Talk:Zepranan-Pearlocha Crisis
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the "Zepranan-Pearlocha Crisis" article. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
Existence of the page
Does this page even warrant existing? This is a thinly veiled attempt at clout-chasing by mentioning major micronations. - UOMS 8:35 UTC idk
Who decided this is a real conflict?
As stated by others, does this article even need to exist? What community consensus occurred to declare this an actual, ongoing conflict? So far it's nothing but a cheap attention grab with Terry going after anyone who has called him out for larping, poor leadership, and general idiocy. πΈ MattL (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Rare Christina W
Christina based comment - which is rare for her. - Christoph Billung|Talk (I don't feel like checking the time lmfao cope)
Nominate for deletion
Terry has been token grabbed by Liam, his bully. I suspect this page was set up by Liam in an attempt to frame him, and combined with the fact that the page is awfully useless, I have come to the consensus that this should be NFD (nominated for deletion.) ImperatorofOrini (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- No thatβs completely wrong it was Terry who made this page. User:SALANDA (THE KINGDOM OF SALANDA) (talk) 20:12, 22nd February 2022 (UTC)
- Who says Terry didn't get hacked on his MicroWiki? Unless he's playing mind games, I don't see why this shouldn't be nominated. ImperatorofOrini (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is this some high level of satire? Terry quite obviously made this page and even later justified it. --π·πΈπΌ π²ππππππππ πΈ ππ π²π’ππππππ
(ππππ) 02:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is this some high level of satire? Terry quite obviously made this page and even later justified it. --π·πΈπΌ π²ππππππππ πΈ ππ π²π’ππππππ
Page Protection
I don't see why the page was protected at least in it's current state. The article is still in poor condition and editing was working on fixing that from what I can find. Especially considering that things are not improved while under protection I would highly urge for that to be reversed, especially considering the countless good faith constructive edits on this page. Furthermore I will add that the place of Republic of Pearlocha should most likely be added to the belligerents on the "side" of McKeen considering it is the declared successor of Zeprana, and that it is also led by McKeen. --π·πΈπΌ π²ππππππππ πΈ ππ π²π’ππππππ (ππππ) 13:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I agree first of all it is not a war but a crisis and it seems like Terry has violated the part of the agreement we concluded by establishing another one of these βmicronationsβ and not withdrawing his claims on the Dilu island dispute therefore I want the page unlocked so I can updated the situation. User:SALANDA (THE KINGDOM OF SALANDA) (talk) 16:46, 23rd February 2022 (UTC)
- Specifically, Republic of Pearlocha. What the Actual F*ck. I defended this guy from all sorts of crap. --Andrew I of Pontchartrain-Maurepas (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Future of this page
Let's admit it and be awfully honest for a moment, this page can be summed up in two words. It sucks. Why? Let's make a list!
1. The purpose of the entire page seems to bully one specific person. It's named after the person in question, is clearly biased against them and is everyone against the person it seems.
2. This page is an utter joke. The diplomatic responses section is nothing but a joke and MicroWiki users (some of which I have not seen a formal statement from their micronation) stating their confusion on the page rather than the "conflict".
3. INFORMATION. It is not present. How did the conflict start, what is it about, and most importantly, why the hell does this deserve a page on the wiki??????
Now, as a conclusion, this may just seem like me being a grumpy guy but this article just makes me cringe beyond recognition. I think this article should be deleted Β β Mr. Liam Alexander Β β’ (Talk with me!)Β β’ (contribs) 23:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- 1 - Terry made it in the first place, it wasnt made to bully him. 2 - Thats an opinion not fact. 3 - Did you read the page? Stoddard (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Does not excuse the fact the article is still biased. 2. Whilst technically, you are correct, it is also factual in some sense. None of these are really "diplomatic" responses but rather people finding an excuse to say "What the f*ck" on the wiki, amid this "crisis"... 3. I did read the page, thank you! There is little information on how this conflict started. Instead, it links to other pages I frankly can't be arsed to read. Just include a summary of the linked disputes. Β β Mr. Liam Alexander Β β’ (Talk with me!)Β β’ (contribs) 00:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)