PubliusFL

Publius, I am more than happy to mail the copies I have of articles related to Dubeldeka. I have also seen (but do not have a copy) of the letter from the govenor General. Alternatively, you could e-mail Prince Vasudeo yourself and verify the existence of this micronation. Please let me know what works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.85.118 (talk) 18:20, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

PubliusFL, You recently removed an entry for the Principality of Dubeldeka in the Micronation entry. I wanted to let you know that although there are no google hits for this, I in fact do have photocopies of several newspaper articles outlining the establishment of the principality, as well as report from friends in Sydney that the micronation was covered on the local news. I went ahead and returned the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.85.118 (talk)

Hello, thanks for stepping in at the article we're working on. I wanted to ask if you know where I might report a certain user's behavior. They have created a top-level header with my username which reads like a tabloid, and while they managed to convey a point, they peppered it with personal insults and name-calling. Can you help? I found the etiquette alert page user to be less-than-helpful. Joie de Vivre 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi PubliusFL, you've recently edited the article Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. I have a concern about the early history section. Could you please visit the talk page and provide some feedback? Thanks. Shawnc 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice edits to the Taj debate. I wonder though, if you wouldn't mind, stepping back for a few days and resisting the urge to refute all pro-oak assetions as they spring up. It will be a more effective (and efficient) argument to refute them en-masse; and with some space they may receive enough rope to do it themselves. Bakaman for instance, by saying "Whatever his other theories are, this one is quite plausible" has already pissed on his chips by implying Oak is an otherwise unreliable source. No further argument of logic is necessary.--Joopercoopers 23:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look at Porch collapse. It seems to happen more often than "Floor collapse," and "Roof collapse" (in snow country) is probably intermediate in frequency. Coffee burns probably deserve their own article too, considering Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. Edison 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gemnoviag

Gemnoviag is a nation in the middle of Europe it is mensioned in the Liechtenstein Web-Site in german aka

"www.liechtenstein.li" And has close ties with the Austrian government which was mensioned once in 1958 in the Austrian news paper possibly still on record in the Austrian Database of news of past importance no website is currently known by me.. but you get the message you should look farther into your research by looking up more "worldly" information. You don't know everything and neither does Google or Yahoo or any other main search base. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Post Falls Man (talk • contribs) 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Gemnoviag 2

I have just gone to the website and unfortunately I too found that the page was no longer there this is suprising to me as it was there Nov. 2006 thank you for your advice and for this article I will look for more information to decide if I re-create it or just forget about it. Thank you and I do apologize for mistrusting your judgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Post Falls Man (talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

You dont understand this Micronation buisness was on the Liechtenstein website at one point in time the city of Post Falls is my home and Gemnoviag is only a return spot from time to time in the Summer. The Principality is much like the English Monarchy the Micronation is under the main control of the Senate few decisions come to the hands of the Monarch/Prince this is not understandable unless you realize the true government system of what you must do. Post Falls is where I live no doubt and I do not deny it but I do understand that all reliable national items are in writing not on the "world wide web" a taboo has been placed over the Capitol City of Rosen to prevent this. The Holy Empire once held the area of Gemnoviag as part of the Liechtenstein Principality to hold the Empire together for as long as possible the nation offically declared the independance in 1958 again to make itself re-known by the public this is the same time that my grandfater left for Austria to discuss the allyship of each other. This is what I ment when I said the 1958 Austria meeting in your user talk page.

Ludia

I apologise for any inconvenience, and by observing certain commments made by admin who have deleted the article on Ludia, authored by myself, it is clear I shouldn't have re-posted the article at anytime without further notice. In complete honesty I can truthfully state that I carelessly didn't note any wikipedean guideleines prior to this note. In favour of my article, I humbly ask for a reply and a chance to explain why I feel it was mis-interprreted and I can say now, this is through no fault of your own, but entirely mine and I shall accept full esponsibility for any mistake or inclarity. --Korayyilmaz 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludia"

Invitation

Hi. As someone who's contributed to micronation I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving an outsider's perspective to this poll, which I've set up to try to resolve a longrunning content dispute: Talk:Conch_Republic#Poll:_Conch_Republic_Article_introduction --Gene_poole 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Photograph

Hi PubliusFL. Thanks for stopping by the Fetus page. I was wondering if you would please weigh in here, or advise me how to proceed. If you have time, it would be much appreciated. Ferrylodge 19:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Prenatal Development

Hi again. Thanks for your input about the photos. If you can spare the time, I would very much appreciate your views regarding how the fetus page should dovetail with the prenatal development page. The issue is being discussed here. Sincerely, Ferrylodge 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Carla Martin

Let's keep an eye on the Carla Martin article. I suspect the user who keeps pasting in the resume is the subject of the article herself. The user has been awfully focused on that one article, and wiping out any mention of Carla Martin's enormous screw up. Exeunt 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fetus image

You said can see the point about the model being held in the palm of a man's hand gives the image something of an emotional dimension -- a ruler would be better, but I don't know where to find an image like that. in relation to Image:Lifesize8weekfetus.JPG. I followed your advice (sort of) and I have created Image:Image-Lifesize8weekfetus-edit.JPG to include a more neutral scale and remove the controversial hand. Again, this isn't a real fetus, but would you support my edit until an even better image comes along?-Andrew c 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I did mean MOSCAPS

Please read what I wrote more carefully. And read MOSCAPS. There are 7 criteria in MOSCAPS that talk about all caps. The first 6 do not apply, and the 7th says to see MOS-TM. So only MOS-TM applies, not the rest of MOSCAPS. —pfahlstrom 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Greenuk

Hi, you keep deleting Greenuk the micronation but i cant work out why i followed lovely's layout and they're on here so why not greenuk. please reply. Sorry but could you explain haw to make greenuk notable.

Your recent revert on Right to Bear Arms

I don't understand your reason given for your recent revert[1], "redundant addition and apparent OR"

What is redundant? And, none of that reverted was original research. Please explain. Contrary to your reason given, it appears that your revert served the purpose of advancing one of the points of view on the subject. Can we agree that this article should include a neutral balance of points of view? BruceHallman 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Micronation Notability

Please could you suggest just what level of action the micronation would have to take in order to be notable of mention in wikipedia? Is it the case that regardless of what the nation does (ie diplomatic letters to government, communication with media sources such as magazines or the use of unique technology) that it would not qualify as article worthy unless someone else writes a book ect.. about it?

---

Thanks for your reply to my question. Now that I know I need referable material in order to justify the creation of a Wikipedia article for a new micronation I can go about organizing "media stunts" in order to ensure someone pays attention to the micronation and hence writes about it so I can re-create the article.

Thanks, Arkore.

Rowbentary

A page of mine was recently marked for deletion by you and was already deleted before I could read the message, I do not understand why this has happened as there are plenty of micronation pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NateJay (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I understnad but I had not finished and was still continuing to add the sources --NateJay 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Forking micronations

Further to recent discussions concerning the Sealand / Fort Roughs articles, I'm considering a similar fork of Seborga. Currently this is a hodge-podge of information about the Italian municipality as well as the micronation which overlays it. I propose we create a new article called Seborga (municipality) about the town, and move the existing article (which is mostly about the micronation) to Principality of Seborga. --Gene_poole 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too much of an issue to create a disambiguation page and spilt Seborga. The Italian town has an elected Mayor and it's own coat of arms - neither of which have anything to do with the micronation - which, while enjoying significant popular support, largely remains for practical purposes, a state of mind. --Gene_poole 00:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it stays as one article or two, I think it's unacceptable for the town to be at anything other than Seborga. --kingboyk 19:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

conspiratorial template

Congressman Paul said: "Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don't have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there's not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn't going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."; so you see, he does acknowledge cover-up (conspiracy if you wish)… imo that template should be named properly, feel free to join the discussion. Regards. Lovelight 00:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right to Bear Arms

Good day. I have a small objection to this edit [2]. The version prior to this edit read:

A Nineteenth century Tennessee court noted that the "right to keep arms" protected a "private individual right" of the citizen, and implicitly included other rights.

And after the edit (emphasis added):

A Nineteenth century Tennessee court noted that the "right to keep and bear arms" contained in the Tennessee Constitution of 1870 protected a "private individual right" of the citizen, and implicitly included other rights.

If I may, allow me to post a section of Andrews (with emphasis added) to illustrate my objection:

What rights are guaranteed by the first clause of this Art. 26, "that the citizens have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense?" We may well look at any other clause of the same Constitution, or of the Constitution of the United States, that will serve to throw any light on the meaning of this clause. The first clause of section 24 says, "that the sure defense of a free people is a well-regulated militia." We then turn to Art. 2, of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, where we find the same principle laid down in this language: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." We find that, necessarily, the same rights, and for similar reasons, were being provided for and protected in both the Federal and State Constitutions; in the one, as we have shown, against infringement by the Federal Legislature, and in the other, by the Legislature of the State.

The court was, in fact, rendering their opinion of what was meant by "keep arms" based on both constitutions. Granted, they had already found that the State legislature was bound only by the Tennessee constitution, but that did not stop them from speaking their opinion on what was meant by the US constitution.

Moving down a little further:

...Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier.

Note that the phrase "private individual right" is applied against the "right to keep", not the "right to bear".

Given all this, I prefer the original version. The court was not speaking solely about the Tennessee constitution, nor did they find that the right to "keep and bear" was a "private individual right". I think the second version implies both of those points, which are incorrect. - O^O 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Exploratory" Committees

Apologies for the delay on posting this to your talk page. I assumed the template's talk page was on your watch list, and had not posted this to your own talk page.
You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:

Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC.

You have already seen the argument there, in the Clinton section, now a sub-section named: Exploratory equals Candidate.

Best regards -- Yellowdesk 06:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Parker v. District of Columbia

Took heed. Read comments. SaltyBoatr is using the entry to reargue the case. Sorry. I'll consider any reasoned argument contra. Eblem 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume who is an attorney and who is not

Please don't insult my intelligence.

Eblem 24:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Appendix ordering and titling

Please see WP:LAYOUT. Jefferson Anderson 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Virginia Tech massacre, I'd suggest an article RfC with a straw poll, like has been done on Talk:Walther P22. It may not end up with the result you'd like, but it will have a larger sampling than just the editors who regularly work on the article, and a poll should make the result clear. Jefferson Anderson 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Glock 19

I also oppose a See also section, but User:MiFeinberg would have just put it right back if I had removed it, so I added some other Glock pistols to the section so VT wouldn't be the only thing in the section.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

walther

You may want to have a look in on Talk:Walther P22 again. Griot has canvassed only those users who want to keep the VT mention in the article, so I am alerting those who were not yet contacted. There has been discussion on WP:ANI about the outcome of the previous polls. Your continued involvement in the discussion(s) would be welcomed. ··coelacan 22:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange micronation AfD nomination

Hi. Thought you might want to take a look at this. There are also a few other strange edits by the samed editor to Principality of Sealand and some related articles. --Gene_poole 10:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

In case you're not watching my page now because the issue you raised has been resolved, I'm just giving you a heads up that I replied. If you can sensibly merge the articles that would be preferable to deletion provided, of course, reliable sources are used. Cheers, and thanks for the constructive dialog. --kingboyk 15:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For your efforts in adding sources and references to micronation articles, and for your businesslike approach to my efforts to clean up that category. Much appreciated. kingboyk 19:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Madawaska

This article could do with references, if you're interested in helping out. Please see the article's talk page. Cheers. --kingboyk 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Micronation stuff

Hi. Just a heads up to let you know I've started to work on addressing some of the problems arising from the recent rash of micronation AFDs. To begin with I'm looking at New Utopia. See my comments at Talk:New_Utopia for further detail. --Gene_poole 23:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject

I've published a proposal to gauge interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject. Your comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fictional princesses

You removed Mulan and Pocahontas from the Fictional princesses section in the Princess article and said in your edit summary:

Fictional princesses - remove non-princess and non-fictional person from fictional list)

According to Disney they are (fictional) Princess.^[3] So, what is your reason for the removal?--Sugarcubez 23:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Still they are fictional princesses, by your reasoning why not remove all of the Disney Princesses? And why list some of the other fictional Princesses were it is noted they are not a real princess i.e. Xena. I think it is better to be kept in to go with the fictional princesses section.--Sugarcubez 00:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cameroon

No, that's backwards, so I've reverted you. See here. Picaroon (Talk) 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mangaria

You posted some commentary on my talk page ...

After some looking around, I agree with the notion that this is a non-notable topic. My take from Micronation is that entities like this are like virtual communities and clubs and should be treated as such. I have not seen the appearance of a micronation in a deletion process before. It is, in fact, not a hoax, but - as you point out - a non-notable social exercise using the rule set associated with establishment of a nation-state. I will, therefore, revert to the previously tagging and delete. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You recently edited the Parker entry. If you feel there is anything inaccurate about the statement you deleted feel free to correct it. I believe it was a fair statement of an additional legal commentary on the Parker case.

Latin diminutive

Hi PubliusFL! I am from the Latin edition and I'm writing about the diminutive. Is Armadillidium the only lead ending in -idium? You said it can occur quite regularly, but I can't find much from Google. --Harris Morgan 23:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Sealand

Hi there. I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at the ongoing discussion that's taking place at the above. A new editor who's done some really good work on micronation articles is in danger of losing perspective by trying to give equal weight to the "Sealand is a sovereign state" position, and the discussion seems to be going around in circles. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to improve the article so that it is NPOV, and other editors have agreed that this is the best way to improve the article. Nobody is trying to remove the arguments for Sealandic micronation status, but as there are sources supporting Sealandic microstate status, these sources must be included in the article. The WikiProjects are NPOV, and the article should be too. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate has now progressed to vandalising the article by blanking properly cited content. If you could keep an eye on this and revert his changes it would be appreciated. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Poole wrote the exact same message on Kingboyk's page. I have not resorted to vandalism, I clearly wrote several times about who controls Sealand News (not Roy Bates or Sealand) and that is the site he is using for his sources. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

California City

Re: the history at this article which I believe you added. There seems to be word for word lifting from http://www.califcity.com/history-1958.html . I don't however know what the rules are for this kind of thing though, just making sure that W/pedia doesn't run into any trouble. Cheers! 195.82.104.122 (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for clearing that up. Keep up the good writing. ;) 195.82.104.122 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD

IP users do not have the ability to nominate an article at AFD (since this requires page creation), and if there was an apparent history of vandalism" from that IP, I missed it (it has contributions, but clicking on a selection of recent ones showed edits that, at least, look like they are in good faith). —Random832 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Lonely Planet micronations

Hi there. I wonder if you wouldn't mind taking a look at this. There's a suggestion that the LP guide should be removed as a source, which I believe would set a very bad precedent. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Interstellar travel

Hi, I am almost certain the basic material posted on the Talk:Interstellar travel#Sub light speed travel section is right, and I think well-known. I derived it myself long ago, and have expounded on it in a new section just after User_talk:71.200.127.222's (? Steve?). I also recall seeing a discussion of the special relativistic event horizon effect I mention there, re. the "perfect getaway", in Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler's classic text, and believe they go through the whole derivation. Don't remember how long it has been known, but over 30 years at least, if it is really there where I think I saw it, as the book came out around 1974. I am still slightly a newbie here, or maybe just slow to learn, but I haven't really studied the Interstellar travel article yet. I do think some mention of this curious fact is warranted, though it is only one step towards a solution, a piece in the larger jigsaw puzzle. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the super/unpledged delegate contribution.

PubliusFL. Thanks for leaving your comment. I think our eyeballs got too close with this one for us all to agree. Anyway, the step-back, and contributions like yours, have been helpful to us all. I appreciate your taking the time to post. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States

We've got a new rash of recently created accounts making the same edit to this article as happened before. Specifically, they are removing the reference to United States Code Title 8 Section 1325 where it states that illegal immigration is a crime. I sent you this message because you helped deal with this the last time it happened (last time, the users all ended up being sockpuppets). Your assistance in straightening out this mess would be appreciated once more.-75.179.153.110 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Golden not Gold

Checked this through google. While google is a blunt instrument it confirms this suspission overwhelmingly. Dainamo 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the anniversary is referred to as the "golden anniversary," but the list is a list of gifts, not a list of names for the various anniversaries. You can give someone a gift of gold, but you can't give someone golden, because golden is an adjective not a noun. PubliusFL 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While you cannot give golden, you can surely give a gift that is "golden". While this inevitably includes gold, the imaginative among us might also think of gifts such as a Golden Car, a Golden Retriever a romantic day trip on Golden Pond or even a Golden Goose!!. Dainamo (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Biblical names

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Biblical names. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, PubliusFL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)