Talk:HM Fort Roughs/Archive 1

I will be adding a lot of new information to this article and completing various sections. I have merely taken a break as of this date and time. MPLX/MH 18:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have now returned to add more information while disassembling the now exiled "Principality of Sealand" article (NOT the current Sealand page.) The page being disassembled has been parked by an another user on a different page, although it was originally created by this editor. Once all text that can be used has been removed from that page, its shell can then be deleted. In a similar fashion I will also disassemble the German Sealand page (which I also created) and merge its contents with the original Sealand page. The contents of the Sealand page will then reflect the fan representations of what they claim is the Principality of Sealand and only one page will then bear that title. The purpose of the Sealand: A Legal History page is to document the law and opinions rendered, rather than interesting legal theories. I am now (as of the date and time of this message), taking another break, but I will return to complete these various tasks which I hope will be to the satisfaction of everyone while reducing individual article sizes to fit within the Wikipedia format. MPLX/MH 00:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) I have now added many new sections of law applicable to this subject. I will be adding more details to the case law involving Radio Essex which will also show why Roy Bates could not transmit from Rough Tower. In fact, as already posted, Roy Bates was never at any time outside of British jurisdiction, he was only outside of certain specific provisions of certain specific laws which had not been extended to cover areas that were part of The Crown Estate or under the control of the Ministry of Defence. By not paying attention to the fine print of specific law, the world media became misled into thinking that British law did not apply to Roy Bates while he was on Rough Tower. However, only specific provisions such as health care, etc., did not apply due to his location on Rough Tower, which always did apply when he was residing at his home in the county of Essex in England. Consequently these treaties and passage of UK laws clearly demonstrate that Rough Tower was never capable of being deemed as anything but a British boat resting upon the sea bed under British jurisdiction. I will continue to add a lot more details and dates to this article, but right at this moment I am taking another break. MPLX/MH 16:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) Contents [showhide] 1 Page move

2 Neutrality dispute

3 Vandalism and destruction of HOURS of editorial work!

4 Article name

5 Next step

6 http://www.fuerstentum-sealand.de/welcome_e.html

[edit] Page move I renamed this article in order to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia's naming conventions. The previous name was "Sealand: A Legal History." Rhobite 02:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

If MPLX believes there is a meaningful difference between "Sealand: A Legal History" and "Legal history of Sealand," I'll let it stay for a while. However, I am changing the capitalization to "Sealand: A legal history," which is clearly correct according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Rhobite 06:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) A truly recondite disagreement! It's very generous of you to "let" it stay. Are you Jimbo Wales in disguise?Dr Zen 06:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Do you have something to add to this discussion? Rhobite 07:02, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) [edit] Neutrality dispute The text of the external links is the most striking problem I see, but someone more familiar with the subject needs to go over this entire article. It was written by the same user who recently wrote Principality of Sealand, a parallel article to Sealand expressing a different POV. Rhobite 02:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and destruction of HOURS of editorial work! Moved from my talk page -- Rhobite 06:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) I do not appreciate your actions. HOURS of research has gone into the article Sealand: A Legal History - which is NOT the legal history of Sealand! This is a work of LAW not a work of hot head POV. By simply destroying hours of work you make editors like me furious with people like you and you encourage me to walk away from Wikipedia.

What you have done is vandalism on a massive scale. You have added nothing but sought to destroy original work which is thoroughly documented.

You mention the links and they show a photo essay by someone who has been on Rough Tower and who is generally held in high regard by all sides for his own effort which no one else has undertaken. My work was not complete because I was attempting to resolve disputes not create more of them.

I am so angry right now that I am not certain if I want to participate in Wikipedia knowing that at any given moment someone such as yourself will take it upon yourself without any reason to destroy original work which YOU cannot and have not produced.

Not only am I well qualified to write this article called Sealand: A Legal History which is NOT a legal history of Sealand, but I am also in direct contact with the British Government by phone and by letter attempting to get a final answer on this entire matter.

It is obvious to anyone who takes time to read the LAW that I have been posting WITH sources, that Roy Bates NEVER had any claim and that everyone has been conned. The law to which I refer dates back to a time BEFORE he ever set foot on the barge!

You should be ashamed of yourself because you are a vandal in much the same way that the burners of books are vandals. I suggest that you leave well alone and view the completed article, the progress of which I have been documenting on the talk page. MPLX/MH 05:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please, take a step back and look at my edits. They're relatively minor. I renamed Sealand: A Legal History to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. According to convention, article titles are not capitalized unless they refer to proper nouns. More importantly, the article was titled as if it were an essay or other personal work. If your goal is to write essays and original works, you're in the wrong place. I'm also not sure what the substantive difference is between "Sealand: A Legal History" and "Legal history of Sealand." Could you explain why you object to the latter? You do understand that "Sealand: A Legal History" is clearly against naming conventions, right? Could you suggest something better? I also removed a list of Sealand links from Sealand (disambiguation). Those links are already in Sealand, no need to duplicate them on the disambig page. The disambig page is only for the purpose of people seeking unrelated articles which use the word "Sealand." Each subject gets a single link. See Wikipedia:disambiguation. I rewrote the intro to this article because it reads as if this article is an original work or an essay. As I said, if you're interested in doing that sort of thing you should do it elsewhere. Last, do not remove NPOV dispute notices, and do not unjustly accuse others of "massive vandalism." Rhobite 06:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think ordering another editor not to do this and not to do that shows much sensitivity. He put a lot of work in and everything you have done *appears* to be attacking it. Yes, I know, we should all expect our work to be mercilessly edited, but as MPLX said, he put a lot of work into this article and he feels hurt. Why is a historical article original research, BTW? If he sources everything, there is no real problem, surely. If he uses sources that you cannot verify, you might ask him to remove them, but there is no call for suggesting it's original research otherwise. It's actually very interesting because this is one of the most well-known of the "micronation" scams and its legality is rather hotly contested -- in fact, it's a central issue. At the same time, I ask MPLX to be a little more moderate with other editors. I'm sure Rhobite wasn't meaning to upset you and certainly isn't trying to vandalise your work, but only to improve on it. Be nice. Dr Zen 07:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) He said it was original work himself. Both the title and MPLX's words suggest that he views it as his work alone and is not willing to compromise. And no, I don't feel the need to be particularly nice to him after being accused of "massive vandalism" and having all my changes reverted. Rhobite 07:18, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) A kind word turns away wrath, Rhobite. That's all I'm saying. We all need to try to get along! Dr Zen 23:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Dr Zen I appreciate your comments. I also agreed with Rhobite that changing to capitalization of "Sealand: A legal history" was not a problem for me. What upset me was the book burner mentality of Rhobite who did not bother to read the corresponding Talk page that explained in tedious detail what I was doing and why I was doing it. I explained that I was merging the three articles on "Sealand" (the orginal; the Principality and the German offshoot); while following Wikipedia notices to reduce the page size of the orginal which was on the verge of maxing out, while linking all of the sub-pages via the Sealand (disambiguation) page. Rhobite marched in with jackboots on, didn't bother to read any of this and promptly began moving things in the middle of my own housekeeping job and thereby creating a mess. Had he read what I was doing and waited until I had finished doing it I would not have objected. Proof that Rhobite did not read my text is found in his editorial taking issue of original research. What is original is the fact that I am right at this moment in contact with the actual and specific Chief Mucky-Muck at HMG who is coordinating official HMG response to all of this. In the past different government departments has said different things relating to their own departments and this has created the impression (aided by the Bates family) that the UK views "Sealand" as a real entity. It does not and it never has. So the original part is in the form of new material that I am adding with sources as and when I receive it. The majority of the article is from well documented and totally accepted real law, case law and international treaties among the real nations of the world. This body of work dates back to 1958 - years before Bates ever set foot on the sea barge called Rough Tower. What is obvious is that the UK has had the right to extend its territorial waters to 12 miles and that it had the right to police those waters - long before Bates arrived. The Act of 1968 merely confirmed that which was recognized as international law since 1958. Where Bates conned the world media was by playing one UK government department off against another (which is why they are now coordinated.) The land belongs to The Crown Estate. The Crown Estate dates back to George III. The finances of The Crown Estate are controlled now by the Treasury Accountant. The sea barge was never abandoned. It was a Royal Navy installation put there by the Ministry of War which became the Ministry of Defence. The MoD withdrew its people and let other HMG entities use it until 1956, then they used it on a part-time basis as a warning platform to container shipping going to Felixtowe. The sea buoys around Rough Tower are to this very moment still paid for by UK taxpayers in arrangement with MoD and Trinity House. When Ryan Lackey discovered the USA court case (he is a US citizen), he quit HavenCo and accused Bates of lying to him. HavenCo was originally set up by Michael Bates as a BRITISH company and I posted the company number as source. Then with this con exposed HavenCo was removed to Cyprus. None of it is on Rough Tower. Usually there is only one caretaker on Rough Tower. HavenCo has gone down the drain. HMG DTI told Bates NOT to stick his own buoys in the water; Bates cannot register domain names; register ships or doing anything that any other ordinary British citizen cannot do according to BRITISH law. The Firearms case a totally misleading event. 1) The judge thought that Rough Tower was an Army tower and not a Royal Navy sea barge where Admiralty law would have applied in 1968; 2) The Fireams Act stopped did not apply to Rough Tower because a) it had not been extended like the later Marine Offences Act of 1967 extended the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1949, b) Rough Tower was still technically a MILITARY installation where CIVILIAN law did not apply! More than all of the above: What is NOT original and I do not claim that it is original (expect for my keystrokes and creative construction of an article as a contribution to Wikipedia), is all of the VAST body of law IGNORED by Bates and all of the fans of "micronations". This body of law is accepted law by all nations and it was used against Roy Bates to shut down his Radio Essex/BBMS operations on a similar Royal Navy fort! None of this has been reported in context anywhere but here. I was in the process of cleaning up all of this confusion when Rhobite charged in like a bull in a china shop. Again, if Rhobite had actually taken time to read what I was doing and why I was doing it to clear up the disputes and the mess, then there would have been no problem. Instead of that he moved pages and then slapped a "dispute" notice on the "Sealand: A legal history" page!!! That is downright absurd. Who is disputing the history of these international treaties and this body of accepted law and documented chronology of court cases involving Roy Bates? Not Rhobite. He just moved stuff and created confusion and slapped a notice on the work. To this very moment he has not added one word of constructive imput, merely to argue that the words "A Legal History" should be "a legal history" - with which I am in total agreement! So there is no dispute there. Dr Zen, I noted your comment about the title and I agree with your comment. This is not a POV article about Roy Bates claims for his "Sealand", this is an NPOV article about the subject of "Sealand" with respect to the history of law that applies to the subject and there is a major different between the two approaches. It is not a stand alone work, it is a sub-article of the main article because there would be no need to have this article if the primary article did not exist. It is a sub-article because after reading and following Wikipedian instructions, I learned that this was the correct procedure to follow. Before anyone starts firing off cute little one liner zingers at me to glorify themselves, please take the time to actually read all of the above. Zingers may make the writer feel good but they reflect an uneducated mind that gets a thrill out of causing trouble about fellow contributors to Wikipedia. Remember, without content there is no need for arbitration, so before putting on your jackboots first open up your mind to the world of knowledge, reason and understanding. Peace. MPLX/MH 17:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) MPLX, I understand you have a lot invested in this topic. You are being very emotional and I'm asking you again to please end the personal attacks. You still haven't explained how "Sealand: A legal history" is any different from "Legal history of Sealand." Your new intro isn't that great, and I'd like to work with you and help improve it and the rest of the article. The entire intro seems to be an attempt to explain why this article exists - again, this isn't how Wikipedia articles are structured. Rhobite 18:21, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) MPLX, perhaps it would have been better to do the work you are doing on a subpage of your user page, and then post it as an article when you feel you are close to what you want. This is a perfectly acceptable practice. Rhobite is mostly right about the introduction. He/she isn't trying to destroy your work. He/she is trying to help it become something valuable. You have to give him/her credit for that and please leave off the viciousness of your criticism. Cool down a bit and try to see Rhobite in the best possible light. Please consider my suggestion about doing the work in your user page namespace and then when you put it up here, perhaps not paying too close attention to the page. If we feel particularly close to a subject, it's probably best not to work on it.Dr Zen 23:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Dr Zen, again I agree with your suggestion of completing the article elsewhere. I had been considering doing just that before reading your latest comments. My annoyance is with someone who wades in without reading the linked Talk page where I explained in detail what I was doing. I have observed comments by and about other editors where common courtesy suggests that a bit of Golden Rule goes a long way. But by moving the page and retitling it without any attempted communication with me, I find heavy handed and rude. Now it is true that Rhobite may not understand how his/her actions are being interpreted, but if someone is in the middle of a project it is not a good idea to come crashing through the door announced and start rearranging it while work is in progress. Anyway, I appreciate your comments Dr Zen and I will probably follow your suggestions. Now to Rhobite. Please read my reply to Dr Zen. Life would be so much easier if common courtesy is the rule. We live in the age of Rush, wild basketball matches and road rage and I do not appreciate any of it. What you call a "personal attack" is my reply to a lack of courtesy to me. Now as to your main point: "You still haven't explained how (1.) Sealand: A legal history is any different from (2.) Legal history of Sealand." My explanation is thus: (1.) assumes a main title with an article about "Sealand". Wikipedia noted that until I began to edit it down, that the main article was nearing a max out in length. So the sub-article is placed under a sub-topic. The main topic is "Sealand" (even though I personally believe that it should be "Principality of Sealand" to avoid clashes with other titles and because that is what Roy Bates called it.) Be that as it may, the title is "Sealand" and "Sealand" it shall remain. Therefore the sub-title is logically "Sealand: a legal history". (You will have already observed that I agreed with your change from the capital letters. That was not a problem for me.) The sub-article is a legal history about the main subject. However, in the case of (2.) you changed the subject to become (as the title suggests): "Legal history of Sealand" = which it is not. It is not about all of the fights that Roy Bates got into with the Dutch and the Germans, or about why he thinks he can issue postage stamps and passports, etc. It is not about any of that. If anything this is a legal history of applicable law, case law, court records and national and international treaties concerning "Rough Tower". But since the article is called "Sealand" and not "Rough Tower", the sub-article uses that name. If you follow the chronology which I was assembling and editing (what you see right now is not my finished text), then it will suddenly dawn on you why HM Government has acted in the way in which it has, and why this is a no-brainer non-issue with regards to the law: Bates was always subject to HM Government on "Rough Tower", but like all government bodies its work is vested in various and competing little departments. Most washed their hands of the matter. For years I had contact with HMG over this matter, but only recently was I able to determine the name of the person and department that is actually responsible and I am now awaiting a reply from that person and department. The reason I was able to do this was due to the letter that I received this November (which I added to the text) and to a fairly recent change in the structure of HM Government itself with regards to the financial management of The Crown Estate. I do hope that this explains matters and I would appreciate it you would read the notes that I previously posted on the Talk page. I will now follow Dr Zen's advice and withdraw the material and my comments on the article pages of Wikipedia until a later time. Thank you for your kind consideration. MPLX/MH 01:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Common practice for "country" sub-articles is History of Argentina, etc. Shimmin 17:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) Yes, but what I am editing is not the "History of Sealand", nor is it the "Legal history of Sealand" because clearly the history of the law shows that "Sealand" is not a country to begin with and the legal history I refer to goes all the way back to 1958 which is years before Bates ever set foot on Rough Tower. In any event I am following the suggestion of Dr Zen and building the article elsewhere and when it is completed I will post in on Wikipedia as a documented and accepted legal history, not a controvesial "Sealand" history. MPLX/MH 17:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Ah, but Sealand: A legal history invites Sealand: Another legal history, as though this particular legal history, once complete, is a work unto itself that should not be tampered with. This idea of completing the article, as you talk about it, seems to display a lack of understanding about what may happen to that article once posted. Shimmin 17:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) Shimmin you are just being cute, aren't you? You are coming into a "conversation" with Dr Zen and another regarding another matter and that is what I was replying to. Obviously once something is posted it can be amended, that is the nature of Wikipedia. As for your comments I suppose you can reply to this and I could reply to that and so on and so on and so on ... and none which would create any new material for others to argue about, would it? Have a nice day. (Cute finale for a cute comment. Imagine a smiley icon here.) MPLX/MH 18:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) I agree with Shimmin. One of the reasons we have naming conventions is to discourage individual ownership of articles. The ability to name an article is the ability to frame its scope and intention. This what you appear to be doing, MPLX: You're saying that this article should always follow its original intention, as set by you. I disagree. If we are forced to name our articles according to a scheme, it helps to ensure that there is only one "Sealand," one "Legal history of Sealand," etc. Rhobite 18:44, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) Rhobite: Why do you want to continue to try to stir up trouble and pick a fight? Rhobite, I am not doing any of the things that you suggest and I have both agreed with Dr Zen and I have agreed with you on many points. In fact, as of this moment in time I am not disagreeing with you over anything because there is nothing to disagree with. You are not disputing the factual accuracy of text and I am not sure what you are going on about. It is as clear as mud to me and it seems that your only intention is try to pick a fight with me, not to get along with other Wikipedians. I am not fighting with you, I am not disagreeing with anything that you are now doing - since my initial actions which resulted from your lack of common courtesy to me. I am not claiming that this is my property, even though it is obviously my work because it did not fall out of the sky. If you want to disagree with a point in the text, then state what your disagreement is and why. But I am not into this business of fussing over non-essentials. The entire purpose of an encyclopedia is to be able to look stuff up and learn something. I am creating content. If you would like to dot my "i"s and cross my "t"s as you have been doing, please continue with no objection from me. But please stop this tedious nonsense of trying to pick a fight over nothing. Try to get along by showing common courtesy to other writers such as myself. Life is too short for this. MPLX/MH 19:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) I don't want to fight with anyone, I'm just trying to explain to you why I believe the current article title is less than ideal. Rhobite 04:31, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC) [edit] Article name Surely, if the article is about the legality of Sealand, shouldn't it be moved to legality of Sealand or legal standing of Sealand? The current name of the article still reads to me like an essay title rather than an article title. -Sean Curtin 00:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I've been standing back from this one but it may be time to revisit renaming this article. I did rename it to Legal history of Sealand a couple weeks ago but the article's principal author quickly moved it back. Rhobite 01:30, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) Hold your horses gentlemen, I may be able to provide the final legal word on this issue from the British Government. The answer is not what it appears to be at all and the matters reported by others are incorrect. The legal history I have stated is correct but there is more information to come. In light of this new information I am also in agreement to change the title of this page to reflect not that it is a legal history of Sealand or any combination thereof, but a legal history of Rough Tower which is the only legal name that exists. I hope to report more later this week and I will not oppose a change from the present name. MPLX/MH 05:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) I agree with Gtrmp and Rhobite that this article needs a different name, for the reasons given above. Also, I agree that the introductory paragraph is completely unacceptable, in that it's devoted to explaining why the article exists. Dbenbenn 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) As of this morning [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MPLX&diff=0&oldid=9013321), User:MPLX has declared that he is not going to work on this article any more. (It's just a coincidence that I happened to check back here today, I swear!) So, it's up to someone to

Figure out a good name for this article Clean it up. Dbenbenn 04:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Legal history of Sealand seems as good a name as any. MPLX's issue seemed to be that that title seemed to give Sealand legitimacy, though the current version isn't any better in that regard. -Sean Curtin 23:22, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) I've done the move, as the new article name corresponds better to Wikipedia style. --Michael Snow 03:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Dbenbenn 05:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Next step I'm at a loss over this article. I suspect a lot of it is original research. Regardless, it's terribly long and involved. It badly needs a summary of some sort at the beginning. Dbenbenn 05:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the collation of information that is freely available to those who wish to obtain it can be classified as "original research". Wikipedia:No original research lists the following critieria - It introduces a theory or method of solution, or It introduces original ideas, or It defines new terms, or It provides new definitions of old terms, or It purports to refute another idea, or It introduces neologisms. I see no evidence of any of this. Jooler 14:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) What I was thinking was that the article uses all this history to conclude what amounts to an original idea, namely that "the legal status of Roy Bates and his associates remains that of an unlawful tenant in possession". I don't know, perhaps you're right. If all of this information leads us to this conclusion, both logically and legally, and no other - then what of it? Jooler Regardless, the article badly needs to be cleaned up. The level of detail is way too high for a general encyclopedia. For example, do we really need to know that "The Marine Broadcasting Offences Act came into effect after midnight on Monday, August 14, 1967"? Dbenbenn 18:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't follow you. Does this article exceed the 32k nominal limit? I see no problem in having as much detail as possible (whilst retaining readability) I certainly don't think information should be thrown away. Can you find this level of detail about this issue anywhere else on the web? It seems like a very positive asset to me. Regarding the specific quote that you havde pulled out, that fact that it came into effect at midnight appears to be highly relevent if you read the concluding sentence of that particular paragraph. Jooler I agree with Dbenbenn. While there are some references (I think the 1968 transcript is an acceptable source), some of this article is individual research. Particularly the last section, which uses an unpublished "formal written statement" as its sole source. I'm assuming MPLX thinks that if you want to verify this statement, you should contact its author. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, "an encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research." I suspect the "formal written statement" is simply a letter to MPLX, which he may have quoted out of context. For these reasons I don't believe the last section has any information we can keep. Rhobite 19:20, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of extracts of documents that are not publically available might count as original research, so on those ground I accept that the quotation from the Coastal Manager of Marine Estates Department of Crown Estate might be out of place. If the full text of this document becomes publically available (perhaps in WikiSource) then I see no reason why we shouldn't use this information, even if it was originally solicited by a Wikipedian. After all as far as I can tell the purpose of this communication was merely to clarify the true legal status of Sealand; a matter that must be of public record. Therefore in this sense it is merely the dissemination of information that is available to the public using a figure of authority to give it credence for the purposes of this encyclopaedia. What other sections do you have a problem with? Jooler 23:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) Jooler, you wrote above "whilst retaining readability". That's my main problem with this article: I find it almost totally unreadable. One way to improve that would be to have a lead section that summarizes the info in the article. Perhaps that's something you could supply? Dbenbenn 23:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree, the most glaring problem is the unverifiability of certain facts, but it's also an unreadable, wordy article. Much of it could be summarized and rewritten without reducing meaning. The lead section is just bad: "Sealand: A Legal History is not the legal history of Sealand" isn't a good way to start out an article titled "Legal history of Sealand". Rhobite 00:08, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) It appears that MPLX has become burnt out after working on this. I know how that feels. So in his absence I will attempt to work in MPLX's interests and hope that he isn't offended by this. MPLX is unhappy with the title and his proposed title is decreed unacceptable by others. This has led to the somewhat confusing lead paragraph. So finding an acceptable title should come first and then we can deal with the opening paragraph. I don't think that anyone should go about butchering the content just yet. There is no urgency. How about The legality of Sealand; The legal status of Sealand; Sealand's legality, Sealand's legal status; Sealand and the law; Laws affecting Sealand; The law as it affects Sealand; legal rulings related to Sealand; Or perhaps substitute Rough Tower for Sealand? Jooler 10:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) If we can figure out what the article is about, finding a good title isn't too hard. The best way to understand what an article is about is to read the lead section ... which is totally unhelpful right now. What I'm saying is, let's figure out what the article should be; we can find a good title later. Dbenbenn 15:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I can't make any sense out of that. You say "The best way to understand what an article is about is to read the lead section" - well you are proposing that the lead section is rewritten. One could rewrite that section in dozens of different ways and not all of them would truly reflect the remaining content. I would say the best way to understand an article is to read the entire thing. Now, using less than 10 words, think of a punchy summary of the current contents that can be used as the title of the article and we can proceed from there. Or is the intention here to completly obliterate the current contents? Jooler 16:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) [edit] http://www.fuerstentum-sealand.de/welcome_e.html Does this link belong here? To the best of my knowledge the strange group which set up that website is only known for two publicity stunts:

Not recognizing the Federal Republic of Germany but only the Komissarische Reichsregierung, supposed to be a Neonazi group. Promoting Perpetuum Mobiles, sorry Free Energy Engines, of Vril fame. Pjacobi 19:46, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Fort_Roughs-1"