. How can we believe these items are not just images he created on his computer? Why should we not call his stamps what they are, cinderella stamps? See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philatelic_fakes_and_forgeries#Cinderellas Harvardy 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Wik. Nice attempt at trolling. Maybe you should look at some of the references before making silly comments in future. Then maybe you'd have more time to contribute something worthwhile to Wikipedia. There's always a first time. --125.253.33.62 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at the references. What is wrong with making the wiki link to cinderalla stamps?  That is what they are, are they not? Since you don't have a central bank, it also seems fitting that your so-called bank notes whould be called what they are, fake.  What problem do you see with that? Where in the references is there evidence that your coins exist outside of a computer generated image? Harvardy 21:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Verification and terminology
Further to attempted trolling above by the hard-banned editor Wik aka Gzornenplatz (posting in direct contravention to various Arbcom rulings and rulings by Jimbo under the sock account Harvardy):

Atlantium stamps are classified as cinderellas. The 1980s philatelic magazine reference in the article identifies them specifically as such. Numerous other philatelic publications not referenced in the article do so as well. I’m happy to add further multiple references if anyone other than Wik/Harvardy thinks it necessary. I intend changing the article content to reflect the above.

Atlantium coins are verifiably real, per photographic/documentary evidence here, here, here,here, here, here, here and here; video evidence here, and multiple print references provided in the article, including the catalogue listings by Krause Publications (the world’s main coin catalogue producer), the article in Australasian  Coin & Banknote Magazine (the main numismatic periodical of record in Australia and New Zealand). Further evidence includes this sale on ebay by someone in China. Once again, I’m happy to add further reference links to other sites displaying photographic/video evidence if anyone other than Wik/Harvardy thinks it necessary.

Privately issued banknotes are a well know field of collecting interest. They are not known as “fakes” by numismatists; they are known as “banknotes”, or “notes” for short, irrespective of who produced them. The term “fake” is a generic term used to describe notes that are produced in imitation of existing circulating or non-circulating legal tender. Those produced with fraudulent intent are properly termed “counterfeit” in numismatic and legal parlance. The existence of Atlantium’s notes is independently verifiable by contacting the manufacturer clearly identified on the Atlantium website as Atlantic Bank Note Company of Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Further verification will be forthcoming in an article to be published in the December 2006 edition of Australasian Coin and Banknote Magazine. --Gene_poole 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad to see that you agreed to put the cinderella reference back into the piece. Is your empire a real empire? If not, it is fake.  If it is a fake empire its banknotes are also fake, or fictitious or phony, or fantasy.  Choose one of these words, if you don't like fake. When a person makes himself an emperor, that is an act of meglomania or self-aggrandizement, therefore, why should this "empire" not be categorized as such? Harvardy 05:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Wik. Or are you channeling Gzornenplatz today? You can't put "something back" that wasn't there before. You're obviously still as confused as ever. Never mind, you'll be blocked again soon. --Gene_poole 05:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right it was fantasy before not cinderella, but it was included in the link when scrolling down. Glad to see you accepted it.  So you don't see any problem with adding the meglomania category to this article, or using the terminology "phony" to describe your fantasy banknotes? If others brought up the same points, I'm not surprised. Harvardy 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

George, your web site says that you are a microstate but you won't let it be categorized here that way. Which is true? Harvardy 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable?
This Article is clearly non-notable garbage for many reasons, first the website of the movement says Atlantuim is not a micronation Atlantuim sounds more like a movement, Also there is no proof that it has its claimed 800+ citizens. Furthermore there is little photographic Information provided besides a picture of the 'Emperor.' This sounds more like a project someone created when they where extremely bored. Sloveniaiscool 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please not engage in Wikitrolling of this or any other article, or your account may be blocked. --Gene_poole 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the actual guidelines, namely WP:N, before you make such claims "it's not notable b/c I don't like it" or whatever. We want to stick to a certain definition for "notability" here. 74.38.33.15 01:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I clearly stated the reasons why I thought it was non-notable for one a lack of references. Your concern is appreciated.Sloveniaiscool 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling Sloveniaiscool. You've already been told to stop your unacceptable behaviour by several admins. The article has 14 references. If you want to add any more you should do so. --Gene_poole 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the References section, it's full of WP:CITEs. 70.101.147.224 04:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now is it seven admins? I would love too see your false Information. Get the facts straight. Sloveniaiscool 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand simple written English, you might be better served making a contribution to the version of Wikipedia in your native language. Hopefully you won't have the same problems with basic comprehension there as you seem to be having here. --Gene_poole 12:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually my native language is Slovene I also speak two other languages, why are you so rude, I probably speak three more languages than you. Also please see [wikipedia:civility], If you are to lazy to read that it says to refrain from using rude comments. Sloveniaiscool 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)