Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Citizens Alliance

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF VOTES BELOW
Because some very long pieces of text have been put into the discussion below, here is a summary of votes for ease of reference. Please update if adding further votes, and correct any errors.

NEW denotes a user with no edit history prior to 31 May (the date of this VfD listing).

Delete

 * Xcali (contribs)
 * Etacar11 (contribs)
 * Vircum (contribs)
 * CunningLinguist (contribs)
 * DenisMoskowitz (contribs)
 * postdlf (contribs)
 * fazdeconta (contribs)
 * Scimitar (contribs)
 * No Account (contribs)
 * Gamaliel (contribs)
 * FCYTravis (contribs)
 * SirGeneral (contribs)
 * RickK (contribs)
 * Carmeld1 (contribs)
 * -Ril- (contribs)
 * 80.229.160.150 (contribs)
 * 130.246.132.26 (contribs)
 * Columbia (contribs)
 * FrancisTyers (contribs)
 * Simoncursitor (contribs) (vote not explicit but comment implies delete)

Keep

 * nataliatoombs (NEW) (contribs)
 * Trishkincade (NEW) (contribs)
 * 24.197.245.133 (NEW) (contribs)
 * Mevelynkondrot (NEW) (contribs)
 * Chuck SMITH (contribs)
 * GregorU (NEW) (contribs)
 * 84.231.141.149 (NEW) (contribs)
 * cprompt (contribs)

DISCUSSION
Seems like this "alliance" consists of one guy in Wisconsin. 12 Google hits. Not notable. Xcali 22:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC) comment - I signed mine now, I didn't realize we were supposed to. I just got home from work and was told by my best friend that people were voting to say my job doesn't exist... Trishkincade comment signed mine now too Nataliatoombs 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment And I'm still not convinced this group (ok, more than one person, I'll give) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But that's just my opinion. --Etacar11 02:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)- update: I removed the links that Etacar11 posted from my email to her as they take up space and by themselves don't prove anything one way or another. If anyone wants then they can email me. Trishkincade comment Now I wanted to leave it alone, but I couldn't resist this one. Colubmia, you are saying that an interational organization working to improve worldwide civil rights, fight slavery, and many other things that affect peoples lives all over the world isn't "notable" but where Josh Turner went to College is? The priorities being displayed here are quite interesting. Trishkincade
 * Delete vanity (since it's just the one guy). --Etacar11 23:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete personal manifesto (though rather elaborate at that) michael 00:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * keep The UCA has been mentioned in the international Esperanto magazine Kontakto and is not just "one guy," it currently consists of over 200 citizens worldwide and represents the interests of many more through diplomatic agreements and relations. Nataliatoombs 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User created the page. This vote is User's 4th edit.  66.60.159.190 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable -CunningLinguist 00:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Not Notable? The UCA is small, but certainly deserves at least this much recognition. (I work at the UCA capitol so I do know what I'm talking about.) Trishkincade
 * User's first edit.
 * Keep The UCA is ensuring that they work steadily to build a system that will work well in the long term. (I work in the Allied Service division)
 * Above vote by . 66.60.159.190 20:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently no one who works there is willing to sign their votes. Looks like vanity to me. DenisMoskowitz 01:44, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 01:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment tkinc6971@oha.gov.uca.cc is now emailing us to try and convince us to change our votes. --Etacar11 02:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment you comment suggests you didn't actually read the email, a pity... Trishkincade
 * Note that this edit was made from . Also, as indicated, the editor deleted a large portion of Etacar11's comments.  very bad form.  66.60.159.190 20:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The UCA is in its infancy, but is growing and is worth being recognized. (Lt. J. Losinski - Office of Hegemon Security)
 * Above vote by . 66.60.159.190 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity Columbia 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Josh Turner is a well-known country music artist with 45,100 Google hits. United Citizens Alliance is a virtally unheard-of organization with 11 Google hits. I'll let our fellow Wikipedians be the judge. :-) Columbia 18:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Should the first issue be dealt with, I will consider changing my vote. --Scimitar 15:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No dis, but I'd only vote to keep if this were independently verified --Simon Cursitor 07:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and impossible to verify independently. --Fazdeconta 08:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, delete, for the following reasons:
 * UCA seems to have no independent verification (news reports, formal agreements with any national govt, etc.)
 * The terms 'polemarch' and 'hegemon' make this article slightly reminiscient of the Ender series by Orson Scott Card.
 * The UN was founded by national leaders, and there is no evidence that Dirk Wolf has the influence/experience/stature to ever make the UCA a recognized international entity that people are widely familiar with.
 * comment As was mentioned above, the UCA was featured in the international Esperanto magazine Kontakto, and I'm going to see about putting up links to any other mentions of it in the media once I get off work. Trishkincade
 * Well, I sort of meant something like CNN, BBC, CBC, or the like. I would advise you to move the content to your user page, as it is unlikely to survive VfD without those links. --Scimitar 21:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * delete because it is vanity Yuckfoo 16:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The UCA is a new but fairly established group. Considering that there is plenty of content here that is about relatively trivial matters, I would think that something as important as the UCA, which has offices in a number of countries, should be included. Mevelynkondrot 17:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that as of now, this is Mevelynkondrot's only edit. Columbia 18:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, vanity. No Account
 * Keep From what I understand the UCA should soon have a corporate headquarters building and this in itself qualifies it to have an article in Wikipedia. --Chuck SMITH 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Chuck Smith has declared a strong pro-Esperanto POV. UCA (such as it is) endorses Esperanto, and one of their very few Google hits is from Chuck's blog profile.  This is not a criticism but it's fair to point out the possible link with the above vote.
 * Keep Actually Chuck, they have one in Wisconsin, and another in Finland, they're just in the process of setting up in a much larger building now. I've seen these guys in action, they're worth an entry if anything is.GregorU 21:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * User's second edit.


 * Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 21:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - sock puppets and non-notable non-micronation. --FCYTravis 21:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Note - If you mean what I think you do by "sock puppet activity" it should be noted that Natalia lives with me and shares my computer, and mevelynkondrot made her post from my computer as well. (Also Gregor is a friend of mine and after he made his post I logged in here at his place to update mine)  Hope that clears up that issue. Trishkincade
 * I think the correct term is "meat-puppet", check the bottom of WP:SOCK --Etacar11 22:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Note - blush Having read the definition of "meat-puppet" yes I have to say, embarrasedly, that that term does fit. I was under the impression that voting was open to all, and would logically include the opinions of people educated regarding the issue at hand.  (Especially since most of you seem to honestly think the UCA is some kind of hoax...)Trishkincade
 * Delete - I think without good independent verification the article doesn't stand. I also think it's lacking past information... there's a lot about how things will work and things that will be done, but very little, if any, about how things have worked and things that have been done.  If the article can provide that information, independently verified, then it's a viable article.  SirGeneral 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - the Organization is only about three years old, but if you look at the section written about "sucesses" there is mention of what has been accomplished so far.Trishkincade
 * Delete. Non-notable agency with a single-page website with no links from it, and few independent Google hits.  RickK 22:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete With all due respect, the elaborate nature of the article convinces me only that this is a probable elaborate hoax or at best an organization that exists largely in the mind of one or several people. carmeld1 23:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if UCA is not a particularly large organization at the moment, it is clear it will expand. There is much work to do, but if anyone has really taken a careful look at our current and/or previous websites he must have noticed that we are developing and moving further all the time, little by little. It would be but waste of time to remove UCA from Wikipedia, since it will anyway sooner or later get more than those few Google hits and anything else ridiculous that seems to make some people suspicious. We are growing and developing all the time. If you take a serious look at what UCA is all about and what it has accomplished so far, you will see this is far from hoax of any kind.

- Checkpoint Sigma Commander Lieutenant Lauri Koivisto -
 * Yet another voice of support from someone personally connected to UCA. In my opinion, all the keep votes here are biased and self-serving. --Etacar11 18:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And that "keep" vote is the user's only edit (contributions) -- another meat-puppet. 80.229.160.150


 * Delete     16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly a lot of verbiage out there that still fails to establish that the UCA is anything other than a group of self-promoters. Can you point us to any articles in any mainstream press that was not written by members of the organization? RickK 22:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately no, at least none that I've been able to find. The Kontakto article was the result of one of our first press releases.  The organization isn't that old.  But the fact that there isn't more about it in general is actually proof that we aren't a bunch of self promoters, we've spent the past few years actually doing things, rather than talking about it.  Trishkincade 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What is it that you've actually done? RickK 04:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * The following for starters - See Successes of the UCA at the bottom

Why this entry should stay
It has been suggested to me that I should write a short essay outlining why I feel that despite the number of negative votes here, the UCA entry should remain on Wikipedia.

Let me first explain that I am new here, as is my roommate Natalia, so if we’ve breeched Wikipedia etiquette I apologize.

I think I should begin by addressing some the primary concerns being expressed here:


 * 1.The UCA has very little web presence on Google and other search engines
 * 2.The UCA has not been featured in very many media sources
 * 3.The UCA has only a couple hundred Citizens, only about half of which are employed directly by the various UCA agencies, and is therefore not big enough to be notable.

So, lets begin.

1. The UCA has very little web presence on Google and other Search Engines - This is very true, when you type in United Citizens Alliance almost nothing comes up about us. The reason for this is two-fold: a. The UCA has not been featured by a great deal in the media (which I’ll address in a moment), and b. Almost every website controlled by the UCA is under construction or offline at the moment.

I suppose that Natalia couldn’t have picked a worse time, with respect to our web presence, to post an article about us here. Until January the UCA had an extensive set of websites for several of our agencies; however, we recently were able to finally arrange permission to use .gov and .mil subdomains I our websites. (I’m not going to get into the long and miserable headache that was, but after several months of negotiations, deal making, and proving that we were who we say we are, we were finally granted the ability to use -.gov.uca.cc and .mil.uca.cc.) We’re in the process of applying for the domain uca.int so that we can use .gov.uca.int and .mil.uca.int subdomains, but that is probably year or two off, because of ICANNA’s strict regulations.

The point here is that the decision was made by Allied Web Services that since we are changing over to new servers and new URLs anyway, we might as well take a few months to completely reconstruct our entire web presence and switch over to systems that are easier to update and more cost effective. The result of this decision is that all of our websites spent about a month in complete non-existence, and only a few are back up in any capacity at all. The websites we have back up have not been up long enough to be found by Googles “webcrawlers” and although we have submitted the sites to about 18 search engines, they have yet to show up. Anyone who has dealt with web site building I’m sure knows how tricky it is dealing with search engines.

I expect that as more of out websites come back online, and Googles webcrawlers find the sites, or accept our submission of them, we’ll begin to have a great deal more “hits” on the search engine.

The real point here is that, of course, not having a large presence on google does not by itself mean much of anything, except that our websites are down and not many people are talking about us right now.

2.The UCA has not been featured in very many media sources – I would remind people that the UCA is officially about 3 years old; and during that time we’ve put our focus on doing rather than talking about it. I don’t know how many people here have worked in the world of public relations, but stories don’t just end up on the news. (At least not the stories that organizations would want about them. LOL)

Every major organization, and most minor ones have a Communications Director and a public relations staff. The PR people are there to issue press releases to media sources and oversee the organizations “image.”

The for the first 2 years of the UCA’s existence Hegemon Wolf had no interest in hiring a communications staff or issuing press releases of any kind. The organization, like many others, began with a charter and a group of dedicated people. At the time he didn’t feel we were organized enough look good in the eyes of the media, and elected to wait until we had more actual accomplishments “on our belt” before making a big issue of it to the press.

Last year, after a review of our progress since the initial charter was created, Hegemon Wolf authorized the OHA to begin interviewing people for positions on the Communications staff, and although we have not made any permanent appointments to the Communications department, we have people serving in interim capacity working to assemble a press corps and have begun issuing releases to select media outlets.

Several months later Kontakto magazine, an international magazine published in Esperanto, became the first media source to publish an article about us to a wide audience.

My real point here is that being well established does not necessarily mean that you will be well know to the media, and our communications department is far behind the rest of the UCA organizationally speaking. And of course the reason that the communications department is behind is because we’ve been a bit busy out in the world actually making a difference and helping people, not just issuing press releases about every insignificant thing that we say or do, as many organizations a lot more well known than us spend time doing.

I’ve added to the UCA entry’s “successes” section to better reflect the kinds of things we’ve accomplished so far. However I am pasting it here as well –

The UCA does not have a long list of accomplishments comparable to that of the United Nations as of yet, however in the short period of time since its creation it has gone from being a small handful of people in the west, to a successful international organization with Citizens in countries all over the world. Also, through diplomatic agreements and relations with unrepresented peoples, the UCA government now represents and works directly to the interests of almost 800,000 people worldwide.

The UCA Allied Service has also actively participated in humanitarian aid programs, disaster relief, and assisting law enforcement agencies in combating slavery.

Currently the Allied Services, in direct coordination with the Freedom Alliance Foundation, are raising money and training personnel to send to South East Asia to implement some of the UCA's long term disaster relief and aid programs, which include the building of a large "creche" to serve as a home for many of the displaced and orphaned children currently living under deplorable conditions in underfunded orphanages and refugee camps.

3. The UCA has only a couple hundred Citizens, only about half of which are employed directly by the various UCA agencies, and is therefore not big enough to be notable. – Now there is the real question, isn’t it.

Is the UCA big enough to be “notable?” No, if you have to be a large and well-known organization to be notable, then the UCA doesn’t fit the bill.

But I think that there is a more important concept to consider here. Should an encyclopedia be a just collection of material about things that everyone already knows a lot about; or should an encyclopedia also include material about subjects that are important on their own merits, and by that virtue are things that people SHOULD know about?

I think that a good case can be made that showcasing information about little-known subjects that are of informative and of value in their own respect.

Now that leads to the question does the UCA entry qualify as being of informative value in its own respect? I can’t objectively answer that. (I believe I can, but I know that as a UCA employee and proud citizen, I can’t be considered truly objective.)

So I have to let you all weigh the issue and decide for yourselves. If you still question the existence of the UCA, despite my explanations of your concerns above, there is not much I can do for you, except ask you which is really a more logical conclusion –

1. A small group of people, for unknown reasons, are perpetrating a hoax to get people to believe in an international organization that doesn’t exist. When they aren’t making any money off the scam, and in fact are spending large quantities of money on office spaces, buildings, equipment, training personnel, buying web domains, and publishing websites, printing IDs and other citizen documentation, etc… (What on earth would be the payoff of such a hoax?  It’s not even for publicity because until a year ago we weren’t actively seeking publicity, and even now we aren’t seeking a great deal of it.)

2. The UCA is a legitimate organization that is doing exactly what it says its doing, and you’ve just not heard of it before now.

For that matter, what makes an organization “real?” Is an organization that has numerous offices, employees, etc real? Does an organization that actively implements humanitarian aid programs, some of which in joint ventures with national government agencies, really exist “only in the minds of one or several people.”

I suppose you will have to decide that, since it is now my understanding that only people considered “established Wikipedians” will have their votes considered here, which precludes me from urging people who know more about the UCA, that while they may not be active contributers to Wikipedia use it on a regular basis, to come and vote here to keep the entry from being deleted. Trishkincade


 * The best way you can convince people is evidence. The only evidence we have that this organization even exists is your webpages and this article written by people from that organization.  Show us something from an independent source.  No news articles?  Fine, show us reports or press releases from all those organizations you are working with.  Show us anything that wasn't produced by the UCA itself.  Simply asserting that this organization exists is not enough.  Gamaliel 16:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this - The Freedom Alliance Foundation EIN is 20-2899971, in the eyes of the United States IRS the Freedom Alliance Foundation, through which most employees of the UCA are paid in the United States, is a legitimate employer organization with its 501c3 non-profit status application pending. As is explained in the article, The Freedom Alliance Foundation is the non-profit organization that the UCA works through.Trishkincade


 * The last "news" entry on that site was posted six months ago. --FCYTravis 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The website is under construction and looking for a new webmaster, as is noted on the site.Trishkincade


 * I certainly think you have some compelling arguments, but I have to agree with Gamaliel above... we need evidence. And I believe at the moment this is severly lacking.  Consider from Wikipedia's guidelines on article verification under Obscure Topics (which I believe this, if legitimate, would fall under): If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles.  You'll notice it states that articles can, and are, excluded because they can not be verified.  Providing an EIN from the FAF is nice, but there's precious little information about the FAF itself and that being the case I would hardly consider it a reasonable resource to use for the verification of this article's content.  Not to mention the difficulties in using it to verify the existance of the UCA.  I hardly believe if I go to the FAF and demand payroll information related to the UCA I'm going to receive it.  I notice your reference to Kontakto (which seems legitimate as far as I can tell, anyone else know anything about it?)... but once again I see it is lacking some vital information.  If this magazine published an article about you, then surely you can provide us with the article's title, page numbers, the month or volume, the author of the article, etc.  Provided with this information, your argument becomes significantly better.  Now those of us screaming unverifiable will have something solid we can search for and conceivably find.  Please let us know when that information is available.  Until some verifiable, solid information is available I don't think the article meets the requirements necessary to keep it.  SirGeneral 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The title of the article was "The UCA, Chainging the face of tomorrow..." I'll post the issue and page number info as soon as I can get it. [mailto:kontakto@tejo.org Zhenya Zvyeryeva], the magazine's editor, could probably be contacted to confirm the existence of the article as well.   (My copy hasn't arrived yet, but I emailed someone who has one.)  As for the Freedom Alliance Foundation's payroll information, no they won't give out personal information about specific employees, however they are authorized to confirm that they are run by the OHA and that they work in tandem with the UCA Allied Service.  (You can email them at info@freedom-alliance-foundation.org) Trishkincade


 * Note - It appears they changed the name of the article. Trishkincade 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I contacted the editor of the magazine and hope to receive a reply soon. --Chuck SMITH 13:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just talked with a friend at HQ at the World Esperanto Youth Organization and he told me that the ISSN for Kontakto is 0023-3692 and the article (Title: Alternativa UN? Jes! [Alternative UN? Yes!]) can be found on page 12. General details about Kontakto can be found on page 19.  Also, Kontakto is financially supported by the Council of Europe.  Especially for Wikipedia, these pages have been scanned and can be accessed from http://co.uea.org/~tejo/chuck/  --Chuck SMITH 15:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't read Esperanto, so I don't know what the article says. But to me, it still doesn't pass the bar of notability.  And since Trish and Chuck's names are both on that page, the whole thing seems like self-promotion and vanity.  I stick to my delete vote. --Etacar11 15:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I found out about UCA since I'm a representative of the Universal Esperanto Association at the UN. My name at the bottom shows that I translated the article into Esperanto.  --Chuck SMITH 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It actually seems to say that Chuck Smith acted as agent, and that the translation from the English was by somebody called Joel Amis. Anyway, regardless of Chuck Smith's exact personal involvement, this article is a manifesto written by Trish Kincade.   And it is published by the Esperanto movement (who also provided the translation); they are clearly an interested party because of Trish Kincade's promise that the main language will be Esperanto (stated in the last sentence of the red introductory bit).  To pass the test of noteworthiness, there should be some mention of them which is written and published by disinterested third parties.  Delete.  80.229.160.150


 * I'd say vote for delete, I like the idea, but it obviously isn't ready for such a long article. If the article was a stub mentioning the intensions, then maybe I'd vote to keep. PS. The first external link points to a rather nasty flash based website, makes me :'( - FrancisTyers 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of significatly shortening the article. Perhaps that is an adequate compromise to keep at least some vestige of the article here, rather than deleting it completely?  Trishkincade


 * But at this stage it's still a vanity article, regardless of its length. Delete now.  If later UCA ever gets to the stage where enough other third parties are reporting on it in other media that it warrants an article here (and by third parties, I mean people without an obvious vested interest), then it can be listed on WP:VFU.  If meanwhile you want to preserve the content, then you can do so under your user-page.  130.246.132.26


 * Keep. If it was just one guy in Wisconsin, maybe that would make it a vanity article. But it would only be a vanity article until it expands. This organization seems to have several members, and it got mentioned in print (albeit in a publication that perhaps isn't very popular among English-speaking Wikipedians.) What's the harm? --cprompt 22:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * But its mention in print was a manifesto by Trish Kincade herself. All that happened was that because they said they'd use Esperanto, Kontakto translated and published this manifesto for her.  It isn't exactly as if an independent journalist wrote an article on them.  I used to be in the Esperanto movement myself, so I know from experience how the Esperanto media will make a big deal of any expression of support for the language, no matter from how inconsequential a source, and this one seems to be no exception.  The only people voting Keep here seem to be either the few people directly associated with the organisation (Trishkincade et al) or Esperantists (Chuck Smith, Cprompt). 80.229.160.150


 * You give two reasons why you don't think the article is vanity: (a) they seem to have several members, and (b) they were mentioned in print. Your point (b) has been dealt with by the above reply.  Regarding (a), I think you are applying an unreasonably low threshold.  If I were to create an article about a certain playground game I invented and played with a bunch of friends back at school, it would rightfully get deleted as vanity, but probably that game was known to more people than this organisation is.  No, they would need to expand further before it were to stop being a vanity article, and who knows whether that will happen?.  I still think delete. 130.246.132.26


 * Manifesto is usually defined as a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature. In context it is usually used to denote something that referrs to what an organization or group plans to do, rather than what they have done or are currently in the process of doing.  There is an important difference there.  The article in Kontakto was submitted to them at thier request and consisted of a press release outlining the history of the organization, what it has accomplished so far, and what projects it is currently involved in.


 * If I wrongly used the word manifesto, my intended point was nonetheless that it was something that you wrote yourself. That point still stands.  Whatever you say about the achievements, you haven't shown evidence of anyone showing any interest in the UCA other than those with a clear vested interest (i.e. the members, and those looking for promotion of Esperanto). 80.229.160.150

I'd like to refer you again to the following:

Successes of the UCA
...in the short period of time since its creation it has gone from being a small handful of people in the west, to a successful international organization with Citizens in countries all over the world. '(We also have offices and/or Diplomatic representatives in 7 countries so far {USA, Belize, Australia, Japan, UK, Finland, Canada) Also, through diplomatic agreements and relations with unrepresented peoples (ie peoples and nations not directly represented by the United Nations), the UCA government now represents and works directly to the interests of almost 800,000 people worldwide.


 * Are you affiliated with the UNPO? - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not at this time, however we do have diplomatic relations with Hawai'i (as well as mutual DeJure recognition, working towards mutural DeFacto recognition) and are in the in the middle of establishing diplimatic relations with 9 other nations who are members of the UNPO. Trishkincade


 * Do you have any press releases of conferences/meetings/events/communications you've had with these countries. Or a press release for when you established relations with Hawaii? - FrancisTyers 14:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No, as I have mentioned before we had not made a habit of issuing press releases until we were asked to do so for Kontakto magazine. The Hegemony is not planning on issuing a press release regarding our diplomatic relations until the formal treaty for the UNOP Commission is signed, and the OHA Communications department is fully staffed, including a new press secretary.  (Speaking of which, the OHA is accepting Press Secretary applications, if anyone is interested LOL)Trishkincade

The UCA Allied Service has also actively participated in humanitarian aid programs, disaster relief, and assisting law enforcement agencies in combating slavery. (exp: In 2003 the Allied Service participated in a joint endeavour with a county sheriffs department in Wisconsin to conduct a raid on a building where people were being held in captivity for labor (ie slavery). The refugees where handled by the OHA and FAF, who found them housing and employment.)


 * Was this covered in local news? Where was this building etc. - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No this was not covered in the local news. The women who were rescued did not want any publicity to further disrupt thier lives, and so a press release was never issued. (At the time we weren't really that prepared to deal with the kind of publicity that would have been generated by a press release on the incident anyway.) Trishkincade

Currently the Allied Services, in direct coordination with the Freedom Alliance Foundation, are raising money and training personnel to send to South East Asia to implement some of the UCA's long term disaster relief and aid programs, which include the building of a large "creche" to serve as a home for many of the displaced and orphaned children currently living under deplorable conditions in underfunded orphanages and refugee camps.

'Considering the above, I can only assume that you either missed that section of the Wikipedia article, or believe that it was made up. If you believe it is a lie, then nothing I say to the contrary is really going to fix that. Except what on earth would be our motivation for making that up?' Trishkincade


 * If it isn't a lie, surely there would be sources on the internet? The thing that might convince people is sources. How about pictures of your offices maybe? Write some press releases, get some media coverage. Hell, even something on slashdot or kuro5hin (lol) would be something. - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take my digital camera and take pictures of the buildings we have in Stevens Point; and post a link to them later tonight.


 * Cool :) - FrancisTyers 14:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took these during my lunch break, before the storm hit. :)  This is the FAF Office Exterior, its a cute little building with several offices in it.  One of which is the administration office for the Freedom Alliance Foundation.  The inside looks like this.   The following pics are of the UCA Interim Capitol building.  Here is the Main Door where we go in and check in with security, you can see the hallway and security desk here.  My office is actually downstairs, however this is as far as they let cameras in the building. We also have a few other buildings on the premisis, this] is one of them.  It has a few Allied Service offices in it.  We're still in the process of moving all of our area offices into the building, so the interim capitol isn't fully staffed.  Once it is, between ITRD Commission projects using most of the building for research and development, and the UCA political offices, the building will be staffed with over 300 people.  Trishkincade


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.