Deltion of Vekter Request by author, nation has been deleted recently. Quadrius 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) DELETED

New Paren - recommending merger into Exeland. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation) DELETED

Botched1, Botched2, Botched3, Botched4, Botched5, Cybernations:Nations, Cybernations:Nations:Nagashizzar, Nations:Nagashizzar, and Nagashizzar2 are all pages that were accidents by the creator, who asked for help in getting them deleted, so there shouldn't be a reason NOT to delete them. I'm just helping him out. Hossenfeffer 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC) DELETED

Deutschlandlied - Formerly linked to by Deutschland, but I replaced the link on that page with the mp3 link I use on my nation's page. This is now an orphan page and shouldbe deleted for housecleaning. Michael von Preußen DELETED

Template:Collapsible list - test of mine; it failed. Michael von Preußen 01:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC) DELETED

Blackguard - just a link,,, not exactly the purpose of the wiki Michael von Preußen DELETED

Deleted it - page created by Xoin when he thought he could undo all my edits and delete pages like this. Long story short, he failed miserably. Michael von Preußen DELETED

File:Flag of Stylia.png - misspelled name, please delete. Author request. Michael von Preußen DELETED

File:Flag_of_Jihad.svg - Is not the flag of al-Queda as argued on the discussion page of the flag!--Ameer 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) RESOLVED

Yes, it is. They use several flags, one of which was this one. Furthermore, while under the rule of the Taliban (who was backed by al Qaeda militias, a flag similar to this flag was used (with the colors reversed: Image. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
You should learn about Islamic history before thinking that the Taleban or Al-Qeda invented these flags. The old Islamic empires of the Umayads and Almohads and even Fatimids used a flag which included the Shahada (that's the text). Every empire used it's own colors (white/black text, black/white text, green/white text). And it is even recorded that the Prophet Muhammad used a flag like this! As such it is not the flag of jihadist groups. It is merely jihadist groups kidnapped a traditional and recognized flag of Islam. It is just like the swastica: it was (and is) used by Hindus and old Germanic tribes. But Nazi Germans kidnaped the symbol and made it a symbol no-one in the West dares to use (I suggest you visit India one day and be amazed!). Also I suggest you check the flag of Saudi Arabia!--Ameer 07:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I study Islamic history; I know they were older flags of Afghan empires, as well as used by other Muslim states. My point is that, given the current political situation, it may not be... prudent, to host flags used by Al Qaeda and the Taliban in public areas. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
As you study Islamic history I wonder why you think it should be inappropriate to display such a flag? First of all it is a common, historical flag, second of all if you consider it an al-Queda flag it can be seem as bowing for terrorist when removing such a symbol. Displaying this flag does not mean supporting terror. Once again, I point towards the flag of Saudi Arabia, which is green and displays the same text, with a sword. No-one should say that their flag resembles the terror flag too much I guess. --Ameer 07:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you're right. Remove the delete tag, then. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)
A wise decission, thank you! --Ameer 07:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Michael von Preußen.jpg - duplicate of newer file b/c wikia's caching system was acting up. Author request. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation) DELETED

Your Cyber Nations Wiki Page Designer - CN:STYLE (Do not write the article as an advertisement.) ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation) DELETED

Bundesverteidigungsministerium - no content. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation) DELETED

File:MarscurianPakistanEmbassyDisparu.jpg - Author request. — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC) DELETED

LabradorDisparuMap.svg - Author request — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) DELETED

Do you mean File:LabradorDisparuMap.svg? If so, please add the {{delete}} tag. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation 
Yup, that's what I meant. Sorry about that. — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

MSXA StatboxEdit

Template:MCXA statbox - was used on MCXA page, but as it was the only page it was needed on, it's easier just to update it on that page anyway. Removed from that page in favor of an infobox template, this page no longer needed. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Non-existant nations w/o IC Info Edit

Nation/Ruler no longer exists, contains outdated and no IC info. Should be deleted for housecleaning.






Uruk - Article relating to Sumeria, which no longer exists but has IC info. Recommending merger.


Land O Slugs






The Technocracy of Rockport Michael von Preußen 06:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

General Mazur's Merged Proposals Edit

Latin. Appears to be no point to this. Mostly copied from Wikipedia PENDING REVIEW: does have some IC content

Burning World. Nation no longer exists. No IC info.

Castilian - copied entirely from Wikipedia's spanish with the word Castilian inserted instead.

The One True Pope - another article biased in the whole CN Catholicism thing, and this one's more useless than the one on the antipope. Move for immediate deletion, please.

BrawlVille - deleted nation w/o IC info.

Workers of the World - my own page, I'm requesting its deletion.

Please delete: Edit

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 22:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If I may congratulate you, though, File:GovernmentDisparu.png is an awesome setup for a governmental system :D ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Deleted nations Edit

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete this page Edit

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 22:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Awesome-O - Alliance never added anything to the game, and only lasted a matter of 5 days. Maxfiles (talk • contribs) 18:19, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations Edit

File:SEAL.png - This image is an illegally edited version of the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, which are copyrighted by Her Majesty the Queen of Canada.

Another one Edit

File:Detailed Map of Disparu.PNG

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please delere Edit

Can you delete File:SupremeCourtofDisparu.JPG? It's a duplicate of another file I uploaded. Thanks!

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate? Edit

File: Drapeaux3.png‎ I've seen my page is elegible for speedy deletion. I'm unsure of what that implies but if this file is a duplicate please delete. Regards.--Council of Ten 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I nominated it, being under the impression that it is identical to File:Flag of the German Empire.png. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Actually it is based on the design of the German Empire. But I was unhappy with the shade of red and the resolution of File:Flag of the German Empire.png. Which led me to create my own version of it. I'd gladly keep as it is. Now if if is a problem I can modify it more substantially. Please advise. --Council of Ten 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't notice a change of tint. I'll remove the {{delete}} tag then. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Disagree with deletion of Avernite Edit

I disagree with the speedy deletion tag on Avernite. He is still an active user in the game and his nation still exists. PsyMar 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason it was proposed is because it has no information relevant to the Wiki and the page is essentially orphaned. Perhaps it could be expanded with information about his nation, or at least have a separate nation page made? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Deleted nation Edit

Ontario (nation) does not exist in-game, and the article contains basic information about a nation.

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests Edit

Can you please delete these files/templates:

Some of them are duplicates, all of them are author request and for housekeeping.

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 00:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New Candidates Edit

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 00:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

More requests Edit

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Krunk the Great Edit

Krunk the Great—this article contains very little content, blatantly violates the style guidelines, and appears to have been signed by the creator. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Bump - it's now a useless double redirect. Krunk the Great redirects to Khaz Modan, which redirects to Morgoth, which seems to be a joke page. Morgoth is the only one that is linked to from pages other than this one, but only from talk pages, and only because the user signs with his nation name instead of user name. Bobogoobo - Talk - Nation  01:57, March 6, 2010
As I was the one to initially propose the deletion, I'm staying out of the whole thing to avoid any possible conflicts of interest. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 0:83, Sextidi, 16 Ventôse CCXVIII
I have started now to actually put my personal CN history into the article. I would like to consolidate all three of these articles Morgoth Khaz_Modan and Krunk_the_Great into that third page. I request that Morgoth and Khaz_Modan be deleted now that I recognize the problem. I will strive to keep my history to style guidelines. If I need to alter my signature to include my username (Dpbj602) I will do so as well. Krunk 15:14, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
Redirected both pages to Krunk the Great. While I don't care if your username is visible in your signature, a link to your userpage would be useful. :) Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 6:37, Quartidi, 14 Floréal CCXVIII

Basilio Red Treaty Organization Edit

Basilio Red Treaty Organization — This article contains an alliance which has not formally declared their existence, contains only dead links, and that the creator of the alliance contained within the article has abandoned this idea. --8-Bit Franz 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests Edit

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Resource Images Edit

I have only listed some of the duplicates that exist for resources, but duplicates seem to exist for every one, which means people are not using the same images and it creates unnecessary duplication. As such, should the duplicates not be removed? Shakyr of The Lost Isles 05:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, since a lot of articles also use the duplicate images. But if we can somehow turn the duplicates to redirects, that would be great. — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation: File:CW Flag.png and File:CW Flag hanging.png Edit

As documented on User talk:Gav236:

Nuvola apps important


I have to take issue with your new flags, File:CW Flag.png and File:CW Flag hanging.png. It is easy to see that it is based off of, or, more precisely, almost copied, from the flags of Großgermania, File:Reichsflagge Grossgermania.svg and File:Reichsflagge-hanging.svg. Now, I have a problem with this. As is clearly documented at File:Reichsflagge Grossgermania.svg and File:Reichsflagge-hanging.svg, the design of the Flag of Großgermania is, unlike the vast majority of flags, copyrighted, that is to say, I, the creator, have exclusive privilege to use the images and the design, and have granted permission for the use of the flags on the Cyber Nations Wiki, also documented on the file pages. Your flags are quite obviously derivative works of my own, as they include major, copyright-protected elements of my original flags. Under the Cyber Nations Wiki Copyright Policy, copyrighted images (and under US Copyright Law, derivative works thereof) may not be uploaded to the Cyber Nations Wiki without express written permision of the creator, which I have not and will not grant.

Due to this, I request that you immediately and without delay cease to use these derivative works of my own, copyrighted, work. To enforce this, I will be requesting the immediate deletion of both files. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

I have replaced the said images with images that I think shouldnt infringe any copyright restrictions. Please accept my apologies for any problems I have caused. ~ Gav236 (voicemail) • (nation)
Thank you very much. The new flags, in my opinion, are pretty awesome on their own. :D My main problem was just the idea that there was deliberate copying of my flag, as I like to keep my nation unique, and it's hard to do that if my flag is near-identical to someone else's (that's more the reason I wished to apply a copyright anyway). ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Duplicates Edit

This one got uploaded under the wrong name, because I'm an idiot. Please delete it.

Thanks, ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Ragnarok vanity pages? Edit

I'm skeptical about proposing these, as Rishnokof made them, but there seems really no point to them except to prevent redlinks in the template that's viewable on them. Therefore, I am proposing their speedy deletion:

~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Delete Edit

I don't need this image anymore...

Thanks. — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Major delete request Edit

I'm rewriting Disparu's history in order to match CNRP, so the provinces articles, flags and coat of arms will have to be deleted, while the rest are just unnecessary.

Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unneccessary soft redirect Edit

Oppressed is an unneccessary soft redirect used by Tom Litler on Fuhrerstaat Kanadia that could easily be replaced with {{Wikipedia|<oppressed>}}. I am requesting its immediate deletion.

On a related note, I'd like people's input about the creation of soft redirects. On the whole, I think a very limited number of such pages is fine, but I don't get the need for hundreds of soft redirect pages for every little thing. Tom Litler initially did make such pages, until I explained the use of the {{Wikipedia}} template, which more often than not can be used in place of soft redirects. Perhaps others have input, but I'm inclined to say that most soft redirects are both unneccesary and a drain on server resources. Any thoughts, anyone? ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Yes. We can keep those that are necessary (such are Upper house, since the infobox that uses the link can't handle {{wikipedia}} links) and those that many articles use, but the rest can easily be replaced by {{wikipedia}}. — Pikachurin - (Talk) (Contribs) 00:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Background Edit

This category has no purpose except to provide background information on Mostly Harmful Alliance. The person who created this obviously has no idea what the purpose of categories are. I recommend its immediate deletion and/or merger into the article Mostly Harmful Alliance. ~ Michael von Preußen (voicemail) • (nation)

Request for deletion Edit

I would like to request that both variations of this graphic is deleted. I originally uploaded it but the designer who created it is not granting permission for it to be used, and asked me to remove it. Thanks in advance.

--Outlaw311 11:46, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Request denied. Due to the large number of pages this is used on, including for the alliance which it serves as a flag of, I am determining that this flag is used under fair use, and am tagging it as such. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation 

Two things. Edit

First off, I've put eight pictures that were in my Wiki pages in this category because they disappeared without warning, possibly something to do with the licensing. So I figure they may as well be yanked outright if the picture isn't even there.

Second, the nation of Sapmi no longer exists, and the page doesn't contain anything except a copypasta from Extended Information. I didn't tag it with the deletion template because I didn't know the policy on such things.

--KingJarkko (talk • contribs) 00:31, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Images not deleted. Server issue, Wikia has been contacted. If you have backups of them, simply reupload it overtop of the non-visible one. I've moved the article for the Uralican county overtop of the old nation article. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation 

Cybernations Live Edit

Since there doesn't seem to be that much content in Cybernations Live, nothing but redirects links there, and Cybernations Live's original website has expired, I nominate this article for deletion. — Pikachurin

Speedy deletion denied. I'll port this to an AfD page for it for people to discuss. Michael von Preußen  voicemail • nation  @ 7:44, Quartidi, 4 Pluviôse CCXVIII

Delete Request Edit

I added the two categories and the two photos up for deletion because I have made changes to my Wiki so I no longer need these things. --Princess Victoria (talk • contribs) 02:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, I forgot to check the category for a few days. Also, to link to a category, put a colon after the brackets. For example, [[:Category:Nations]] produces Category:Nations, and then it works the same as any other link. Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation  22:36, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 (ET)

Disagree with deletion of DNA Edit

I have removed the delete request, the new alliance DNA is trying to rewrite history and it is not right for them to just delete pages as they see fit. Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. In fact, that page has a history of repeatedly being created as a placeholder, so I've semi-protected it. Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 16:23, Wednesday, 27 April 2011 (ET)

FAIL-GOONS War suggested for deletion Edit

It's my opinion that the FAIL-GOONS War NOT be deleted as AyaReiko requests. If you look in the past, during the Roguefest 2010 there were 4 microalliances that all had individual war pages while fighting GOONS due to separate instances, CB's, etc. Rogal Dorn | Talk | NationJanuary 8,2012 (ET)

Deletion of FAIL-GOONS War - Please list the criteria used for "relevance" to keep a page, as the war is an actual ongoing event on Planet Bob, like most in-game and roleplay articles on cybernations wikia. I think if the war is actually as "irrelevant" as claimed, a better option might be to remove it from the "In the News" section of the front page. 99.9% of pages on CN Wiki are not "In the News", yet they are kept because they document either nations, in-game actions, or roleplay. 05:50, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

FAIL-GOONS War - Conflict merged into TOP\IRON-NpO War AyaReiko (talk • contribs) 05:54, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

It's not even associated with the TOP\IRON-NpO War, read the FAIL DoW. Rogal Dorn | Talk | NationJanuary 8,2012 (ET)
After thoroughly reading the DoW thread, this war is not linked to the TOP\IRON-NpO War at all. A war should not be included in another major conflict merely because the alliance(s) within the minor war happens to be in the larger war. If you argue that the war should not be included because it is "insignificant", then please take a look at this war among others (shown above by Rogal Dorn's comment). I also agree with on the argument of relevancy. JustinVuong | Talk | Nation 06:23, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
The page should be deleted because the member who declared the war isn't a member of FAIL and is just pretty much a rogue nation, unless I am mistaken. Rebel Virginia is the recognised leader and hasn't taken part in this DoW, I don't believe this 1 rogues actions to hijack an AA deserves the recognition of its own page on the wiki. --LittleRena (talk • contribs) 01:45, January 12, 2012 (UTC)


I would like to delete my page, at the time I entered it did not realize that anyone can edit it which I feel is an invasion of my privacy, so I would like to delete my page ~Marine Sniper of Quantico

Deleted    RogalDorn  talk    14:44, Saturday, 21 April 2012 (EST)

The Short, Yet Powerful, IAFG-Sword Alliance and GOONS War Edit

This shouldn't be a wiki page. Three individuals on two separate AA's vs a real alliance isn't a war. If it must be referenced on the wiki then it would probably be better just written about on the alliance wiki pages. The guys on the micros are just attention whores because they make a new topic / post all the time and its ridiculous.   Rogal  talk    22:52,11/18/2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, and with all due respect to Rogal, I must disagree. Winner12345 and his pals/multi are one of two things: Either the most spectacular Kaufman-esque trollers , in which case the time and effort they put into their work is quality, inspired and wickedly skewers the self-perceived elite of Planet Bob who take this game far too seriously; OR they are truly what they appear to be: a ham-handed bucket of fail so reeking of ineptitude that it borders on the fantastic. Either way, Rogal --as much as they appear to generate hate, they DO in fact generate lively discussion and will be referred to in years to come, if this game lasts that long. No one, it seems, can bear to ignore them. Long story short, whether inspired or insipid, they are in fact a part of Planet Bob's history, and thus should appear in what is our de facto history book. We didn't exorcise Billy Carter from history, now did we?

This page at least documents a real event -- unlike this one (Rebel Virginia) which just is. Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 23:15, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Rogal isn't necessarily saying they shouldn't be referenced, just that it's not worth a war page. I agree with that, I've always been against giving such undue weight to microalliances. People talking about them because they're bored doesn't mean they're notable.  Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 15:32, Monday, 19 November 2012 (ET)

Sigh. I'm not admin, and thus can see the writing on the wall, but I will waste my breath with one more attempt before I go into the night quietly.

Why is the WIKI here? Most players don't care about it -- they use it solely as a reference to see who is treatied to who. I would argue for people like me, who are curious and have only been around for a few years. When I see a reference to something on the OWF, I like to go see what it is all about. The Moldavi Doctrine, for instance, or VietFAN. It was nice to be able to go look that up. You know what I have come here for and could NOT find, that there have been multiple references to? TOLWYN, and RUKUNU (?). He seems to be a sworn enemy of GOONS and just will not go away -- even THEY respect him for it. Is he on the WIKI? Not that I can find.

My point is that alliance size isn't what determines mention on the WIKI. It is whether the event is, for one reason or another, notable. RUKUNU is notable, but is nowhere to be found (well, one reference buried in some long forgotten war). The Thorgan (sp?) war on GURU ORDER? Doesn't belong in here -- never made a big splash. But these idiots/geniuses in IAFG/SDU? That is a big presence on the OWF. Their stupidity does not affect their notability. People will reference them in years to come. I guess it is like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for those of you old enough to remember -- a single torpedo boat attack on a US ship meant NOTHING in WWII. In the Gulf of Tonkin, its meaning was magnified well out of proportion.

That said, here are my other reasons it should be included: 1. GOONS is unique among alliances in that they seem to inspire a lot of small/individual alliances to crusade against them. This makes it noteworthy in a way that the Guru Order guy isn't so much. 2. It was an actual war, small or no. Way moreso than the NpO-Sparta Wargames, which were an arranged competition. 3. The more the wiki contains, the better it is. I don't see more articles slowing things down -- does someone actually read this thing in order? (Okay, I did -- the wars anyway. Went from the GATO-Inc war through till the end. Fascinating -- the smaller ones much more so than the larger ones, I might add.) Point is -- people use the search function. My "Screaming Red Asses" page isn't getting in anyone's way, and neither is this. No one is being forced to read it... but for those who want it, it is there. I guess I am failing to see the harm.

As far as the name goes... This is the ONLY name for this war. I say that with UTTER sincerity. These guys ACTUALLY see this as a short, yet powerful war -- NOTHING is more indicative of that alliance, and this war, than THAT title. The fact that they believe it illustrates this alliance more than anything else. The other suggestions (Attention Whore War, Look at Me War) all SAY the same thing, but "The Short, Yet Powerful, IAFG-Sword Alliance and GOONS War" actually DEMONSTRATES the concept like a snarky title never could.

Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 23:52, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well gee, I wonder why GOONS gets so many disgruntled micros. If they get it so often, then they should all be put in a section on GOONS' page or at the most a separate page detailing such offensives against them. The fact that it's one of many such attacks only further belittles the importance of this conflict. When you have a whole article about an event that had such little overall impact, it makes it seem like it was more notable and it's read on its own instead of along with similar incidents, so the context is different. I also just read the article in question and it's definitely not written encyclopedically. The existence of separate pages for the two involved microalliances is also excessive and only helps the inconsequential individuals involved feel more important. Again, having this much information for these things is useless and a waste of time of readers. They're much better off as brief mentions on other pages.  Bobogoobo | Talk | Nation 21:33, Monday, 19 November 2012 (ET)

Well, let's really clean this place up then. Literally ten minutes of time on my part has yielded the following wars involving micros no one cares about, often under ten members. Virtuous War -- HAH! More like a "waste of WIKI space"! These are obviously bogging the WIKI down, making it seem like they were notable, mucking up the context, and inflating the egos of inconsequential micros. I can't believe they've gotten away with it for this long! I also recommend speedy deletion of their individual (microalliance) pages, of which there are several:

Let me know if you want me to spend an additional ten minutes -- I will no doubt find more. And I can move on from wars -- once I start on other pages, we can REALLY whittle this mess down. Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 03:49, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Walsh, I'm not even responding to your response to Bobo because you're going off the deep end in it. I'm not saying it shouldn't or can't be covered on the wiki Walsh. There's a handful of other ways to document this happening, I'm saying that 3 people on two separate AAs vs an established AA is not a war. Also, microalliances are different than 1-2 person AAs. Mainly because a 1-2 man AA is just that, 1 or 2 people, not a handful people. If I dropped my AA and rogued someone on my way out of the game and switched my AA to something someone else was on and declared war on the OWF and wrote a wiki war article about it that doesn't mean it's notable. You find me a war article where there's 1-2 man AAs fighting and I will nominate it for deletion myself, because it's probably not at all a notable event, it happens on a daily basis, look at the war screen and you will see pages upon pages of it. Also, I think it's asinine to call it a war because it wasn't, if you want to call it an incident and dress it up as that-that's fine, here's an example of an incident covered in a cn wiki article, New Sith Order neutral alliance recruitment controversy. Another great point you brought up... All those names for wars are small and concise, the war name you created it as isn't small by any means of the definition.   Rogal  talk    06:28,11/20/2012 (UTC)

Rogal -- Your points are well taken, but would be more well taken if I was actually arguing to make an entry for EVERY 1-2 man AA who rogues his way out of the game on a daily basis to be represented in a war entry, which I am not. Or if I was creating a plethora of articles with long names like United states 2008 U-17 women's national soccer team, JBRican Declaration of War on the Red Front and the Midwayan Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Cactimus Prime and the Elite Guardians of Peace: Legend of the Guardian of Guardians, Deltoran Declaration of war on France, Spain, Switzerland, Armia Wyzwolwolenia Polska, Slovakia, and Croatia, Insert Treaty Name here, I'd personally name it the DMX accords and throw in a DMX rap as an article, but it's up to you guys › ›, or even the example you gave, New Sith Order neutral alliance recruitment controversy. But I am not doing that,either. (Worth noting is that some of the stuff listed there not only has a long title, but never actually happened on Planet Bob. But who cares? No one is forcing me to read it.)

I'm not off the deep end -- seven of the wars I listed above involve 1-2 man AA's as one side's sole combatant. Probably another half dozen are 5 or less. I believe most of the rest involve AA's under the Planet Bob industry standard of 15 nations. Before you delete them all, just consider the following:

  • Will their deletion make the wiki experience better for users?
  • Will their deletion make the history of Bob richer or more complete?
  • When a 1-2 man AA goes to war, is it always a simple matter of "dropping your AA and rogueing your way out of the game" like you see 1,000 times a day on the war screen?

If the answers to those are yes -- then you are right, the pixels wasted in the article should be conserved through deletion. If not, I would ask you to further consider, seeing as pixels are free and not in short supply, leaving them alone. They haven't ruined the game, the Wiki or Christmas so far, and maybe, in fact, have made those things a little better.

It seems that the arguments being made against me -- they are small, the title is too long, etc. -- are really secondary to the fact that you hate these guys and we don't want their ego fed or a sense of importance given. Neither the title length nor the 1 man AA listing is unprecedented. I'm just saying that it happened, and that it was more notable than those every day rogueings you speak of.

Maybe that's why you're admin and I languish at user. Do what you gotta do.--Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 16:22, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Literally ALL of those articles you linked are roleplaying articles with the exception of the treaty, and that article name is the treaty name so it is the appropriate title for that treaty. I hoped you would catch my drift where i said Names of wars and not page titles in general.
"Before you delete them all", where are you getting this notion? This is why I said you're jumping off the deep end, because you're making wild assumptions/accusations that aren't logical. I said that the war name was too long and all war names are short and concise, you come back at me with roleplay / treaty article names that are long, two separate types of pages.</span> Like I said, you have the option of moving it to an incident style page or the alliance pages. I'm sure if you add it to goons they will laugh and delete it though because this sort of thing happens to them on a regular basis and isn't something new to them, that's why they don't have a list of the wars they're involved in either.   Rogal  talk    20:28,11/20/2012 (UTC)

"Before you delete them all", where are you getting this notion?  Rogal  talk    20:28,11/20/2012 (UTC)

I think it was when you said "You find me a war article where there's 1-2 man AAs fighting and I will nominate it for deletion myself" and I pointed out I had found seven of them. I followed it up immediately with a sentence that began "Before you delete them all..." Made sense to me at the time, apparently something was lost in the translation.]
I thought you meant I was going to delete all the war pages you linked, not just the 1-2 man AA ones. huzzah for things being lost in translation.   Rogal  talk    00:11,11/21/2012 (UTC)

This is why I said you're jumping off the deep end, because you're making wild assumptions/accusations that aren't logical. I said that the war name was too long and all war names are short and concise, you come back at me with roleplay / treaty article names that are long.  Rogal  talk    20:28,11/20/2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not catching your drift. Guess I was unaware of the difference in style standards between "articles about a war" and "articles about literally anything else". Good to know.
yeah, this is generally because in war history sections on alliance pages they are generally displayed in a wikitable so the names have to be small, to-the-point, etc etc. Don't forget that you can always link to something and rename it on a page. Here's an example of what I mean, [[page name|what the page displays as]]   Rogal  talk    00:11,11/21/2012 (UTC)

Like I said, you have the option of moving it to an incident style page or the alliance pages.   Rogal  talk    20:28,11/20/2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the option. Always good to be given options. Walsh the Beloved (talk • contribs) 23:25, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

Biased Pages Edit

These 2 Pages-


Are defunct and heavily biased pages about a Sub-conflict of a Conflict. The Creator has constantly undid our edits without reading them (Vandalism?) and the tone used is extremely self-praising.

The Nuke371 (talk • contribs) 12:28, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Prosecution has repeatedly edited these pages to remove any references to war, and instead claims them as only tech raids. As the representative of Aztech, I can say with certainty that PNU's trespasses constitute war, and reparations are currently owed.
If Prosecution would like to make edits to the above articles, they are welcomed to discuss them. Instead, they have made edits without notice in repeated attempts to both claim themselves as only raiders, and to claim they were victorious in these wars.
I also have tech for sale. --SenorAlfonse (talk • contribs) 16:14, April 15, 2013 (UTC) Alfonse

Yet somehow, the Wars were Tech Raids. An Alliance War is when 2 parties (or more) come to a disgreement or one has committed a wrong act. The main purpose of these 'Wars' was for Technology and Money. We edited the pages because they reflected wrong information as we had never 'Surrendered' to any of Estoc's forces, nor had we lost on the Battlefield. I'd like to remind the opposition that the aid was decided by the Union and that the Union decided that on it's own terms.

The Nuke371 (talk • contribs) 06:58, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Prosecution forgets that 24 hours after the first incident was resolved, another one of their Government members followed suit and declared on what has been clearly established as a Protected Alliance. Your immediate cessation of hostilities and promise of reparations was noted as surrender.
I will admit some of the details have been embellished, but only to add some flavor to an otherwise bland cake. Everyone likes cake. I recently ordered three boxes of Jaffa Cakes, and they should be here soon. If Prosecution stops editing the above articles as an IP address, and remains logged in to commit his vandalism, I will be more than happy to send him some Jaffa Cakes as a token of our friendship.
Prosecution's alliance should realize that not all wars end in "White Peace". He will have some triumphant wins, but also some miserable losses. That is how it works on Planet Bob, and no amount of editing of wiki articles will change that. I also have tech for sale. --SenorAlfonse (talk • contribs) 15:46, April 17, 2013 (UTC) Alfonse

You seem to want to ignore the fact that the Second wave of attacks was by mistaken identity. SgtInsanity had no intention of fanning the flames and thus only GA once before we could effectively warn him. I believe we never stated White Peace and that we are editing the wiki to remove this 'Creative Salt'. If you want yes we did surrender to Aztech troops, yes we are paying reparations, but honestly, do you have any proof (solid proof) that we were drunk? I believe not. As for cake, interesting proposition but I don't eat Jaffas. Hot Chocolate cake anyone?

Karma was brought about because of a mistake; that doesn't mean a war didn't happen. Two members of Prosection's Government ignored clear notices about the alliance and declared, doing a considerable amount of damage before Defense could respond.
Prosecution's removal operations have so far included redirecting the above articles, claiming them as sub-conflicts of some non-existent event, and replacing all instances of the word "war" with "raid", among other infractions. Prosecution has never edited the text concerning intoxication.
Defense does thank the Prosecution for admitting to their surrenders and reparations agreements, and believes this shows the two wars did take place, and have been adequately explained in the above articles. I also have tech for sale. --SenorAlfonse (talk • contribs) 23:13, April 17, 2013 (UTC) Alfonse
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.