Talk:Most Serene Republic of Sequeria

Claim and Aidain Vandalising by adding it

The claim that Paloma has a longer claim is distinctly false. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 21:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Summi Imperatoris: We have provided sources to both the wiki and the Admin team. What you are doing is libel and not in anyway proper wiki etiquette. --aidan does not speak melayu (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

And you seemingly did it behind doors where there is no actual sources for you, I can in fact prove that our claim predates yours, you are distinctly lying on this information and then using the fact that the MicroWiki administration team already has distaste for me and that you know they will not intervene whenever you do vandalism. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 05:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no favoritism in play, all I wanted to do was to stop an edit war. The point of taking it to the talk page is to come up with wording that both sides agree on — you are free to use the words "allegedly", "claims" and other vague words indicating it is not the official Cycoldian position, but since we are an encyclopedia (or rather a repository of linked information, not a personal website), it should be included; after all, it is on the "other" article already. You are free to move the section to a less prominent place on the article once it is expanded, there is no requirement for it to be in the lead section. --Luxor (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The use of the terms which Aidan has repeatedly edited back onto it and the removal of the reference I added with his claim that it was fabricated is showing that it is under what instead he believes to return it to that. As well none of this is a Cycoldian position as Cycoldia has no statements on this, it is a solely Sequerian position. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Summi Imperatoris:@Luxor: Your timestamps on your documents says otherwise. According to that our claim predates yours. So do not claim that I am lying when its clear who is really doing that. (Timestamps can be viewed in PDF properties) --aidan does not speak melayu (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from the actual source listed from Cycoldia displays in the time stamp that it was not in fact made in 2021 but rather a whole month after Palomas documentation to a claim.

The document as I have said before is legitimate from the date it reports, the thing is that I downloaded it at the time which your piece shows, your claim that it is a false document is entirely unfounded and only based on you thinking I am a liar. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That isn't how PDF's work. --aidan does not speak melayu (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

But you see, it is, I have checked with several people about this. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

As well if you wish to add your own reference saying that the claim is disputed by the Paloman government then that would reflect the claim made, but removing the reference and that entirely is wholly unencyclopedic. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 03:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Rewording the entire section

It is not my business to establish what the objective truth is in this case (and I personally have no desire to), therefore I propose we reword the paragraph entirely. Would simply stating that both sides claim that their claim predates the other's be acceptable? It seems like the most neutral way of addressing the issue while also stating the objective truth that neither side agrees with the other's statement. Luxor (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally I think that the entire section including the claim should be removed since there is no other content on the article, which then means that this is instead introduced as central and not a foreign nation's claim in a diplomatic event with another micronation, that being seemingly Cycoldia from what Aidain puts it. I think a separate section should be added for this claim under a foreign diplomacy section in the future but that in the article's small and non detailed state that a focus on a dispute with another micronation isn't really relevant to it at the article's current status. Of course I am in favour of doing what you have proposed here when the article is expanded, I've simply been very busy recently with schooling and such. 𝙷𝙸𝙼 𝙲𝚑𝚛𝚒𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚗𝚊 𝙸 𝚘𝚏 𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚘𝚕𝚍𝚒𝚊 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It is completely relevant to the discussion of the article. Just because the article has been left empty for the majority of its existence isn't our problem, its simply something you need to expand on. I've made Tekukor Island article that is about the dispute all together and hopefully that will prevent any further issues. Once the Sequerian article is expanded (if it even does) then the reference of a dispute can be moved somewhere else in the article but until then it is completely fine as is. Removing any information that is informative counters any idea of a encyclopedia. --aidan does not speak melayu (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022

(UTC) Edit: My name is Aidan btw, not Aidain. --aidan does not speak melayu (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)