Talk:NationStates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ranks

What happened to the list of "ranks" on this page? I'm sure there used to be a section that listed all the regional influence ranks but it seems to have been deleted or removed snice I last checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.50.109 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Main

The bloody UN classifications link is down again. Anyone got a mirror? --Myrth

http://ns.goobergunch.net/nsmap.jpg has the image portion - don't know where we can get the textual portion. --Goobergunch 20:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the text portion of the image is lost to the sands of time. I found Distributed Thought's original thread, but I'm not seeing anything about the text that went with the image. IIRC, however, losing the text isn't a big loss as it was a numerical break-down of each style, which is woefully out of date now (thread's from May 11th, 2003). I'll include a link to the thread anyway: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=274695&page=1&pp=20 -tMGH August 6th, 2005

Regional Forums

Should there really be links to regional forums here? There are so many regions in NationStates that if we start linking regional forums, there's really no point at which we'd stop. --Goobergunch 18:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

............................... Hey, please dont delete this article! Im a dedicated nationstateser, but my stupid computer can only access it thru the links on the article, for some reason. If this article goes, I CANT ACCESS NS! So please dont delete it, ok?

SUAR, February 19th ................................

Personally, I'm opposed to including regional forums here, but at the same time, I would like to advertise them somehow. GulDan 21:27, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think that, at least Europe and the Meritocracy (and possibly the Heartland) are worth mentioning, due to the amount of dedication and effort put there, which surpasses any other regions. I'm an Europe player, so I added European Affairs. I was going to add the Meritocracy, but didn't know if I needed any special authorization or not. I don't want to have copyright or licence problems.MiguelFC 22:12, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to my thread in Gameplay with all the links to the regional forums? Would save cluttering up this page with external links. Myrth 02:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=301112 List of Regional Websites/Forums] sounds good to me, but I'd like to see it updated with all of the links currently on there so people can't whine about their links being lost. --Goobergunch 18:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll update that thread then we can start a policy of clearing them off as we see them. --Myrth 00:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've cleared the ASE and TPC links because it's IMHO rather silly to include links to NationStates region pages under "External Links". I have added an RLA link, mainly to avoid EuroSoviets and Blackbird from smiting me.  ;) :In the League of NationStates which I'm setting up, I'm going to post a very long and comprehensive list of regional forums and websites that hopefully we can just link to and remove the ever-growing list of websites under "External Links". --Goobergunch 23:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edits

• I've added to the page. William S. 00:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I moved the paragraph about joining the UN up before the stuff about the invaders/defenders to make the description more logical of the game.-A
• I added two more links on Economy and Civil Rights to a dictionary site, overkill but it'll let you looked more informed (Maxen)

Empire of Attica

VfD:Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Empire_of_Attica

Well-written article - however, it's about a nation in the NationStates online game. A single nation in the NationStates game is not notable, especially given the VfD precedent of Europe. I've copied the article to NSwiki. --Goobergunch 01:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Agree, Delete. Impressively written but the precedent speaks for itself. Ian Pugh 02:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge and redirect. I suspect the latter is more effort than our friendly volunteers would like to give, so I'm left with delete. By now everyone probably knows how I feel about breakouts of things not known outside of their master topos. Geogre 04:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Created by the same editor responsible for Imperial Republic of America and American Imperial Party - both also on VfD. 'nuff said. Delete.--Gene_poole 05:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Only of any relevance whatsoever within the NationStates game. Average Earthman 08:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Move to JnanaBase. Npc 12:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 15:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 15:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. More NationStates nonsense. Should I write an article about MY NationStates nation? RickK 19:13, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a grand effort, but I'm going to have to go with Ian on this one, too. Inky 02:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 06:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into NationStates and redirect there. probably need to cut it down to size 132.205.15.4 22:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Ian Pugh. --queso man 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

NSEconomy

I would say that the NSEconomy link is somewhat unnecessary, and shows a specific bias. All of the other links are either directly affiliated with Nationstates, or are providing a service that does not exist anywhere else. NSEconomy not only does not fill a niche, the formulas behind it were plagiarized. I do not ask for that work to be linked to, only that this nonessential, and biased(however unintentional) link should be removed.

While it may or may not be removed, I've added a small bit about the taking of code for NSEconomy from The Meritocracy.

Have removed it, considering it really has no place in the article's external links - which should only link to NationStates and related stuff (wiki, forums)... -- NSLE | Talk 09:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

ES/PF edits

The paragraphs ES/PF are adding read as follows:

A further controversy entails some of the bans that have been carried out by the moderators. Some are seen as biased and unfair, and many view the life banning of Eire Shamrock/Prodigal Fenian as a prime example of this. The moderators, much like the war criminals at Nuremberg, claim they were just doing their job. On the other hand, popular sentiment around the Nationstates world see Eire Shamrock/Prodigal Fenian as a legend and one of the most, if not the most, colorful folk hero type players in the games history.

Several mass petitions asking for a general amnesty of banned users has been met with silence by the moderators, prompting criticism that their approach to justice is exceedingly harsh.

The general commentary I get from NationStates players when discussing this are loud groans. The "popular sentiment" in the NS world is just not there, as most people believe that ES/PF is just generally annoying. I've never seen these alleged mass petitions either. --Goobergunch|? 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, first of all, it's clear that Goobergunch has a problem with ES/PF. I'm a longtime friend and ally of PF, and please check the NSwiki discussion for ES/PF. Goobergunch is deeply personally involved with ES/PF as can be seen by all of his comments. There are three of more of us that edit PF/ES pages. Why? Because we are all in the same boat as he is.

The "general commentary" remark by Goobergunch, as well as his other remarks show his deep POV in the issue, and has also on the NSWiki ES/PF discussion site shown that he is not impartial when it comes to this matter.

One check of the many threads on the NS forums about the ES/PF deletions show it is controversial. Shame on you Goobergunch, stop the vendetta now. You are being shabby on this issue, and it hurts your fine reputation on wikipedia with other subjects. Celtic1

Celtic, I'm sorry, but number of threads has no indication on importance. Now, the simple fact is, ES/PF has never attained the significance of say, an Amerigo, whose name echoes two years after the Amerigan Slaver War. Now, there are a lot of "controversial" things, most of which are much more controversial than this ES/PF thing that I, and in essence, everyone I have dealt with thus far in NS have heard of. Now, everyone I have dealt with is quite a lot, so unless you really show me numbers of significance- and I mean several tens of thousands- then I do not believe this has any merit on the actual Wikipedia. If it's so important to you, take it to NSWiki: most people on Wiki proper don't really give a damn about one nation out of 110,000 on NationStates. No matter what. -Tib/USF

That's not true Tib, ES/PF's name still resounds in NS, just look up the forums! People are still talking about his deletion.

Most people in NS that have played the game for a long time have heard of ES/PF. All one needs to do is a search of Eire Shamrock, ES/pf, or whatever on the Nationstates forum to see the controversy is huge, and there are hundreds of posts about it. There are more recent posts about ES/PF than Amerigo as well! I did not say Amerigo should not be included -- he should as well, so get to it! As for your final comment, shows you have a personal bias. Of course people care about nations such as ES/PF, Franco's Spain, and Amerigo. Celtic1

Look, I have no bias. I have no idea who you are. All I'm asking for is a list of support of 10% of the nations of NS. If it's important enough to be posted here, it should at least affect that many people- if not more. -Tib/USF

Problem solved -- I understand your point, and saw the error. I've posted this under a seperate heading, that hopefully others will expand on. Users like yourself can include Amerigo and others that have had controversy with the mods. I see your point now on how this one nation should not be under the same controversy umbrella as the ADL and others. That was a good call Tib, thanks for explaining it rationally. It's a great idea to have a seperate category for moderation controversy as its an important subject with many interesting stories to be told. cheers, :) Celtic1

I'm not seeing any threads on the NS forums concerning ES/PF. From what I've seen on this and in other places, ES/PF and his supporters just keep putting this sort of thing up wherever there's any mention of NS and generally cause nothing but grief to everyone. Besides, Celtic1, your NPOV is obvious from comparing moderators to Nuremberg defendants. War crimes and the deletion of ES/PF's (your?) nations are hardly comparable. I'm editing out the ES/PF reference (apparently again) because the ES/PF banning was no more important in the larger scheme of things than the banning of any other user and Wikipedia does not exist for the extention of personal vendettas. --165.134.195.86 00:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

First, you were brought in by Goobergunch, as he stated he would bring a mod here from NS to back his biased vendetta. Second, all you need to do is a simple search of the NS forums and there are loads of ES/PF discussions there.

I am putting back in the ES/PF reference as it is an example -- and you can put in whomever else you feel, like the Unironed Shirt and others. Or the Reichsprotektor scandal in Germany, Amerigo, or whatever you feel like. As for the nuremberg comment, it was not a comparison, but a point of reference as the mods have the same answer as those in the Nuremberg trials -- ie. they were following orders and doing things by the book without taking into account many other human factors. Many people on the forums support the mods, you are correct, because they want to make friends with the mods and hopefully be one someday. Celtic1

I distinctly recall getting a telegram in December 2003 informing me that I would never become a NationStates moderator. I don't think that's changed. More when it's not 12:22 AM. --Goobergunch|? 07:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting telegram to get -- so a mod told you that you would NEVER be a mod? Under what circumstances? Wow! Celtic1

Celtic1, regarding your above comments... that's not what I said. What I was saying is that the ES/PF thing doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it does not affect the majority of gamers as a whole. Because this is Wikipedia and not NSWiki, the space should be used in a much more conservative fashion. If this controversy is really as big as you claim it to be, keep it as a major article on NSWiki. Do whatever you want, really- just not here. -Tib/USF

Hmmm, has he been blocked yet ? This United State 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

criticism

what about adding to the criticism section the "alledged" moderator corruption? --Phil 13:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Moderator corruption"? What on earth is that? I've never come across such allegations in the fora. --Aridd 14 November 2005

Of course you haven't read about it in the fora, as the mods delete and censor all those that bring their abuses to light. There are thousands of tales of moderator misdeeds and violations. That is the main problem with the game for most people, the insane mods! --anon

I must agree. talk to any member secretly and they'll most likely confide that there is indeed an abuse of powers. --Phil 08:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding new section "Moderator Abuses": As an admin of NationStates, I've seen perhaps two dozen allegations of moderator abuse out of a playerbase of 1.5 million accounts over three years. I think it's quite mischevious to say "many players" think there's abuse. Especially since this section is largely non-factual: it doesn't say who these players are or reference even one specific incident, nor am I aware of "many... spinoff forums of ex-players" generated by "moderator abuse;" I can think of only two that might be considered in that category, each with only a handful of ex-players. --violetine 17 December 2005.

Hi [violet], I do have one request of you, could you sign your talk posts with four tildes (~~~~)? ;) Cheers. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 07:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent controversy section

I'm removing the section "Recent Controversy" because it's neither recent nor controversial. It was a one-man online campaign of the kind that NationStates cops every couple of months from politically-motivated players. I can understand if this was a more general discussion of NationStates criticisms, but as it stands it's nothing more than an attempt to manufacture an issue out of nothing. --violetine 13 December 2005.

I approve. The section was apparently written by a biased party, with weasel wording and lack of citations masking the manufactured story; I would have removed it myself but I'm not active in NS anymore and didn't have any firsthand knowledge of the current situation. --DDerby-(talk) 07:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I might agree. However, I am not sure that an admin of the site is the proper person to do the editing since it creates an image of bias in the article. Perhaps getting a third person to do it? It would seem to me that a websites admin coming onto wikipedia and editing an article about that site might have the appearance of violating the neutral point of view policy. They had a problem with this with people in Congress and businesses editing articles that were put up about them or their businesses/organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.214.34 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Wikiperiands who play NationStates category

Did anyone else have a problem with this article also being in Category:Wikipedians who play NationStates? As the point of the category is to populate it, the best place to begin is to put the main article in the category.

Any problems with that?

Lady Aleena 20:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"NationStates" can hardly be described as a Wikipedian, given that it's hard for a website to be a Wikipedia user. I would oppose placing articles in categories aimed at the User namespace. --Goobergunch|? 21:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Goobergunch. You can mention the article on the category page, and perhaps place a notice at the top of this talk page regarding the category. But the article does not belong in a category of Wikipedians. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I did what you suggested Knowledge Seeker. What do you think? Lady Aleena 22:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I touched it up a bit. Feel free to revert it or further modify it if you like. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

KKK / Neo-Nazi Recruitment?

A citation is needed on the statement regarding this game and KKK/Neo-Nazi recruitment. -- MisterHand 15:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed the whole 'controversy' section, since there's no evidence presented that there is any more significant controvesy than you'd find as background noise in any other website. Or, for that matter, any sources whatsoever. The KKK section has already been removed at least once before[1] and see "criticism" above for a response by one of the Nationstates admins.Hrimfaxi 08:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You can accuse any medium of promoting XXX recruitment. Mathiastck 16:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look on NationStates, there is not, to my knowledge, any such recruitment. Even such regions as Nazi Europe and The Greater German Reich have blatantly stated that they will not condone any racism of any kind. As of 2010, it is no longer a problem. LittleBrother1 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that they are pretty diligent in keeping that stuff off their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.214.34 (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

External Links

Not to be elitist, but is a link to a wiki with a single page (for a single nation) really a valid use of the External Links section? The NSWiki has numerous articles and lots of information. At the moment, WikiStates is empty. I've removed the link pending discussion. GulDan 02:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Support and agree. – Chacor 08:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Probelm is though, that NSWiki has collapsed, and is no longer accessible. Therefore, WikiStates needs to be included, as it is the new wiki by Default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.92.60 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MMOG

Shouldn't this be listed as a massively multiplayer game in category? Lord of Light 21:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

Until this afternoon, the page was listed in the "Articles lacking citation" (or whatever it's called) category... I threw in a rather large amount of citations to the news page on NS, the Jolt forums, and NSWiki, and also updated some of the information. If anyone adds anything to the page, please remember to use the <ref>Reference tags</ref> so we don't get shoved in there again. 'Tis rather embarrassing. On a similar topic, if anyone knows of any other places to reference the information we've got on here, add that in too - half of the citations I added are going to the News Archive on NS itself, it'd be good if we could get some third party info in there if possible. Hersfold 03:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I only found one neutral news source on Nationstates: http://www.straight.com/article-68225/winds-snow-lead-to-perfect-storm-of-sites It mentions Nationstates in the second to last paragraph. Don't know if you want to use it.

Information deleted by Chacor: variables, government departments, and industry types

Chacor deleted the following information that I added to the article:

Variables

A nation has many different variables that describe it, which are not chosen directly by the player (in contrast with the nation name, national motto, national currency, and national animal). A person's decisions on the issues effect most of those variables. There are the variables of population and size, which are not effected by the player's decisions on the issues, but are only the result of the passage of time. The variables that are effected by the player's decisions on the issues are: civil rights, economy, political freedoms, crime, government corruption, social equality, income tax percentage (ranges from 'unheard of' to 100%), type of income tax percentage (flat or graded), strength of 16 different industries, and funding for 10 different government departments. The first 3 of those variables determine the country's UN classification as 1 of 27 government types. (source = dozens of nation profiles, and daily nation rankings based upon variables)

Government departments

There are many different government departments, and a nation can specialize in funding up to 3 of them. What government departments a country specializes in is not decided directly by the player, but is determined by hidden variables in the game's program, but the effect of one's decisions on the government departments is relatively obvious. There are 10 government departments total, which are: Law & Order, Defense, Commerce, Environment, Public Transport, Education, Social Welfare, Healthcare, Social Equality, and Religion & Spirituality. (source = dozens of nation profiles)

Industry types

In Nation States, there are many different private industries, and a country may specialize in up to 3 of them, although very socialist countries have none. What industries a country specializes in is not decided by the player, but is determined by hidden variables in the game's program. The industries range from serious to comically trivial or primitive. There are 16 total, which are: automobile manufacturing, arms manufacturing, uranium mining, information technology, trout farming, beef-based agriculture, retail, book publishing, soda sales, pizza delivery, basket weaving, furniture restoration, cheese exports, woodchip exports, door-to-door insurance sales, and gambling. (source = dozens of nation profiles)

Chacor deleted that information on the grounds that it is not attributed to the word of a specific person or persons. The information is certainly important. If anyone can find attribution for this information, then please restore it to the article.

MitchConnor1 04:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on YOU to find the attribution, not anyone else. Do not re-add this info without sources. – Chacor 05:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can prove this info if you play the game yourself. I don't think there's any other way to prove. Canadianshoper 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do play it, and have been since January 2003. However, Wikipedia policy would require reliable sources to back this up, so it cannot be added unless it's cited. – Chacor 05:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the actual source would be the most reliable source of them all, would it not? Your information deletion is *IMO* a misuse of Wikipedia policy because the data in the article was accurate and verifiable from the original source - Basically, what you're doíng is saying that bureaucracy and nitpicking are more important than available & verifiable information and facts. This policy would be in line of declaring a claim that, for example, AltaVista is a search engine invalid because there's no 3rd party article to support that claim even if everyone (who's capable of reading Wikipedia online) can check the primary site to confirm this claim. - G3, 14:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The game itself is not a independent third-party source. Plus, Wikipedia is not a game guide, so there's no point in even having this information. Also, this is an old discussion; there isn't much of a point in reviving it. --16:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's not independent third-party source, it's independent first party source or primary source. Internet encyclopedia about internet article has the unique opportunity to direct the reader to the primary source for confirmation, something that a normal encyclopedia is unable to do. For example the article AltaVista begins with The name AltaVista refers both to an Internet search engine company and to that company's search engine product. but the only source confirming this is the actual link to www.altavista.com or the primary source. Your latter point, however limiting & generally ignored, is a correct one. - G3, 08:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we would need to cite the game itself. Whee else would this be. Canadianshoper 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What about citing a forum thread on NS discussing this? The best 'scholarship' on the subject is found on the jolt forums.24.190.65.147 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"See Also" links

Is there a reason for having a link to Micronation in the See Also section? It seems completely unrelated to me... Please comment. --Woodgreener 20:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The NS web game draws on a very mild form of some of the motivations that lead people to start (or contemplate starting) micro nations. In fact, the more obsessive NSers are nearly indistinguishable from the less serious micro-nation folks. Compare NS and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation#Exercises_in_fantasy_or_creative_fiction

24.190.65.147 12:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nationstates Crash

Other people will have to confirm this but i think Nationstates just crashed. If so it would be helpfull if info on that were included in this article 24.118.38.60 14:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC) ... oh wait i need to register. ok

Nonsense. That the site is currently temporarily down does not warrant inclusion. – Chacor 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It does if there's a reliable source writing about it, although I've no idea if we'd find one. --McGeddon 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily down my foot. Whenever I try to go to it, instead my browser googles it. Even when google finds it, my browser can't find it. Therefore, it's been down for a long time. 67.171.167.106 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that your browser is poor does not warrant inclusion. – Chacor 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Some browsers try a Google search if the domain appears not to exist. The site was also down in my high-quality browser, around the same time yesterday, although it's back now. --McGeddon 09:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what problems you have, but the main page and the forum work fine for me. JBK405 01:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

World Assembly

In the article, it was stated that the name of the NationStates United Nations has been revised to "World Assembly" today in pursuant to a cease-and-desist notice received from the real United Nations. Since NationStates runs a annual hoax on April 1, I suspect it to be the annual hoax (see April_Fools'_Day#By_websites). Any comments? --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 10:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nationstates.net/unlegal.pdf says otherwise--Jakezing (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The real UN aren't the only ones that can create a PDF document. That is no proof at all; I also believe it's fake. Besides, the UN would have noticed before January and it doesn't take that long to change two pictures and two names (emblem, smaller icon, United Nations, and UN). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.192.134 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed typos.--67.177.192.134 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barry insists that it isn't an April Fool's joke and that the Cease and Desist order is real. The fact that the WA still exists as of April 2nd doesnt mean the order is real, but it does seem to spell the end for the NSUN. -Kampfers (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As Charlotte Ryberg (Virtual Nation), NS-UN Delegate, I can't be convinced that the Cease and Desist order sounds real. Not when I'm so close savoring a whole year as NS-UN delegate. --Marianian (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what does that matter what you are in that game?--Jakezing (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God, the f*cking message was real! Get a grip!--163.248.159.162 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I'm removing the notability tag due to what I found not appropriate. If disagreeing, please discuss here. --Fixman^{Praise me} 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationstates 2

The Nationstates 2 beta is up and running [and stable at last]. I have an account, and it seems to be very different from the original. The wiki section on Nationstates 2 definitely needs to be expanded. There's the addition of the option of donating money in exchange for certain in-game incentives, there's some sort of actual war system, there are now individual worlds rather than 70,000 nations being in the same world, and a lot of other stuff besides. More at http://nationstates2.com/g/faq http://nationstates2.com/g/help and http://nationstates2.com/g/trade-faq

Amide10806 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NationStates and the idea of micronations

Can "nations" that are defined in NationStates be considered as examples of micronations? If no, why? Thanks in advance for the reply. --Antonielly (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Raiding

why isn't there even a bit listed about raiding and defending? it is a daily part of the game

btw:raiders 4TW! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.211.105 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Point?

Why does this article exist? It doesn't offer any relevant information. Wikipedia should not be a place for people to talk about worthless video games. They have million sites out there for that. Wikipedia should be reserved for information that is actually useful and relevant. I don't see the relevance in this article and think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.105.32 (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is actually an MMORPG, which can be in many forms. --Marianian (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was my assumption that wikipedia existed for the purpose of spreading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.214.34 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Attribute Rankings Table

I have 3 computers, two with IE7 and one with IE6, and all of them show this table as solid black and completely unreadable. However on Google Chrome, the table works perfectly. Can anybody fix this? Kachyna(talk) 01:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

the atribute ranking chart

i think the atribute rankings chart is way too dark i think it should be coloured red to blue from red as bad and blue as better and inbetween. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.129.226 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, its really hard to make out. At least we should edit the text to another color, id say. --Seculartopia (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

i checked it only works on macs.they have it on bright colors. we should get rid of the colors altogether or make it purple. that should be bright enough for both types of computers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.132.243 (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

it meaning the color of the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.137.196 (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Security Council

This section has been removed for multiple reasons; first, it is completely inaccurate. The SC does not have "more powers to affect the actual game"; it just affects the game differently. The General Assembly changes nation stats for all member states, the SC removes regional passwords. Secondly, there is no need to describe SC categories in such detail; GA categories aren't given that distinction. The "Commend and Condemn" section was only added to describe the intense controversy that greeted their implementation. Neither Liberations nor any of the GA categories were so publicly scrutinized (with the possible exception of repeals). Finally, there is no separate section on the GA, so why do we need one on the Security Council? The whole thing is entirely unnecessary, and removed. SchutteGod (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty good at nationstates and the WA. would you like my help? 95.144.62.27 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Commend and Condemn" section has been merged with the World Assembly section. The controversy is largely over and only concerned an extremely small number of players to begin with. A simple mention of the expanded function of the WA is enough; any more than that would consist of references to internal political minutiae that would be unhelpful for readers of this encyclopedia. 129.186.253.28 (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The WA has over 11,000 members, and the new features affect everybody, since anyone can be targeted for commendation or condemnation, so it is unhelpful to dismiss the situation as "only concern[ing] an extremely small number of players." It is the most controversial change to the WA since the UN was replaced, and it has fundamentally altered the state of WA play, so I see no reason not to devote a small section to the controversy. 70.181.171.159 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Conservative Coalition

How many times are SchutteGod and other members of The Conservative Coalition going to be allowed to change the name of the NS conservative sample region to their own? This is blatant advertising.

No, it's not. I am not even a member of The Conservative Coalition. The region names were chosen randomly, and the only reason I keep having to change it back to TCC is because members of Elite Conservative Circuit and other conservative-themed regions (including yours) keep switching the name to advertise their regions. The next time this is changed, it will be treated as edit war and will be reported. --SchutteGod (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions

NationStates players -- please don't post your opinions about the NationStates UN or other aspects of the game in the entry. Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.11.199.218 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2004‎ (UTC)

Clean-up?

• I think this article is in need of a bit of a clean-up. For one, the layout is rather ugly and it just looks like a huge essay. It should probably be broken up a bit. Second thing is there is quite a few unnecessary references to in-game groups that aren't particularly consequential to the article. I'm really not any sort of wiki-veteran, but I thought I'd throw this out for discussion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.193.15 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2004‎ (UTC)

Nah, I like it, maybe I'm already a little biased since I play it, maybe some more pictures, but it's really nice and straight-forward, which really repiclates the game a lot, if you want some more in depth visit NS's Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxen von Bismarck (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 July 2006‎ (UTC)

I think some of the old images should be updated - the screenshot of the nation page is a few years old for example. BlueRoll18 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

april fools 2011

if anyone cares to make an entry about this years prank: i collected most of the comments posted by hackers on the regional message boards
regards 137.193.139.86 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

- ^^ This is the stupidest thing I have ever read
- Goodbye everyone! This region is so pathetic I can't stay any longer!
- hahahahaha I rule
- Haxx0rs 4 the win!! Hahahahahahahaha
- I am a scared little kitten.
- I HATE YOU ALL SO MUCH
- I LOVE YOU GUYS SO MUCH I WANT TO COVER YOUR FACES WITH KISSES PLEASE SOMEBODY CUDDLE ME
- I RULE NATIONSTATES!!!! BOW BEFORE ME YOU PEONS
- I'M IN UR REGION, HAXX0RING UR RMB
- ima ban fan!
- KISS MY BUTT YOU LOSERS
- Moderators are LOSERS!!! Delete me if you dare mods!!
- N00bs post n00b posts hahahahaha
- spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam
- SUPPRESS THIS NERDS
- Well, that's certainly a valid point of view, and I appreciate you taking the time to address my points. But it doesn't alter the fundamental truth that any politico-economic structure that relies upon the inherent goodness of the populace is destined to inevitably collapse into a more stable, albeit possibly less noble, archetypal structure: namely, capitalism, or some minor variant thereof.
- You guys are idiots!!!!!
- Your mother is a llama

Vandalism alert

Some user keeps posting some nonsense about an anti-forum moderator revolution. I can assure you that no such thing has happened. Odin of Trondheim (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Moderator note removed

I removed the "Stupid Moderator" section. Try to keep Wikipedia unbiased. Thanks. ~An anonymous user. 13:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.122.248 (talk)

Thanks for your help, you caught it within twenty minutes of it appearing there. I've now explicitly reverted the article to a previous version, to remove some extra moderator ranting and someone changing all the links to point to cybernations.net. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Page move?

The game is officially called NationStates, and since a makeover a few years ago the site headers don't even mention Jennifer Government. Outside sources referenced in the article merely state that Barry is the author of Jennifer Government, not that Jennifer Government: NationStates is the full name. Therefore, I'd consider a page move to NationStates to be in order. Thoughts? 146.90.206.52 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The site calls itself NationStates. Adding 'Jennifer Government' to it is just complicating things. BlueRoll18 03:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to continue the argument here.

This is Wikipedia, not a place for players of NationStates to continue to argue about something that they disagreed with. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no argument simply documentation of an incident of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.81.109 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's very debatable, especially as written. Page protection has been requested. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible Abuse Section

This entire section is solely sourced from the forum of the game. Unless the controversy is big enough to be cited elsewhere than the game's own forum, I don't think that it is notable enough to be on the Wikipedia page, much less have its own section. If something is only cited on the forums and not on an outside source, it probably isn't notable enough to include. Thunderstone99 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to its removal. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Have put in a request for comment in order to get this matter resolved. Grazedandconfused (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see my objection to the removal of this section below. I do note again that, if one applies the "if something is on the game's own forum" rule or the need for "outside sources," then essentially the entire article is not notable enough to be a Wikipedia page. A problem -- admitted by the game/forum owner -- that the forum has had a problem with child sex abusers seems notable. Po-tee-weet (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Are the sources valid for the abuse section?

Request for a review of sources for abuse sectionGrazedandconfused (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, every single source there is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED forum post. If these abuse concerns didn't attract any mainstream press coverage, Wikipedia shouldn't be reporting on them. Max Barry's own statement merits some attention, but per that same policy articles should "[n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", so we can't use an informal forum post from Barry to source allegations about a specific user of his site. Given the nature of this material, it should be removed under WP:BLP until a reliable, published source can be found - I'll do that now. --McGeddon (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was summoned by LegoBot. Looking over the history, it looks like this was a local controversy sourced only to forum posts. To include it would be WP:UNDUE. In the fact, most of this article is sourced to the site itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to the deletion of this section. (I apologize in advance that I am not familiar with Wikipedia/Talk protocols yet.) WP:SELFPUBLISH applies to the entire article. 20 of the 25 "sources" are to the game/forum, flatter the subject, and are essentially PR. In contrast, the section in question meets the WP:SELFPUB exception: the statements are contrary to the interest of the subject of the article published by Max Barry about himself and his forums and it is verifiable that the cited statements were made.

As to WP:BLP, the same exception applies. Further, other than Mr. Barry, no person is identified -- except by an anonymous nation name and then only to the extent they have voluntarily posted to a public forum. There is no privacy violation and the statements are verifiable.

WP:UNDUE is rather subjective, but the contents of the statements by Mr. Barry and others are not in controversy and the objective fact as to the statements are not either (particularly as the statements themselves are reporting opinions). Moreover, relative to the subject of the article, the section is of importance. The sources are reliable as to the statements in the section. Similarly, to the extent the matter is "in-house" to the game/forums that are the subject of the article, this is true of most of the article and this section is more important than details about technical failures. That a public forum touted as an educational forum for the use of public schools has had problems both with abuse by potential child predators and has had problems policing said abuse is a least, if not more, of a weighty matter of note than an other part of the article.

Last, there is some concern here about maintaining NPOV. The NS/game forum was admittedly created to advertise a book and to promote Mr. Barry. Removing any criticism or problems with the subject of the article thus tends against objectivity and towards WP:SELFPROMOTION. On the other hand, there is good reason to believe that the most recent version of this section was written with a laudable attempt at objectivity by an agent of the NS forums, so it can hardly be said to give undue weight to another viewpoint. This was after prior versions led to an edit war involving potential WP:COI by that and other agents of the site. To the extent that any agent of the site may contributed to this edit and thereby removed information about a problem the site has had, that also involves possible WP:COI. Po-tee-weet (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately this is just about WP:VERIFIABILITY - everything in the article has to be supported by a reliable secondary source, and there doesn't appear to be one for this forum story. If WP:SELFPUBLISH applies to other sections of the article and we can't find a secondary source for them either, they should be removed as well. --McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the original section was written, as stated below, by players who were upset with how it played out. I re-wrote it not because I happened to agree with the inclusion, but because Wiki rules against edit waring. Pretty much this was a spill over from NationStates to Wiki. It shouldn't have been included in the first place. As for other sections self-referencing, that too must follow Wiki rules, but there are links to other sites, fluff or not, that verify the information and given its notability, should be in Wiki. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

That woukd be incorrect. I included it as it was a noteworthy event. I still believe it is as noteworthy as the vast majority of the rest of the article. As for the edit war, that was started by yorself and other moderators of the website.Osakadave (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

First, let me identify myself as the editor behind the original addition of the section. I did so anonymously due to fears of retribution from site moderators.

There are 25 footnotes in the references section. One, the first, is for Alexis. One, number five, is a link to a puff piece that has little, if anything, to actually do with the section is supposedly supports. One, number fifteen, is a link to an article about the acquisition of a former server host by another company. One, number twenty three, is a dead link, and listed as such. The remaining twenty-one are all links to the game. In that light, perhapse it's best to simply nominate the entire article for deletion.

Osakadave (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not be well-served by deleting this article, but it also is ill-served by the application of double-standards regarding content. The rules of WP:SELFPUB are not violated by this section, but may be by the article itself. NS appears to be itself notable, but the best source about its functioning and its events are going to be the website itself. This is a matter of common sense. NS players and NS staff have always been primary editors, because they are the most knowledgeable about the subject. It is not appropriate, however, to omit "negative" information -- particularly quoting the site owner himself and in words written by NS staff -- on the grounds that such information is originally added by players and not NS staff. A scattering of largely irrelevant third-party sources noting merely the existence of NS should not prevent deletion of the entire article (much of which is not sourced at all). If consensus excludes this section, I also nominate the article for deletion. Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Even at its mildest, "Barry said in a forum post that [named username mod] decided not to ban [named username] but in retrospect should have" breaks WP:BLPSELFPUB, as it includes "claims about third parties". --McGeddon (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point and do not wish to be tendentious, but I have trouble seeing references to anonymous individuals identified only by usernames as truly violating WP:BLPSELFPUB. One third party is an NS administrator and both third parties publicly posted the referenced matters. Any privacy violation is vague at best, as is any concern for harm to the third parties. The accuracy of Mr. Barry's statements are not in dispute. It is not clear if anyone other than the user who is not an NS administrator knows his identity, so there can be no reliable third-party sources. Po-tee-weet (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia only to the extent its subject is a popular internet game and forum. It is used in schools as an educational tool. According to the owner, the site has had problems with its abuse by child predators. What could be more notable? Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, the problem isn't the inclusion of the abuse section, it's having appropriate sources. McGeddon sums up the problems with the sources really well, and I think it's also correct that there's other sections that need to be cleaned up too. I don't feel that it would be appropriate to nominate the entire article for deletion, however, because there does seem to be enough reliable sources to meet the notability WP:N test. Grazedandconfused (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure how three sources only vaguely related to the article at all and (in two cases) only supporting a single statement are sufficient to meet WP:N. Po-tee-weet (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

While I do think there are sufficient sources, especially if we include the links NinjaPirateRobot found, there are enough sources that it should at least be merged with the Max Barry article. I think we should all wait on McGeddon's revisions, however, before discussing possible merges. Grazedandconfused (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is warranted, it'd also be really confusing given this article is talking about a game and the Max Barry one an author. But, yes, I do agree on waiting to see what we're getting in terms of cleanup first. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Entire sections with no or inadequate citations of any kind

Even counting on sources possibly too closely associated with the subject, entire sections of this article have little or no citations at all. Sections with no citations are: 1.1; 1.3; 1.5; 1.6; and 2. Other sections have mostly dead links or outdated citations. Po-tee-weet (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading those sections, it seems about right that they should be cut - they're broadly against WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE anyway. Every Wikipedia article should be describing its subject as it is seen from reliable sources only, and if those sources haven't focused on aspects such as group raiding, in-character roleplaying, April Fools' jokes and how the user forums have moved a few times, that tells us that the article shouldn't cover them either. If you want an uninvolved editor to make these cuts (I only played the game briefly in 2002), let me know and I'll have a go at it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best for you, McGeddon, to have a go at cutting out the sections we have noted and otherwise try to clean up the article. Thank you. Po-tee-weet (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I also played the game briefly around ten years ago. It's difficult to find reliable sources about this site. After a bit of digging, I was able to find a long article in ABC news and several shorter ones in The NY Times, the other ABC, this book, and this book. It's unlikely, but a custom WP:VG/RS search might turn up more; I tried quite a few different combinations to no real effect. If there's going to be any kind of real attempt at cleanup, we'll need to prune down the excessive detail in this article. I think McGeddon already covered the relevant policies and guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking over this all, I'd agree that the entire article needs a clean up and it would be best if that came from an uninvolved editor. I'd be very happy to see McGeddon do this and/or welcome any input he has. Grazedandconfused (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it would be considered an acceptable source or not, bu apparently the April Fools Day jokes have been archived here. I wouldn't mind seeing McGeddon taking it on as well if he's happy to put his time into it. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and rewritten the article from the available sources - thanks to NinjaRobotPirate from digging some up. I've only dipped into one primary source, to include Barry's comment on NationStates 2, rather than leaving it hanging with no further context. Everything else that could only be sourced to the website itself, or to the forums, has gone.

As I say, I've not played the game since its launch, which is when all these sources appear to date from, so I have no perspective on what information might be laughably out of date now, and won't have accidentally misrepresented any sources. If there are any glaring omissions or inaccuracies (the references didn't have much to say about "regions"), we can start looking for sources which give a better description of them. I hope that's all been useful. --McGeddon (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing that. It's really a great help. The only thing that really pops out at me is that NationStates no longer uses the UN (they got a cease and desist order I think), and it's now called the WA. I don't know if we'll find any secondary sources for that. Would it be needed in this case? Grazedandconfused (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I dug up these. FWIW, at least in combination (perhaps with the original citation(s)) one or more should be sufficient: Techdirt, Max Barry's pdf of UN letter, Max Barry blog. At a minimum, the UN reference should be changed to WA out of accuracy, as the current source is just outdated on that point. Po-tee-weet (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not familar enough with video game articles to know if that's sufficent. I would think that this is a time where WP:VG/OFFICIAL would be appropriate, but I'm not comfortable making that judgement myself.Grazedandconfused (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Jennifer Government: NationStates → NationStates – The website no longer includes the phrase "Jennifer Government" alongside the name anywhere that I can see, including the banner on the front page and the site logo in the corner of every page. Judging by comments above this has been the case for at least a couple of years. I tried to "be bold" and move it myself but this was apparently not possible. Literally Satan (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would support this move.

  @Literally Satan: You could not move the article because the redirect in question has an edit history of more than one edit. --Izno (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support the removal of Jennifer Government from name. I also question whether further disambiguation from Nation state would be advantageous but am not sure. GregKaye 06:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:SMALLDETAILS from Nation state, too many readers would be likely to capitalize Nation State and this is a barely notable subject known only to gamers; instead move to Nation States (video game) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  I find the random capitalization (and lack of space, which would be a typo relative to this game's name) to be unlikely. Maybe there's a question of MOS:TM you're identifying but usually we'll accept a slightly stylized name if it helps to disambiguate. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi How does NationStates (video game) sound? (sry stupid question) How does NationStates (video game) look? A search on "Max Barry" AND ("NationStates" OR "Nation States") seems to indicate predominant use of "NationStates". GregKaye 09:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to NationStates, the site doesn't use the "Jennifer Government" phrase and as far as I can see none of the sources do either. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose NationStates as per In ictu oculi above but without objection to NationStates continuing as a redirect to the video game title. The article header content {{Redirect|NationStates|the concept|nation state}} clears up confusion. GregKaye 09:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. NationStates is a perfectly acceptable title, and there is unlikely to be any confusion. A simple hatnote will help the few people who end up at the wrong article. The site itself calls itself "NationStates". I can't really see any reason to stay at the current title. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Hatnotes would provide sufficient disambiguation to anyone who makes the typo of omitting a space while searching for "nation state". Axem Titanium (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Even when it was new and popular, everyone called it NationStates without the "Jennifer Government" in front. Per WP:COMMONNAME we should reflect that in the article title.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Active Nations

I feel like it's worth noting in the article that users, particularly in raiding/defending gameplay, can and do run multiple accounts legally, for example one notable user who runs about 2000-3000 (don't remember the exact number) or even myself, a relatively small-name raider, who usually has 75-85 at any given time. As a result the number of active nations is misleading for the number of users. I'll add this to the article once I can find a source to back it up. IvyJohn 14:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi, User:IvyJohn,

I, a NationStates player myself, have noted this. I've provided the Penglai example (Penglai is a region with 3,000 puppets) in the Citations. United Massachusetts (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)User:United Massachusetts

Major Edits Made

I reworked several parts of this to make it nice, prettier, and more organized. I'd appreciate thoughts. --United Massachusetts (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on tag

Should the category "Fictional Governments" remain on the page? --AyyImHere (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, yes it should. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@AyyImHere: I've removed the RfC tag for now. From WP:RFC,

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

Since there hasn't actually been any discussion, try that first. If that doesn't work, then think about reopening a full RfC. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: Alright. I have left a message on the user's talk page before (via Twinkle) but got no response. I'll try again.--AyyImHere (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)