Talk:Principality of Marlborough

message: Does the naming of this Micronation ahve anything to do with this town... was it closer to Marlborough than Rocky, mayhap?--ZayZayEM 01:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the media reports I've seen refer to Rockhampton, but it's quite possible that they do so because that's the nearest town most people would be familiar with. --Gene_poole 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Marlborough, Queensland]]

message: The current rewrite by User:Jumanous although expanding much of teh previous articles does require Cleanup and NPOVing.
Jumanous has admitted above a Conflict of Interest (he was personally involved in the matter) and appears to ahve painted a "matyr" and "aussie battler" picture of the Muirheads. While this may be a valid viewpoint, it is not Neutral in accordance with wikipedia policies, and effort should be made to clean it up.
An article about a contraversial subject as this definitely needs in text citations to prevent ambiguity and edit disputes flaring up.
Please do not remove the tags placed on the article until these issues have been sufficiently addressed--ZayZayEM 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that's not the way things work around here. The Marlborough "secession" is historically documented in multiple media sources. Whether they agree with the Muirheads' POV or not is beside the point, and we certainly will not be deleting this or any other article because people don't like what the media write about them. --Gene_poole 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not from the Muirhead's perspective.  It is from eye witness accounts gathered in a far more thorough way than those pathetically inaccurate news paper articles are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumanous (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless these "eyewitness accounts" have been documented in reliable, publicly accessible third party sources somewhere, they cannot be included in WP. --Gene_poole 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. Just bear in mind that WP does not have "dubious rules". It has rules. Editors can comply with them and contribute, or disagree with them and not contribute. There's no option for disagreeing with the rules and contributing. Most of the key rules are explained at WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. --Gene_poole 23:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and POV 

message: I have clarified a few factual problems with the article, and removed the colored/ biased language used by Poole.</br>
- Flags - The flags can be seen on many news reports, and articles, including the cover of 1 of the news paper articles sited, and the news report sited.</br>
- The location and names of the properties, are a matter of public record, and are listed, and have been changed according to those records.  The GPS reference comes from Google Earth, and references from the lands office.</br>
- The mention of world wide support, comes from colleges of mine from UK and France, mentioning the story and the date the story was aired on BBC news, along with the large number of letters I have personally seen from the event from France and England. </br> 
- The number of days is easily determined by public media reports.  I haven't written all of them, but they are of public record and can be aquired from media monitors or similar orginization.  It was headline news for over 10 days, so any time around those dates will produce some headline from this case.</br>
- There are still a number of changes that need to be made, but I am searching for documents to back up the claims as I have seen a number of attempted changes to "factualize" this document stifiled by the clearly biased Poole. </br> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.191.11.129 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please ensure that your contributions to WP comply with WP:CIVIL. Nobody here has attempted to "stifle" anything. If your contributions are supported by cited reliable third party reference sources that's great, and they're very welcome. --Gene_poole 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Changes 

message: The image :File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg

message: The article tells us that the Muirhead's adopted a number of flags for their alleged micronation including the 'Scottish' flag. That may be true but the flag represented in the pictures alongside is not the Scottish flag but rather the personal standard of the King or Queen of Scotland. The Royal Standard is not a national flag; the flag of Scotland is the white diagonal cross on the blue background known as the Saltire or the Cross of St Andrew. Which is it that the Muirheads are supposed to have adopted.Moonraker55 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish flag