Talk:Ebenthal

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Jump to: navigation, search

You need evidence for your images

@Grand Duke Arthur: Hello, I am Cookieman1.1.1 I have noticed you keep removing my dubious tag that i place without you actually changing anything. I keep placing it because you have no proof for any of you images which makes your micronations legitimacy question able by myself and others. I have already let the admins know about the situation of you removing tags and unless you cite your sources for the images in question or have good enough proof then you may possible be given an edit warning from the Microwiki:Admins. I am not trying to come off as harsh but just like any wiki, you need proof. Good day. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I won't change anything, because there's no need to do it, and tags shall not be added until further discussion, as I also let admins aware of the situation. There's no actual way to prove the legitimacy of images. And actually most of the images in the article speak openly and clearly that they are illustrations, I can even point out which ones.
  • The Castle of Ebenthal photo; says the country was named after the homonimous castle in Austria.
  • The Conference Room at the Quintadinha Palace photo; it says it is a room in a public space, the Quitadinha Palace, which was designated by the Conference of Santiago to be used as place for the first physical meeting in the future.
  • The Geography sections photos; are photos of the Mantiqueira Mountain Range on which there are the cities of Juiz de Fora and Itatiaia, in Brazil, on which Ebenthal hold enclaves.
  • The Kings Palace photo; it is the house my father bought.
  • The Tribune of Truth Court Room; says it is at the UNESA, short for University Estácio de Sá, the university I attend, and that room in specific is of free use by the students, and thus by me and friends to use as court room.
  • The Military section photo; it says it is a illustration by the CAMPSEG security company which provides services at my family's farms and which we unilaterally recognized as an army's militia.
  • The Economy section photo; a landscape photo of Rio de Janeiro where most Ebenthali do business, as it is said there.
  • The Education section photo; a photo of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, which most Ebenthalis attend.
  • The Healthcare section photo; a photo of the CopaStar Hospital, which most Ebenthalis attend.
  • The Race section photo; a family photo, I'm actually on it.

Etc, etc, etc, I could spent all day here. Now, how do I prove to you the photos are legitimate? Do I have to show you the contract between by great-aunt and the CAMPSEG company? A photo of the Conference of Santiago members at the Quitandinha's court room? The medical bills of my family and some friends from the CopaStar Hospital? My bachelor degree at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro? My father's certificate of ownership of our house? The University Estácio de Sá formal permission to use their space and infrastructure? What? This is Micropedia, not Wikipedia, if you keep going on your hunt for articles claiming they lack sources, you'll have to add tags to 99% of them, much less sources on images. How does the landscape photos on the Free Socialist State of Paloma can be proven, for example? Furthermore, stop adding tags when you doubt things and with no talk, I'm sure you have been warned of this by administratio already. If things were this way, I doubt photos which legitimacy cannot be proved as well, shall I add dubious tags as well? Shall I add the dubious tag to articles citing not even one single source? I'm taking down the tag again and if you wanna take this to adminship, so be it, let them decide things here. One single person cannot simply doubt something and add tags to whatever article on this wiki. Arthur Brum (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Grand Duke Arthur and Niko3818: So photos i have taken myself of landscape aren't good enough? Well I can assure you all photos of Paloma are legitimate and where either taken by me or a photo of the location was taken from a public domain. For example the photos of Salvadora are uploaded aswell on wikicommons on my wikipedia account as they are used for the Ecorse River page (the photos i took for that was of the South Branch aka Sexton and Kilfoil Drain.) which can be seen here from my gallery here. Also the metadata shows that it the photos were taken from a Samsung Galaxy a10e. Other photos like the wood bridge can be found at Heritage Park in Taylor, Michigan and the Photo at that bottom at a level crossing can be found on Google maps as it is on Holland Road which is also in Taylor, Michigan. There is a difference from taking photos that are own work or public domain then what you are doing. There is a big difference from Paloma and this article. Paloma isn't claiming anything that is questionable, you are. Even if you do have security you need sources for that as you clearly didn't take it. Why don't you think own work pictures on Wikipedia or Microwiki don't need references? So since you have removed the tag, once again after the Admins told me to warn you the admins will take this from here. Happy editing --Cookieman1.1.1
Edit: So after looking into some of the photos I am now 100% sure they are faked. Looking at the Court image its claimed that it is in Brazil which isn't fishy until you look at the photograph. In the top right corner you can see an Exit sign which i noticed was in English. After some research into Brazil and its safety code they don't use the Exit sign like that. Brazil uses the European style running man or one that says Exit in Portuguese. A Exit sign like that is only used in the United States and Canada and some exemptions at international airports. Therefor I have all the evidence I need that your photos are not legit. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, then where are the source on Paloma's photos or actually the entire article? You can assure me as I can assure you those photos on Ebenthal's article are legitimate. All photos on Ebenthal's post which weren't taken by me were taken from public domain as well. The photos in geogrpahy can be found at wikimedia commons, the Lovecraft book photo, I own that book, the Castle of Ebenthal photo, wikimedia commons, the photo of the Conference Room, I took that photo, the CAMPSEG photo, Portuguese Wikipedia. So, where's the difference? We're doing literally exactly the same thing, and actually my article at least cite sources. And now you are basing yout argument on "I think" by saying that I clearly didn't took any photos. Really? Btw, thank you for letting me know how Brazil works, and all are the same, indeed. Not to mention your modus operandi "I doubt this image, so all is dubious". You have any ideias how tags work? I'm also gonna say something I've read here recently: you do not own this wiki, you're not a moderator, an administrator, nothing. Got tag Paloma dubious, please, as the article is entirely unsourced and leave me alone. And pleace, for the last time, stop adding the tag here because you doubt something. This is literally not up to you. Arthur Brum (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Btw, look at the effort you do to prove a point. There's a problem with the one image, the one of court room? I can take it down, if it bothers you so much. All for you to let me have some peace. Indeed, the admins are involved, and it is up to them to add or remove tags, not to you. Also, this isn't a one-man-job, like "I doubt so it's dubious". I won't do this because I understand how things work, but based on your claim, should I add a dubious tag to Paloma as the article doesn't cite any source, the photos doesn't cite any source? Unsourced articles are questionable by me and by others, actually by the MicroWiki itself. I won't do this, obviously, but by yout thinking and way of action, I could. Arthur Brum (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Grand Duke Arthur and Niko3818: Decourm. At this point my article isn't the concern, its Ebenthal's. You remove one image but the rest still need to be looked at. You don't need to be an admin or a moderator to place tags. You taking down the tags without giving proof or removing the photos is just causing more problems. We do this so we don't have "hoax" nations like Andany for example. If something is too good to be true it mostly is, especially after i just debunked one of your photos. Stop removing the tag as the devil is in the details. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cookieman1.1.1 and Z. Luna Skye: My corcern is: is argument is flawed when you do not provie sources yourself for Paloma's article (and not just the photos) and is obssessively concerned with Ebenthal's article. So can I add dubious tag to Paloma for being completelly unsourceful? Shall I do this to every other single article at this wiki which does not provide sources merely for photos (there won't be a single wiki article, I'm afraid)? And again, how shall I prove most of these photos, showing you documments? For God's sake, be reasonable! Your claims are absolutelly vague and I could argue the same on Paloma, for example. That is my point. And if you wanna go on a witchunting on articles with photos not providing source, go ahead and start with your own, but I'm afraid this will be useless and you'll gonna mess with this entire wiki. Arthur Brum (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Grand Duke Arthur: You literally had false information on here, there is a big difference between having information that isn't sourced (unless it has metadata) and something that is completely faked. Own that stuff. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The faked "Court room of the Tribune of Truth (at the UNESA)" which that image wasn't it but a random photo of an American or Canadian one from online.
The faked image was replaced with this one stating "Pedro II College conference room, designated as one of the three usable rooms by the Tribune of Truth, along with the UNESA court room and the UFRJ Noble Saloon." now claiming it has more then one Tribune room which could be true but why have the fake photo before this makes this claim even harder to believe now.
@MissEDconexion: look into this --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing dubious tag

Seeing as there are no further developments on this topic, I removed the dubious tag, as it seems that the explanations given are sufficient. --Luxor (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)