Talk:Principality of Sealand/Archive 4

message: These are the latest edits to this article.
*(cur) (last)  08:02, 18 Mar 2005 Centauri (delete spurious NPOV tag - this nonsense has dragged on for long enough)
*cur) (last)  06:27, 18 Mar 2005 MPLX (This article is totally out of step with reality and its neutrality is disputed)
*(cur) (last)  04:59, 18 Mar 2005 Josh Parris m (→HavenCo - disamb hacking)
*(cur) (last)  00:07, 18 Mar 2005 Gene Poole (remove dispute notice - there is no longer any dispute)
:Please observe that Gene Poole who I am convinced is Centauri by another User Name removed the dispute notice on March 18. I restored it on the same day. It has now been removed by Cenauri (Gene Poole) who has also continued his habit of making this into a personal attack against me, rather than discussing the facts of the article. It is for that reason that I will not engage in "discussions" on this Talk page.
:I have also observed that after Gene Poole disappeared from the scene due to a dispute with others, Centauri appeared and a gradual reincorporation of all of the old POV stuff has been carried out to once again render especially the side bar illustrations and chart totally absurd. The law is stated quite clearly on the Legal history of Sealand which Gene Poole / Centauri wishes to have deleted and Rhobite who is siding with Gene Poole / Centauri here, has placed a Neutrality dispute tag on that article which I have not removed. That article contains many legal citations and unique references.
:Many claims have been made on this article concerning the date of the extension of UK territorial waters in 1987, but if you will observe, the UK had the right to do that from before Bates threw off the first squatters (Bates was not the first). Also on that article is an external link to the site of an offshore fan who has taken many excellent photographs of offshore stations and he also took them of the inside and outside of Rough Tower. His photographs include a shot of BRITISH officers going by under the Tower, and of the BRITISH buoy marked Rough Tower. There are details of court cases and there are also details of the many attempts by Bates to test his luck only to fail with every project (radio/TV/computers), because all he was doing (he is no longer there) is squatting on a former WWII UK sunken barge sitting on UK territory. When Ryan Lackey discovered that Bates had lied to him about the US case concerning the legal situation concerning Rough Tower - he quit and denounced Bates as a liar on his own web site and a press conference, all of which is thoroughly documented.
:In the past I have offered to answer specific requests for specific information. That offer still stands. But because I love Wikipedia I will not engage in either revert wars or slagging matches. Like Jack Webb I only want the facts and the article on this page is based upon fantasy. (If it says that, I will withdraw many of my objections.) MPLX/MH 16:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to ask you one final time to please refrain from further off-topic rants. If you wish to make oddball accusations, then produce your evidence. If you persist in this nonsense I will initiate an RfC on your behaviour. Consider yourself warned. --Centauri 22:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agendas

message: By using standard network utilities, it can be determined that currently (Apr 2005) the site www.havenco.com isn't hosted in Sealand, but somewhere in United States.  
This make me wonder: do they have any customers at all? 
This can have two possible explanations:
1) Services of HavenCo are of such a poor quality, that they don't want to expose it.
Or they have no services at all (no customers so far).
2) HavenCo wants to protect their customers not only by concealing of their identities, but also by concealing the fact itself these sites are hosted by it. If we knew that www.havenco.com is in Sealand, we would know that any site having same route as www.havenco.com is hosted by HavenCo.
This sounds reasonable.  
But, how a potential customer could check a quality of the service?  It seems that there is no way to do it except by paying the full price.
And here is a question to the public. Have you ever heard about any site hosted by HavenCo? Crocodealer 
:From what I checked on the main HavenCo website, it has not been updated in over two years (last date was 11 March 2003). Is there anything else yall need? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: www.havenco.com was set up before sealand had internet connectivity.  since sealand's speed at maximum was 4Mbps, we kept the web server offsite.  the current sealand hosted servers would all be in 217.64.32.0/20 (www.cracks.am is a good example) and I believe there is currently no connection out to Sealand, but rather a machine in London masquerading as being on Sealand, due to the ping times -- the london hop to the sealand hop is shorter than it would be if speed-of-light were being respected.  not too surprising though.  Ryan 20:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of two very popular sites hosted with havenco: thegoldcasino.com and dbourse.com. Both work just fine. Search4Lancer 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HavenCo doesn't use its own services 

message: I'm reluctant to make big reversions, but I got a note on my talk page implying that everything I've done to Sealand and related articles has ignored consensus, etc. on this talk page. 
Yet somebody went ahead and reverted all my changes, without leaving a single comment on this talk page - that I could see. If I have overlooked (a) his comments or (b) some previous consensus, please forgive me. The last note I saw told me to go ahead. Uncle Ed 15:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:Oops! I just now saw some comments made by Centauri above. I may have made an error. If so, please forgive me. Uncle Ed 15:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Although the ROughs Towers page should contain msot of its history, SOME is needed to understand context. At the moment, hisotry begins 'In 1978...'; Sealnad was first inhabited by the Bates' in 1967!! Am moving part of teh stuff backRobdurbar 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big revert

message: Since I actually have a box which is supposedly on Sealand, I did some pings/traceroutes, the output of which is below. From these, we should be able to establish whether the Sealand boxes are actually on Sealand, and roughly what the connection is. I'm quite certain it is not a satellite link. Either they have decent bandwidth (e.g. E1 or multiple E1) or the boxes themselves are sitting in London. To prove I have a box there, I put a note up for wikipedians at http://taz.blagblagblag.org
Traceroutes to/from the boxes are different. Tracing from my workstation to Sealand the last hops are:
: 8  ge-10-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.7)  115.637 ms ge-9-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.147)  118.240 ms ge-10-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.7)  115.190 ms
: 9  80.253.124.55 (80.253.124.55)  114.751 ms  114.870 ms  114.811 ms
:10  host35146.havenco.net (217.64.35.146)  114.270 ms  114.833 ms  115.532 ms
Traceroute from Sealand out:
: 1  vlan-35-144.havenco.net (217.64.35.145)  0.319 ms  0.289 ms  0.259 ms
: 2  217.163.4.33 (217.163.4.33)  0.931 ms  0.866 ms  0.953 ms
: 3  ae-0-54.bbr2.London1.Level3.net (212.187.131.146)  0.865 ms  1.71 ms  1.37 ms
Pings to the second hop (presumably the first hop off the LAN) using the IP addr that appears in outgoing traces.  The IP addr, which doesn't have reverse DNS, is owned by http://www.packetexchange.net/ which is a provider of fiber connections:
:$ ping -q -c 100 217.163.4.33  
:PING 217.163.4.33 (217.163.4.33): 56 data bytes
:--- 217.163.4.33 ping statistics ---
:100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
:round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.726/1.042/1.599/0.159 ms
Pings to the third hop, using the IP addr that appears in outgoing traces. This IP addr is owned by Level 3 and resolves to ae-0-54.bbr2.London1.Level3.net.
:$ ping -q -c 100 212.187.131.7
:PING 212.187.131.7 (212.187.131.7): 56 data bytes
:--- 212.187.131.7 ping statistics ---
:100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
:round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.668/0.962/1.455/0.158 ms
Pings to the second hop, using the IP addr that appears in incoming traceroutes. The IP addr, which doesn't have reverse DNS, is owned by packetexchange:
:$ ping -q -c 100 80.253.124.55
:PING 80.253.124.55 (80.253.124.55): 56 data bytes
:--- 80.253.124.55 ping statistics ---
:100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
:round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.169/0.289/0.474/0.082 ms
Pings to the third hop, using the IP addr that appears in incoming traces. The address resolves to ge-10-0.ipcolo1.London1.Level3.net.
:$ ping -q -c 100 212.187.131.146
:PING 212.187.131.146 (212.187.131.146): 56 data bytes
:--- 212.187.131.146 ping statistics ---
:100 packets transmitted, 100 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
:round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.846/1.819/33.032/3.780 ms
Have fun. :)  Jebba 19:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pings/traceroutes

message:  
:Moved to top of page by: hydnjo talk 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination 

message: Because Rivarez has twice reverted my edits without comment, I will be reinserting them one-by-one, with edit comments for each incremental change.  This should allow useful discussion to take place -O^O 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 27 Reverts 

message: The table allows for allows one to see the information they're looking for at a glance, without having to scan over the entire article. Please also explain your issues with the article's state of NPOV. 24ip | lolol 01:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The table suggests this is a country. We've had this before. Likewise the POV issues are self-evident, like the mention that Germany hasn't denied it has recognized Sealand. Well, Germany hasn't denied the Earth is flat either. Why should Germany deny something no sane person would claim anyway? The diplomat was accredited to the United Kingdom and dealt with the Bateses as private British citizens. Rivarez 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There is an ongoing discussion about the creation of infoboxes specifically for unrecognised countries, secession movements and micronatons  here. --Gene_poole 02:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rivarez, I just noticed your comments here.  I'm sure we can make this article completely NPOV if we work together.  Using your flat-earth theory, it would be completely NPOV to comment "Germany has not commented on the flat-earth theory".  It would be POV to say "Despite many opportunities to do so, Germany has not confirmed the flat-earth theory".  One way simply remarks on Germany's silence, the other way leads the reader to a certain conclusion.  For some reason, you rejected the earlier version I proposed with the language "has not commented", which was what let me to try "neither confirmed nor denied" to find something you would be happier with. -O^O 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why remove the table?

message: Pjacobi asked "What do you expect as a citation for something generally asserted?" - Hi Pjacobi, you can find a good explanation of how to do these citations at Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.  As an example, you could write something like Noam Chomsky, in his book All about Sealand, wrote "its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously" -O^O 15:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never read any newspaper article or on-line news site, which did take Sealands claims to sovereignty and legitimacy seriously. I can't cite non-quotes. Claims that the moon is made of green cheese are generally not taken seriously by the scientific community is another such statements which cannot be backed up by an actual quote. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. That someone would acknowledge sovereignty and legitimacy  of Sealand would be rather strange. Please provide evidence for this. If no evidence can be unearthed, we can legitimately state: its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously. And I don't mean acknowledgements by the crackpot link exchange community. --Pjacobi 15:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to cite "generally"

message: Just what is POV about this version? What are your objections? 24ip | lolol 23:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly the points mentioned above: the misleading claim that Germany has "not denied" the absurd idea that it recognizes Sealand; and the removal of the indubitable fact that Sealand's "claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously". FRivar 23:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the reverts?

message: ...to help editors cool off from the current edit war. Please work out your differences here on the talk page. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote for the table. Gives you a nice at-a-glance summary of the claims made. --Billpg 11:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be convenient, but it is horridly against the NPOV policy. See my comment on the template talk page here. - Taxman Talk 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to return and find this article protected.  My opinion, although I may be wrong, was that the revert war was over a separate set of changes than the template.  I thought progress was being made on the template.  As long as we are "voting", I vote to keep the template, but edit the contents of the template.  - O^O 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support retention of an edited version of the infobox, and have added comments concerning my views on this subject at the template talk page. The edit warring by Wik's sockpuppets largely concerned the infobox. Wik has "issues" with infoboxes. --Gene_poole 13:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems like most of the folks here talking are agreeing. The folks with issues aren't. So, if you have a real consensus, then I'm going to lift the protection; if someone tries to force their version through then it seems to me like you have enough editors watching this page to deal with the necessary reverting. If anybody objects to having the page unprotected, let me know -- otherwise it's coming off today. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with unprotecting, as long as it doesn't lead to removal of the crucial its claims to sovereignty and legitimacy are generally not taken seriously. In contrast the allegeded recognition by Germany, which is totally unfounded, needs further editing work. --Pjacobi 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. Encourage everybody to keep talking. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: The fact that you need to explain that the box is not a country box illustrates how anyone not paying attention (probably most Wiki readers) would assume it was the same box.  But the real problem is that you expect to see a table hard facts, statistics and the like, that are beyond dispute.  Pretty much everything about Sealand is in dispute.  There are some things that are not appropriate to put in boxes.  I'm not just thinking about this case.  Battle boxes with casualty figures are another example.  Pretty much all casualty figures for many battles (all?) before 1500 are at best educated guesses, at worst fantasy.Dejvid 14:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Box