Board Thread:Proposals/@comment-5843134-20141228184418/@comment-25866192-20150123213227

Lothian 1 wrote: Deutschlandkaiser wrote: Lothian 1 wrote: I believe there is a History section on the micronational template and this is the only place these types of articles should be allowed. Independent articles should not.

Lothian 1 (talk) 12:57, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

I feel there should be independent articles because some conflicts could have so much information they need them. Well, 99.999% of these so-called "wars" are nothing of the sort and never ever have been, that's why they were banned to begin with by past Administrations. Then these fabricated stories appeared and were flaming the same things so, those were banned as well. Now in its infinite wisdom, you wish to bring this type of thing back? As I stated, not a good judgement call if done so. If any articles are "fabricated," as you put it, or deemed silly or overexagerated or any related problems, then they shall be deleted or fixed, correct? I, as a proponent of allowing these types of articles, will attempt to bring to the attention of the moderators any articles that do not seem legitamite, as I agree they do not have a place on this site, but really, is it worth banning all of them just because of the silly and bad ones? If they're banned, then most people will simply put the war summaries on the pages of their countries, meaning the useless information is still on this website. The wars in my country are real, and although lighthearted, are serious events capable of changing the politics in my country, and therefore they demand long summaries that would only serve to needlessly clutter the main page of my country.