Talk:Montediszamble Convention

19 October

The current wording of the article was eventually agreed after lengthy and heated debate a year ago, some of which can be seen here, but much of which took place over Facebook and Discord. Former revisions of the article contained "IRL" names (in breach of our pseudonyms and privacy policies) and links to articles containing the same. No meaningful revision to the text as it now stands should take place without consensus being reached on the talk page. Austenasia (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the well sourced criticism section was absolutely uncalled for, and removes a large amount of context and the notable debate regarding the convention. What remains is a sanitised advertisement piece that serves as a one-sided advertisement page. The text from the now-deleted revisions from the previous day should be reinstated to maintain the integrity of this page as an encyclopaediac piece. Sertor (Chat) 23:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The introduction is fairly one-sided... as a user unfamiliar with the controversy a more balanced explanation could be useful. Anything to avoid an editing back and forth though. Nathan (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It is far from balanced. In its current form, the article presents a heavily distorted version of events, with other views relegated to footnotes: something that has never happened on any other article, due to what seems to be a private agreement between an administrator and another user over Facebook, which went against the consensus established in Archive 1 (it should be noted that 2 administrator noted that there was no communication to the team on the matter, which is disconcerting).
It is with hope that the text from the erased revisions can be recovered, and used to repair the article— with one of link to the denunciation document relating to the Augusta Accord removed, to have the page fully abide by MW:Pseudonyms. Sertor (Chat) 01:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

the above links to mediawiki for some reason, so here's the microwiki policy johann kümmel (talk page) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing to "repair" about the article, it reflects the consensus reached in 2020 and is written in the same style as other articles about intermicronational treaties, such as the Denton Protocol or the Augusta Accord: I don't see any mention of criticism there either, nor you claiming that the articles are "advertisement pieces", even though these two treaties garnered significantly more opposition and significantly fewer support. Your claim that the convention is related to some MicroWiki events that you want to insert in the article is just that, your subjective opinion: there's no mention of them in the convention's text, and the majority of the original signatories are not even active on MicroWiki. A footnote summarizing the "criticism" is more than sufficient, given the ratio of support-opposition, and again, other, far more controversial intermicronational treaties, don't have even that.

tl;dr the issue was settled a year ago and I trust that we all have better things to do than resurrecting old grudges. Yaroslav (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It was pretty hard to reach the status the current article presents and the inclusion of the latest changes brings nothing to debate or to encyclopaediac excellence of the MicroWiki. Much of the criticism already present was ad hominem, and seems that still the problem. Ruthenia (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2021

I don't believe the argument of "Oh its not there so it shouldn't be here" is valid. There are many pages on this wiki that have next to nothing in it, but deleting sections from other pages because of that isn't something we do.

If there is a well structured section that includes sources (Which also is hardly required in other arguments, if we want to go for that) regarding criticisms of the document and its origins or intentions behind creating it, it should be added. There is a footnote completely defending the article which is longer that the sentence mentioning the criticism itself. The criticism, should it not break site rules, should absolutely be included, and I encourage people to add criticism sections to other articles instead of using the lack of as an excuse to exclude meaningful background and context to a topic. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 15:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup tags

For some reason, Biased and the Outdated templates were removed by User:Yaroslav, who alleges it to be an attempt to initiate an 'edit war'. The cleanups tags were minor additions to the page as permitted, and correctly reflected the state of the page. A number of signatories on the page such as Desert District and Australis had rescinded their signatures months ago, and several other signatories remain absent– thus leaving the page indeed outdated. The biased tag was also correct, as there have been nearly three large discussions now, regarding the pages one-sides nature. Especially given the nature of this page, these should only have been removed by an administrator rather than a user who has a long history of edit warring over this page. I believe the page protection should be lifted to permit minor changes as noted– with regards to the page content being heavily outdated (alongside broken wikitext which leaves items such as the infobox not displaying properly), and the remaining tag to correctly reflect the discussion on the talk page. Sertor (Chat) 01:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Given there's reason to believe that the article is outdated - with, for example, the withdrawal of signatories - I've restored the Outdated tag and invite Yaroslav to provide the relevant information to update the page. However, regarding the alleged bias, again, the article as it stands reflects the text as finally agreed after a vicious and protracted set of arguments that everybody wants to be left in the past. I believe the criticism mentioned in the introduction and expounded upon in the footnotes is sufficient to alert the reader to the fact that a few micronationalists didn't receive the idea of the convention positively, and give a summary of why that was. There's no need to go into long, detailed paragraphs, especially given how - as others have pointed out - said detail consists of criticism of Yaroslav and Dionisiy themselves, not the actual convention. The only criticism immediately relevant to the Convention itself is the accusation that it was written in bad faith: that's noted, along with a defence from Yaroslav and a further response from Soergel. I don't think anything more is really required. Austenasia (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded an up-to-date list of subsequent signatories to my sandbox, as soon as there are some changes to it they will be reflected there. Regarding Australis and Desert District: on second thought, I concluded that removing signatories just because someone else said they withdrew would be unwise (with all respect to Sertor). If it's true that Australis and Desert District withdrew from the convention, I ask Daniel and Jamez to send a message to my email (which they both have) or leave it on my talkpage to confirm it. As soon as this confirmation is obtained I'll update the list of signatories. Yaroslav (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither Desert District nor Australis ever notified me about withdrawing signatories, but I trust your word on that. You're correct though that several signatories are missing, so I guess the Outdated tag makes sense. I'll make an updated list of signatories with dates and send it to Jonathan so he could add it to the article.

P.S. In the future, for all matters regarding the convention please contact me by email or Facebook, or at least on my talkpage. I uninstalled Discord a year ago, so if someone sent me a message there I didn't see it. Yaroslav (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Former Signatories

Good afternoon, the Misberian Confederacy was dissolved as of March 15th 2021, because of this, should there be a former signatory section due to Misberia no longer existing as its own nation? We did request our signature being removed back in December of 2020, either way the nation no longer exists. Sir Archie Birch 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I never received your notice of withdrawal, otherwise I would have of course updated the list of signatories immediately. I'll remove Misberia from the signatories on the website. With regards to the former signatories section, I can just honestly say that I don't have the resources to track all 40 signatories (and growing), whether they are still active or not. Yaroslav (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, was just confused as to no communication back on it, hope all is well for you these days Sir Archie Birch 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine, it's just that I uninstalled Discord in December 2020 (I assume that's where you messaged me on). If you need to contact me, please contact me by email or leave a message on my talkpage - thanks. Yaroslav (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, the Grand Duchy of Australis has also since dissolved. GamerCymreig (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Montediszamble Act

I feel as if a section should be included highlighting the CA's recently passed Montediszamble Act, considering the fact that it's a fairly significant move for a highly influential organisation in the community to bars signatories from holding membership. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 15:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Highly influential organization?" That's a weird way to spell out YAMO. Yaroslav (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

No, as a weird way of spelling YAMO would be "Antarctic Micronational Union". .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 16:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Must be considering how many Pavlonian's funneled in after the ratification of the act. Its an important thing to add, and no prejoratives towards the CA would change that. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 15:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

RIP BOZO  – Mr. Liam Alexander  • (Talk with me!) • (contribs) 03:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of one's thoughts on the Convention or CA, overloading the article with critical information would just re-ignite the edit war and negativity (as can be seen in the replies in this section) which occurred when this page started. Criticism is mentioned in the main section of the page. Also I agree with Yaroslav, I don't see what it notable about including the CA's law or whatever on this. We cannot add every condemnation or anti-MonCon law. --ProkhorZakharov (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't overloading a page at all; adding 1-2 sentences about an act isn't exactly going to inflict a sensory overload on the reader. .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 21:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't include every condemnation, the page includes none. This page doesn't deserve to be a safe space for the Convention and its doing a disservice to the nature of the wiki for it not to be included. Conversly, any positive large scale approvals of it should also be included, if the GUM ran a drive to sign the convention that most certainly should be added as well, but this should not be snubbed based on any preconveived notions of importnance or because its negative. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 22:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The article's current state is more than appropriate in providing a fair assessment of the different perspectives on it. I fail to see the need for changing the article. MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how? 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 02:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aenopia: If it is of interest, with regards to large swathes of missing/removed information relevant to the articles subject matter, I have been working (and procrastinating) on a (largely unfinished) sandbox page where I am drafting a major rewrite of the article to fix many of its longstanding issues. If this is relevant to you, check out User:Sertor Valentinus/Sandbox6. Sertor (Chat) 03:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have indeed noticed the page before, and would be willing to work on it if it's fine by you? .. Logan >w<  • .Terry Tibbs talk to me . 16:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Such an article would only cause an edit war before the page is protected like it is now but would become a propaganda article for its critics. We have seen how much of a joke other "criticism" pages, such as Criticism of the GUM, have become. Also, it is ironic all the CA sycophants are only ones screaming for the article to be changed. I'm sure you would be crying about any criticism written on the article of your beloved YAMO. --ProkhorZakharov (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please feel free to add a criticism section, unlike Yaroslav groupies I believe the wiki should be used as a wiki, not to set up safe spaces for grown men who can't stand a critism section on a convention he wrote. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Melite Changed

Can the flag of Melite be updated to , pls?
Thanks, very much.
Mtonna257, President of Melite 08:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

@Mtonna257: Done!! - Oritsu.me  • Let's talk here  • Contribs

Change of Melite name

This should be the last time, could the name of Melite be altered from Republic to Federation?
I.E. Before: Democratic Christian Republic of Melite
After: Democratic Christian Federation of Melite

Thanks! Mtonna257, President of Melite and Fgura 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. Oritsu.me (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)