Talk:Republic of Kozuc

Greetings from Eruditia

Salutations! I am Illuminarch Nicholas I, leader of Eruditia. Seeing as we are both relatively new to the micronational scene, I found it beneficial that we engage in diplomatic affairs of the beneficial kind; it would be wise to observe each other as we both progress. I look forward to future diplomatic ties and alliances in the future.

Illustro est via,

Illuminarch Nicholas I

Eruditia 06:36, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Notice

Eruditia, we feel that we must inform you of some past renditions of this micronation: UPUC and Zurdonia. This user has been caught sock-puppeting, or abusing multiple accounts (find most of the evidence here). Much of this has happened very recently but, as Eruditia is a new member to the community, we thought it fair that ye be informed as the rest of us'.

Vale, et noctem bonum tenetis.

~Ða Þȷåd wô Þeodıa 06:26, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Relations with Secundomia

Would you be interested in opening relations with the Republic of Secundomia?

Secundomia ^{(talk),(Contributions),(blog),(followed pages)} 00:07, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

The Dubious Template

Dear Starland,

Can you read? Are you capable of the simple act known as reading? I suppose asking you that is kind of stupid, but I'll spell it out for you in case anything that's multisyllabic is a marathon for you. R. E. A. D. I. N. G. Yeah. Ask your mummy in case you don't understand what it is. So, why do I bring up the fact you are incapable of this basic act that four year olds learn in preschool? Because you've twice removed the dubious template. Now, what does this Dubious template say? That the factual accuracy of the article, in this case the Republic of Kozuc is in dispute. Now, do you know what "in dispute" means in this context? It means that someone, somewhere, disagrees with the factual accuracy of the article in question. In common practice, it means multiple someones, in multiple somewheres, disagree with the factual accuracy of the article. Now, let's see if this holds true for this article. Does anyone disagree with at least one thing about this article? Anyone? Oh look, I disagree with the facts within the article. I could explain, but there's plenty of blog posts and comments that I've made about it and I'm sure you're all too familiar with them. So, do I count as someone, somewhere? Yes, I'm pretty sure I constitute as someone, somewhere. Meaning this article should probably have the dubious template there unless the issues are rectified. Have they? Well, let's see how this could be resolved. One, the Republic of Kozuc gives even a smidgen of evidence to prove their existence. Two, see point one. Got that? Now, after refusing for a couple of months to give any evidence for reasons unknown, the Kozuc/Zurdonia/UPUC suggested that they give video evidence of their citizens and the factual accuracy of their micronation. They said that a couple of weeks ago. The rest of us are still waiting. Now, let me make it clear, if they do prove that they have a dozen active citizens, I'd be all too happy to admit I was wrong, on this occasion. Naturally, I still think the majority of the two hundred citizens from the Hazad region are/were fake. But for the dozen citizens that make up the Repubic of Kozuc, if a simple video were made of twelve citizens actually taking part in something micronationally-related, then I'd be more then happy to desist from adding the template. Until then...it stays. And also, simply removing the template also means you can't read. The template clearly says to resolve any inaccuracies on the discussion page. As I am attempting to do. So if you remove it yet again without posting something here to prove me wrong, then I'm afraid that's further proof that you can't read. Also, yes, I know it's my opinion. That's kinda the point. Anyone can dispute the accuracy of something if they have reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, this might lead you to add the dubious template to my page. I can assure you I didn't write all 18,597 posts on the Yablokon Forums. If you still have reasonable doubt, raise your queries and issues. Until then, leave the dubious template unless new information arises. Thank you for your time.

Aldrich Lucas ^{talk contributions} 06:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Now, as part of the policy we take with "dubious" articles, if the template is removed for a third time, there's a temporary ban, especially if you just remove it without discussing with the one who added it to the page. Thanks. --Cajak ^{[★MicroWiki Admin★]} 06:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Theodia agrees fully with Yabloko on this'.

~Ða Þȷåd wô Þeodıa 06:33, October 8, 2010 (UTC)