Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Donetsk, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Have you used other accounts to edit Wikipedia? Sdrqaz (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is my only account. MicroSupporter (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verdis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Do you also edit over at MicroWiki? If not, we could always use some experienced contributors like you, and as you may or may not know, MicroWiki has far less strict criteria for notability when it comes to micronations! LuxorCZ (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:LuxorCZ, I only edit on Wikipedia. I will consider taking a look at MicroWiki though as I have heard of it! In the meantime, could you please help me defend this case? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination) - thanks! MicroSupporter (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Verdis regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Please note that there is a new general sanction; only extended-confirmed users are allowed to edit articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Additionally, please do not restore contentious unsourced content into articles (WP:BURDEN). Prolog (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prolog (talk · contribs), thank you for letting me know. I was just changing the infobox to what it looks like for Sevastopol. de facto russia, de jure ukraine MicroSupporter (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! MicroSupporter, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 18:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion was closed before I could reply, you shouldn't worry about "bumping" an AfD discussion. Once the typical 7 day review period is up for the AfD, an uninvolved editor (usually an Admin) will either delete the article, keep the article, close the discussion as "no consensus", or relist the discussion for another 7 days (effectively "bumping" it by moving it to the most recent daily log). If the discussion does not result in consensus, the default is for the article to be kept. You can see WP:CLOSEAFD for more details. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thank you for answering my question! MicroSupporter (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Vít Jedlička. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

MicroSupporter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by Guerillero for edit warring on Vit Jedlicka a day after the edit war occurred. I had apologised on the ANI the day prior and yet was still blocked by this admin later on. I originaly edit warred as I was going off of what I saw on other micronational WP:BLP's, which I shouldn't have gone off of and I had acknowledged that and apologised, yet I've now been blocked a day later for 24 hours even after acknowledging my mistake. Doesn't feel very fair. I was also wound up as I thought AndyTheGrump was having a go at me like he did on another topic. I also saw on the ANI that I made that the admin that blocked me wants to push a topic ban on me. I'm not quite sure why? I acknowledged what I reverted was wrong and apologised, and will make sure not to do it again. I am doing my best to write on Wikipedia as neutrally possible. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I thought it was the 19th for some reason. Unblocked --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say that I think the block a little harsh, myself, coming at this late stage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy. I apologise for my wrongdoings. I think we both got a little heated at eachother in the past few days haha MicroSupporter (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you were involved in discussions related to micronations and wanted to know whether you would like to join a wikiproject dedicated to documenting more serious various types of autonomous zones across the world.

You can join here Wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones DominusVilicus (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending! I will look into it! MicroSupporter (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:President of Verdis visiting the micronation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Apollon Zimmermann and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 4#Apollon Zimmermann until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MicroSupporter

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username VickKiang, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Liberland Press, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones to help assist the creation, sourcing and drafting of the Draft:Lumina_(Proposed_City) city, which is Network State and movement to establish an autonomous city. I ask that you do not move this article to the mainspace until editors are sufficiently happy with the reliable sourcing of information about the movement. HeliosSunGod (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge.--Estar8806 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Estar8806. Sorry about that. I didn't realise that was the case. I was trying to quickly see what I could do to move the page as fast as I could as I saw someone made a typo when renaming the page before me. I will make sure to use the Move option from now on. MicroSupporter (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies, we all make mistakes, I myself have made the same one. So long as we learn from our mistakes, there's really no harm. Happy editing! Estar8806 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Jackson (politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Jackson (politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ARandomName123 was:

Not sufficiently different from version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Verdis (micronation) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). This title is a locked redirect, and this draft cannot be accepted.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. If this draft is resubmitted, or an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection, a topic-ban or a partial block may be requested against the submitting editor, and the draft may be nominated for deletion.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carolyn Shelby is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Shelby until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). This title is a locked redirect.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. If this draft is resubmitted, or an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection, a topic-ban or a partial block may be requested against the submitting editor, and the draft may be nominated for deletion.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Verdis. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you allowed purging article of Liberland by some random crowd editors who just came there? As a person who supervise article Liberland you should have had been more vigilant. Liberland is most known micronation in the world and they are trying to purge it from cognizance, why the hell all other 50 micronations have infobox remained and they remove just the most known one? Thats not possible. ThecentreCZ (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ I have been trying to keep the infobox and the Liberland article. The bias is coming from other users who keep calling Liberland a 'scam' or a 'fake'. MicroSupporter (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you must fight more and call for help. ThecentreCZ (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ Can you help me fight this? I am not a frequent contributor. MicroSupporter (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise you both to read WP:OWN and WP:CANVASS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked? How did you even get here? You are stating on your page that you are: taking a break permanently, why are you then editing Wikipedia right now and misleading readers thinking that you are not active editor? ThecentreCZ (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ He is a troll who has a very personal problem with micronations. It has been addressed on WP:VPP. He is often called into ANI for insulting other users too judging by his talk page. lol MicroSupporter (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not refer to other editors as trolls, this constitutes a personal attack as you are aware. Don't do it again. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You realise he has made personal attacks towards me in the past numerous times, right? MicroSupporter (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that here, and even if true (no judgement on if it is or not, I'm not going looking through their contributions) you still can't make personal attacks against other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 20:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, and I apologised for that a few hours ago on WP:ANI. I will not do it again. On the other hand, his personal attacks were months in the past. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Why the hell they removed the box even when RfC request on WP:VPP is still open? Until the end of RfC it should have remained in there. I've looked to the RfC discussion, there are many old acquaintances there like horrible editor leader Number 57. Their disurptive crowd is massive, they are exatly that people founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger is talking about in his speeches, how Wikipedia is beeing ruined. ThecentreCZ (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their behaviour is horrid. I struggle to enjoy editing on Wikipedia because of these people. Andy just threatened me to WP:ANI for merely calling him biased. Something he tends to do every time he doesn't get his way. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThecentreCZ sorry I forgot to tag MicroSupporter (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA MicroSupporter (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Liberland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I know you are not - yet - over the limit of 3 reverts, but it is likely you will be soon. The running RFC-discussion, started this February, does not override the talk page decision of November 2023 to remove the infobox. The Banner talk 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner As other users on talk have said, it is best it is restored until WP:VPP is resolved. It was at least there in September MicroSupporter (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion on VPP was initiated much later than the talk page discussion. The completed discussion/RFC might have a bearing on the infobox. But as long as there is no decision in that RFC to override the talk page decision, that decision on the talk page stands tall. The Banner talk 13:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have ever interacted, nor have I ever removed an infobox from a micronation article, so could I ask why you mentioned me in this unnecessarily rude comment? Number 57 21:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This user is a citizen of a member state of the United Nations."

idk it doesn't seem to narrow it down that much lol. 178.120.4.49 (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan? Dronebogus (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican, Cook Islands, Kosovo, Western Sahara, Abkhazia and a couple of other debatable ones. Canterbury Tail talk 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland Dronebogus (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the consensus at WP:ANI and your stated intention to leave Wikipedia, I have indefinitely blocked you. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MicroSupporter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Verdis (micronation), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]