User talk:King IntiMayo I

Hello, King IntiMayo I, and

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also nominated for deletion due to same reasons. You should provide some reference to your claims. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted the following:

You recently deleted my page on the Kingdom of Hariberahtland. The Kingdom of Hariberahtland is a micronation and under the Montevideo Convention it is a legitimate nation it (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. As such I request that the page be reinstated to inform readers of this newly created nation. It is not fictitious and has land holdings at 59°40'51"N -151°35'55"W furthermore, the Kingdom of Hariberahtland also has a permanent population, a written constitution, as well as the capacity to enter negotiations with other nations. This nation is as legitimate as other micronations such as Sealand, Molossia or other such micronations. I ask that you please re-review and reconsider this deletion.

Exactly in what way does the micronation exist? Did you just declare your house and a bit of land belonging to it to be a separate nation, perhaps publish an article about it on the Internet, and that's all about it? (I believe that the micronation is either a joke or some Internet roleplaying.)

In any case, Wikipedia won't have an article on this micronation, unless its activities have been covered by reliable third-party sources. (See the

I will publish an online article and have it verified by a third party source before returning. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King IntiMayo I (talk • contribs)

• I don't think it works in this way. If you publish an article on the Internet, it's by definition NOT an independent,
  reliable source - not even if you get your friend to vouch that everything written there is "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth".

  It's also interesting that you mention Sealand and Molossia in the same sentence. Principality of Sealand is an actual micronation that has engaged in very visible, real-life activities. Molossia is not; it is a spoof micronation based on the home of its "president"; he even admits that much here.

  I am asking once again: in what way does your micronation exist as a sovereign entity? For example, did you stop paying taxes to the U.S. government? (Had you done this, you'd soon learn to what extent is your nation independent, as the U.S. authorities would soon arrive and arrest you for tax evasion.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

First, the article that was linked does not say that Molossia is a fake or false nation, in fact it states that it is a real nation and that accusations that the website and the nation are not real are, in fact, not true. Furthermore Molossia has entered into formal negotiations previously in its history. I understand that Sealand has a more legitimate claim of independence than Molossia, however, if it appears that your basis of whether a state is legitimate is if it has visible real life activity. I would also like to point out that this definition of statehood conflicts with the the Montevideo Convention which states that (1) a state does not need to be recognized by another state to exist, and (2) a state must have the capacity to enter negotiations with other states, it does not expressly say that they must enter negotiations to be considered a state. Second, I did not mean that I would use myself as a reliable source, I understand that a reliable source means a newspaper, magazine, or some other form of legitimate article. Third, the Kingdom of Hariberhtland does not pay taxes to the United States Government, However it does plan to make donations of foreign aid (along with a tax form) much like Molossia and dual citizens of Sealand and the United States. The Kingdom of Hariberhtland exists to the extent that it meets all the requirements of the Montevideo Convention (which was signed by the US, and the Helsinki Accords (though it is not binding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by King IntiMayo I (talk • contribs)

• You need to read the link I have given you once again. It says: "There are several other examples of this sort of distinction, all of which fail to grasp that this is a real place, even if it is not a 'real' country."

  You are arguing using the Montevideo Convention. But the convention in fact gives four criteria: a state needs to possess "a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states". I maintain that Hariberahtland fails the second criterion - it does not control any territory. Yes, you have declared a particular area to constitute the territory of Hariberahtland; still, it only exists on paper and the land is in fact controlled by the United States. (Then there's the question of whether or not you - in accordance with the international law - even have the right to secede from the United States.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hariberhtland has a defined territory controlled the government of Hariberhtland (The Montevideo Convention does not state that the territory needs to be controlled, Hariberhtland does however control its territory) with a deceleration of independence as well as a constitution. I reiterate that it does not matter if the land is claimed by the United States and unrecognized according to article 3 of the Montevideo Convention as long as it meets the 4 criteria of being an independent nation, which it does. As to whether I have the right to secede according to the US Deceleration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Furthermore, the State of Alaska has the power to grant sovereignty or limited sovereignty based on provisions within the Alaska State Constitution "The State and its people further disclaim all right or title in or to any property, including fishing rights, the right or title to which may be held by or for any Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, or community thereof." There have been many court cases within Alaska over this issue with many communities being granted limited sovereignty. for example Point Hope, Kenaitze, Kivalina, and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King IntiMayo I (talk • contribs)

• In what way does Hariberhtland contol its territory? Probably, the answer is: to the extent that you are able to control your property in accordance with the state and federal laws. In other words: it doesn't - the territory is in fact controlled by the United States. It is certainly not the case that Hariberhtland controls territory that United States claim sovereignity over; an exact opposite is the case. (Just like the Republic of China claims sovereignity over the whole of China, but only controls the island of Taiwan and a couple of neighbouring isles.) And to say that Hariberhtland has territory but doesn't control it is a self-contradiction.

  You have also (once again) selectively quoted from the

  Declaration of Independence. I guess the passage you quote is more a moral principle than something to base your claim of independence on. Thomas Jefferson could have written a thousand declarations claiming that the United States are independent from Great Britain; that wouldn't have made it a fact. There are probably only two ways to secede from a country: either with the consent of the country in question - or by means of force, as in the American Revolution. (And once again, there is the question of how the principles of the Declaration of Independence even support the claimed independence of Hariberhtland.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think you should know that I have nominated the images you have uploaded to the Commons for deletion; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Kingdom of Hariberhtland.jpg. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]