Talk:New Pacific Order/Archives/28 April 2010

Repeated Vandalism
NPO's page is again being targeted for vandalism, this time framing, or at least pointing at, the NADC. The vandals have, as well, marked the NPO's page for "speedy deletion."

flag
I changed the main NPO flag to a version without lens flare. I'm not NPO, so if that offends anyone just go to Image:NPOFlag.png and revert my update. --CirrusOfMalla 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

random talk
This is greatmagnus here, and I am not trying to update this wiki. The NPO wiki is pretty out of date. You can edit it if you want. Just stay NPOV (no pun intended). Bakunin&#39;s Dream 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article talk about the war the NPO lost?
 * Because noone talked about it, feel free to do so. All factual information about the NPO should be present, but it should be expressed in an unbiased manner. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 01:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * im not sure Lakes 06:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Forums
Does the NPO have a forum? If so, maybe put the link here? 142.167.117.172 18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Alliance_infobox
I'm going to be changing this page to use the infobox listed above when I get a chance, if there are any ideas for changes to the infobox, let me know. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - CN ) 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized
This page was vandalized on April 12th by 71.244.7.152 and possibly 86.152.132.31. I have fixed it. -Imperial Rome (I am 76.173.68.215 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC) and I did not vandalize this wiki, I only restored it)

This page was vandalized sometime before Sept. 12 2007. The Legion article had been renamed NPO, so I switched it back. JTBeowulf 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors
Me (User:lowdown) and heo have been put in charge of maintaining this wiki by NPO. Please do not make any major changes without asking one of us.
 * I'm also now watching this page due to the amount of vandalism it's received by people using the GPA's name. Hopefully we can help limit the amount of vandalism and help limit the amount of down-time extending from it. Salpta 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I have created a larger and more formal infobox for the NPO. Therefore, unnecessary information, such as current leaders, was erased and put into the new infobox (User:Franklin2) 10:21 pm, 5 September 2007

Also Note:

 * Please note that all contributions to Cyber Nations Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors, and are released under the GNU Free Doc License. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. You do not own any contributions or articles, and anyone may edit any unprotected page.

Initiative and Treaties
Have made some necessary adjustments to the "active" and "canceled" treaties and took out the ones that the NPO recently canceled from their Foreign Relations Section of the Info Box. --Franklin2 18:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Advisor of NPO Page
If any questions or concerns come up about this page. Please feel free to contact Donut. Donut has been tasked with the maintaince and management of the NPO's interests on the CN Wiki.
 * -- Donut THX 1138 [ Comm ] 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NPO Bias/Neutral Point of View

 * The New Pacific Order (NPO) has consistently been one of the most successful and powerful alliances in Cybernations since its founding in January 2006 . Based upon the teachings of Francoism, The New Pacific Order has continuously excelled in war, economy, and diplomacy and dominates the Red Trading Sphere.
 * The Diplomatic Corps also has Military and Economic Advisers who help our allies implement Pacifican-style techniques to have our allies be as strong and efficient as we are.
 * Its members will be examples in pacifican behaviour and conduct and the art of economic excellence.
 * In this way a new feeling of unity and comraderie will awake that no alliance has ever experienced before. Pacifica will be the most wonderful place to be.
 * Once you have proven yourself you will be invited to the hallowed halls by a Centurion and things will be taken from there.
 * Continuous use of We, Our, You....
 * The Pacifican Military is widely seen as the strongest in the Cyberverse and is unparalleled in size and power. Franklin2 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to address some of your concerns... although for example:


 * The New Pacific Order (NPO) has consistently been one of the most successful and powerful alliances in Cybernations since its founding in January 2006 . Based upon the teachings of Francoism, The New Pacific Order has continuously excelled in war, economy, and diplomacy and dominates the Red Trading Sphere.
 * The NPO has been consistent. It is one of the most successful and powerful alliances in the game, and has been consistently. I'll give you the 'excelled' point. Maybe change to 'been successful'. The NPO does dominate the red trading sphere...

Esus 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten in some aspects concerning NPOV. I'll be in contact with the NPO's wiki team --Hawk 11 13:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Great War
Contrary to what continues to be corrected in the war info box, it was not a stalemate. On the 1st of August 2006 the war ended on specific terms which did not favor the NPO. It was a clear defeat. Emperor of the NPO, Ivan Moldavi apologised via TrotskysRevenge to LUE along with the Emperor of the NpO, Electron_Sponge. This is not supposed to be an NPO propaganda page (even though in it's current state it CLEARLY is) it should be filled with factual information, even if it is not favorable to the NPO. --Franklin2 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It absolutely was a stalemate. The entire world fought us, they demanded we disband, they demanded we pay reps, they demanded we accept a Viceroy, they demanded all manner of terms and the NPO fought back.  In the end, the only "victory" they got out of the NPO was something that cost the NPO nothing.  When tallying up the war gains and losses, you cannot put an apology down in the gains column.  Furthermore, we did a hell of a lot more damage that we took, we never fell lower in the ranks than any of the CoaLUEition, Legion only was above us for a couple weeks meaning our repair mechanisms were clearly left virtually untouched by the war leaving us in a good strategic position.  If the end of the war cost us nothing and gained them nothing, it was a draw, or a stalemate.  Z&#39;ha&#39;dum 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll trust the ODN wiki-team manager to worry about his own wiki and let our own wiki team worry about ours. As Z'ha'dum has clarified, the war was in fact a stalemate, leave it at that and go back to fixing the ODN wiki. --Hawk11 13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Z'ha'dum's explanation was good enough and your comment was rather unnecessary. His concerns are 100% valid no matter what supposed wiki team he is on. This wiki is in no way yours and the ODN one is in no way his as anyone has the ability to edit them. I have taken the liberty to change it to disputed with an asterisk by it and an explanation on the bottom explaining which each side says to try and make it more fair to all and to show each side of the "story". Lol pie 17:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation Date
It is impossible for the CN NPO to be founded on 9/01/2003 because the game did not exist then. Let's remember that this is for the CN NPO, not the NationStates NPO. --Franklin2 16:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a direct carry over from NS, we celebrate the NS history, it is a product of the work of the same people of NS. The fact this branch of the NPO was founded in January '06 does not change the fact the NPO itself was founded when we said it was. Z&#39;ha&#39;dum 00:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Does part of the CN universe include the NS universe? Otherwise having a CN Alliance on Planet Bob claim to exist before planet Bob existed doesn't make sense. Statalyzer 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah as far as these records go, it should the CN formation date. Marshdonia 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Same as other alliances like LUE, GOONS and similar have noted their origins and some indeed their formation from other places, and of course predating CN, so does the NPO also claim the same right. --Koona 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on whether the Wiki should be written to be in-character or out-of-character. I think out-of-character information on alliances should be permitted, since otherwise pertinent information would be excluded (the origins of various "invasion" alliances, the Norway Incident, etc.). I do however think that listing the foundation date as a NationStates alliance in the infobox is out of place. Perhaps mark the CN founding date with an asterisk and note its prior existence in the "notes" field? &diams; Vinzent Zeppelin (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing seems to have been done to this, despite its clear lack of relevance to Cyber Nations. This is the CYBER NATIONS Wiki, not the NS Wiki, therefore all information regarding founding date and founder should be reflective of that. This information needs to be changed. Jonathan Brookbank 05:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Brookbank, by all means mention that the Order came from NS and it existed in that game. But the date NPO's 'exodus' from NS into Cybernations should be counted as it founding date within CN. --Jinman 14:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

History
A history needs to be added to the NPO page

Loyalty?
I can see this article is written like an adveritisement for people to join the NPO. '''The Fervor, Loyalty and Discipline of its citizens. . .''' Loyalty?? Then why do five nations at least leave each day? That's loyalty? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this statement, the article always has been written in that sort of manner. It seriously needs cleanup, but I trust certain members of NPO to report any unapproved edits to this article as vandalism. Admins? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)
 * Wait, so unapproved edits are vandalism on the NPO page? Dang, do I get blocked for changing that? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let us hope not. It has since been reverted, but I took it back to your edit and left a note to see this discussion.  Hopefully we can reach a consensus, though it does seem difficult to do if the NPO editors won't talk about it. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)
 * WHat won't the "NPO editors" talk about? You want to talk, you know where to find us.  Cortath 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You apparantly won't talk about the proposed removal of the word "loyalty" from the page, which is what this discussion is about. If you want to be able to operate the NPO page on your own and claim anyone else's edits are vandalism (like the editors have been doing), the least you can do is discuss things with the rest of us.  We do know where to discuss things: right here on the talk page.  You even went so far as to come here, but then apparantly forgot to address the issue at hand. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)
 * I'm fine talking. What's wrong with having loyalty in there?  Our members are loyal.  I don't understand why you think that's controversial.  Also, if you're going to use the talk page, why don't you talk about your proposed change, since we do have an issue with it, instead of just doing it? Cortath 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, my main problem was with the fact that no one was talking about it, the only reason I reverted it was because TimeMaster's edit was undone without any apparant reason and no reference made to the talk page. My only problem with the word "loyalty" is the same as TimeMaster's - when your numbers have been dropping faster than a bulldozer off a skyscraper, I think it quite icorrect to say your members are loyal. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)

Your proposed edit of our page is based on perception and on our alliance member count. What of the 700+ members we still hold? Are they not loyal? Ghosts/deserters and bad eggs leaving during a major conflict does not waiver the loyalty our alliance still holds dear. You seem to have a real thorn in your side that is directed at the New Pacific Order. --downNdirty 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So we only get to say our members are loyal when we're winning? The New Pacific Order page is supposed to sum up the entirety of the NPO, not just a snippet of the present.  Historically, we've had incredibly loyal members.  Moreover, I would say our members are still loyal.  You have no way of telling why nations have left the NPO, and if "disloyalty" is the reason for it.  It's an unfounded supposition based on a small time-frame, rather than reflecting the entirety of our 3+ years existence in CN, and our nearly 6 year existence in total.  Cortath 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are right, but I'll let TimeMaster make up his own mind. And DownNDirty, I have no problem with the NPO, I just like to see the wiki kept clean and free of bias.  Take a look at my contributions, many of them, including proposals for deletion, have nothing to do with the NPO, and some of them (including my recent proposed deletion of Eternal Clique (2nd) are in fact on the opposite side, and could be seen by many anti-NPOers (because they are out there) as being biased towards NPO if they wanted to see it that way.  Perception, it seems, is everything. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)
 * Timemaster's talk page (http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/User:TimeMaster) does not inspire confidence in me that TimeMaster will "make up his own mind" in a way that does not reflect profound anti-Pacifican biases. Cortath 00:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I don't necessarily agree. Userpages are to post information about oneself, which can include opinion.  But that doesn't necessarily mean opinions manifest themselves on the wiki, as I think the vast majority of people respect the principles of assuming good faith and ensuring articles are neutral and unbiased.  There are certain people and alliances that I don't have the highest regard for, but that doesn't mean I go around vandalizing their wiki articles.  Take for example an alliance like NoR or NoV, just because I'm a communist of sorts, and state my political leanings on my user page, doesn't mean I intentionally make disruptive edits to their pages. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)
 * While I recognize your point, knowing nothing of TimeMaster beyond observing his edits and User Talk page, I do not have high hopes for his "wiki" integrity. Cortath 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - Just say something like "Pacificans believe that the fervor, loyalty and discipline of its membership is well known throughout the Cyberverse", or "The NPO believes it has some of the most loyal and disciplined members in the Cyberverse."Gopherbashi 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may to, we have lost around 200 nations to various causes, surrender is one but we must not forget the ghosts and others weeded out in the attacks. That still leaves over 700 nations, which is no where near 200 that fled, so something is holding all of us together still, which again is the loyalty we feel to each other and the alliance as a whole. Things like this cannot simply be gauge from the statistical point of view, additionally other alliances may make claims regarding their membership but unless one is a member it's harder to measure. For the record to, we don't go reporting every edit that occurs on our page to the Admins either, just the really blatant vandalism. Also I do recognize Michael that you're not at all out to get us, but there are people around who are, and who seize upon any chance to hit us. -- Imperial Empire 01:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I know I don't like the NPO (if you must know it's because they exterminate too many alliances by getting in the huge blocs). You can have loyalty on there, sure you gain members in peace because you're in first place, but when you're in a war (especially the ones where it's not Continuum v tiny alliance) you lose members pretty fast.  But now that I know you do have a ton of loyal members, feel free to keep it on. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to their own views of course, but it looks like this has been solved for now. -- Imperial Empire 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)

Rendering problem fixed
Problem was with One Vision and Watling Street Compact, they ended their div's wrong. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)


 * Thank you sooooooo much for that, I was wondered what caused the display problem but could never figure it out. To think all the time I spent tearing my hair out (not really :P) over this issue. Cheers and thanks again. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk · My home 08:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Colored headings
Maybe it's just me, but I find the vast majority of the colored headings extremely difficult to read. I recommend de-coloring them and leaving them black. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)


 * I've personally not had that problem, do you find them all difficult to read or just some of them? I can see that Mil Intel is a bit hard, I might finding a darker lime. The headings are colour coded to match the department colours, we do like them that way and it's been in use for over a year. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk · My home
 * That's definately the biggest one, though the Academy gray is a bit hard to read as well. Thanks for trying to fix that, I'm sure it'll work.


 * On a slightly related note, the templates that keep being inserted to not seem to have properly-concluded ending div's similar to the problem described in the previous section (you can probably note the margins on the side of the headers nearer the bottom of the page). I'm going to work on fixing them, but just for future reference, if you make a template, remember to   any   you open. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)
 * Black check.svg Fixed. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) &bull; (nation)

Alliance Standing
We should consider adding our Alliance Standing (presently 9th) to the statistics included at the bottom of our InfoBox. --Walt Schmidt 09:39, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding title "Standartenfuhrer"
I was just wondering about the rendering of the title of "Standartenfuhrer." Assuming this is directly taken from the German, and is not merely a self-made title, would it not be proper to render it "Standartenführer" or "Standartenfuehrer" instead of "Standartenfuhrer?" Just wondering if it should instead be rendered in that manner. Michael von Preußen  voicemail  •  nation
 * I think it would considered "Standartenführer" as that's how I've seen it on the tags, however on this page it no longer matters since all references to that position have been removed as it's been abolished, the only references should be on Dilber's page. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk

Neutrality
Today, I found an "Imperial Decree from NPO: Deceleration of Neutrality" It was announced by Dilber (first off, can he make "imperial decrees?"), and seems to be signed by several govt. members. However, Cortath and Mary were missing. So, I thought that I should double check as well as edit the wiki on the subject that NPO has gone neutral. So, can anyone confirm this? Thanks-- Avatar Talk 02:06, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to our surrender terms, the NPO is in a state of neutrality anyway, since we can't fight or aid anyone at war at th emoment. The piece done by Dilber was meant to be satire as far as I'm aware. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk


 * I see. Thank you, Imperial Empire, for clearing this up.-- Avatar Talk 05:32, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Joke threads <_<.  Michael von Preußen   voicemail  •  nation   @ 2:33, Primidi, 11 Pluviôse CCXVIII


 * I can confirm that it was a satirical piece. --Cortath (talk &bull; contribs) 04:10, February 9, 2010 (UTC)