Talk:Moon for sale

Advertising, NPOV

Wumpus2282 (talk · contribs) claims that the the Lunar Federation is the original and primary sellers of 'moon real estate', and that the prominence this article gives to the Lunar Federation is effectively advertising for the Federation. The Lunar Federation's website has newspaper clippings which would seem to justify a mention in this article. I'm going to try and write a version of that paragraph which mentions both without giving each undue weight, in accordance with WP:NPOV.

History of Lunar Claims

I shortened the summary of the history of lunar claims. I propose merging the article with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-terrestrial_real_estate

Revert Wars?

Seems like there is a bit of a revert war going on here... Personally, this needs some arbitration. Logical2u 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because I saw huge swaths of text being deleted by anonymous users with no edit summaries and no discussion on the Talk page so that shot up red flags for me. I trust someone with actual knowledge of and interest in this topic (i.e. not me) to make the right call about this article's content. --ElKevbo 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars continue. .38 is still doing the same thing he was before, but this time I can't see precisely why. Maybe if we merge the articles they both wrote? Logical2u 10:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Point of View Conflict.

I have sneaky suspicions that every edit on this page in the last few days, including my own reverts, have probably not been of a neutral point of view. At the moment, we have an anonymous user causing most of our problems.

This user is either a sock puppet for the Lunar Federation, or is a bit of a new user and doesn't know our policies. This user has made numerous edits that have been construed as vandalism, such as Dennis Hope, and this vandalism is primarily an advert for Lunar Federation.

However, I am unsure of how to proceed with this article, as he presents SOME useful information in his reverts. I'd like to merge it in, but 1. I'm new, and I have little to no clue of how to do that, and 2. I suspect some of the information isn't correct.

I'd like both an arbitrator here to look at this page and recent edits for neutrality, and to find a NPOV everyone can agree on, and also to resolve .38's problems.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely, a very concerned Logical2u 18:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like .38 has some serious greivances, as he just blanked this page. Appropriate warnings have been taken.

Revert wars & NPOV allegations

Until all propaganda and advertisements for Nevada is taken off this site, including all advertisements to direct the consumer to their website, this website will be EDITED non stop

More informationa about all companies selling land on the Moon most notably: Lunar Federation Inc which has received MASS MEDIA coverage this year at the Academy Awards.

• Listen, UfViper, I gave you PLENTY of chance to explain your edits, and if you wanted to contribute freely, you had the chance. However, you abused that chance by turning one sort of propaganda into another. As for now, I'm s-protecting this page so that we here have time to figure this out. Logical2u 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Until someone updates this with a very neutral view than edits will continue. Undue weight is given to one company and one company alone. and it will be changed to the other company until a very neutral view is taken.

This Page has been biased too long and it will change or a forever edit war will continue

I will not sit and let 20 links in the article go to one website. Only third party neutral links will be permitted.

I will be writing a version of what should be on this page tonight, but if the version with 20 Links shows up, i will revert it back.

• Right, I have a NPOV warning ON THE PAGE, on this talk page, and there's one right below this. If you continue to edit this page, we can't get to the bottom of this.I really want to solve this, but I can't with you reverting. Logical2u 19:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note, while what your doing may seem honourable, I'd like to take this time to mention somethings...

1. If you have media links to the Lunar ANYTHING's recognition, please add them in an appropriate article, and please don't change the order, it causes lots of trouble for us.
2. The only thing biased I see is that the Lunar Embassy has more media coverage.
3. If you have a legitimate reason to get rid of certain information, please tell us what it is.
4. You've attempted to hide warnings.
5. You've done this same thing to alot of other articles.
6. And finally, could you not edit anything further until tonight, when you update your new version? It would save me ALOT of time.

Logical2u 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, in regards to the current edits, I'm actually impressed with the current level of dignity maintained... Should this trend of useful work continue, I'll remove the SProtect. A very happy Logical2u 19:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The page now has more neutral views. I feel it is better for the flow of the article to talk about both simultaneously throughout the article. For Example, one company lays out their argument and the other rebuttals with their own.

Someone is deleting the neutrality that i am laying out. FOX TEN NEWS article and press releases are staying in the article. Those press releases were distributed to every news agency in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoonLand (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 April 2006.

Press releases are not verifiable statements of fact. They are, by definition, *very* POV documents and therefore very poor sources for facts of the type we are discussing. And please don't tell anyone what is and is not "staying in the article." Wikipedia is a collaboration among many editors and what stays or goes is determined by consensus not by one individual, no matter how expert their self-evaluated opinion. Talk to us and keep working with us! Some of your edits have been helpful and we're finally making positive progress! --ElKevbo 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ufviper/Moonland. Many of your edits are very helpful, and we are making good progress with this article. However, as per above, the press releases of the Lunar Embassy are not exactly the NPOV needed. While I have located a few instances of the treaty in question, most if not all have been written by the company for the sole intent of, I suppose, advertising. As you seem to be an expert, I invite you to find an independent source from the internet (IE: The UN or a legal consulting group) that may provide a final citation to the article. So far, so good, Logical2u 21:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont know why people are so down on dennis hope from Lunar Embassy, he has sold millions $ of land iadvertize for his sight on weblo.com check it out, lunarlandforsale.com on weblo.com

Deletion

Despite the "NPOV/Revert War" raging on this article, the page is useful. Instead of deleting it, let us merge it with the "extraterrestrial real estate" article. Perhaps an article on the serious matter of space property rights would be necessary. Virgiliu 22 April 2006 Dont know why people are so down on dennis hope from Lunar Embassy, he has sold millions $ of land i advertize for his sight on weblo.com check it out, lunarlandforsale.com on weblo.com

Merging

I have merged "Moon for sale" into "extraterrestrial real estate", but I am unable to remove this page, as a "bot" considers it vandalism. Please, help - I am a newbie at this type of major edits. Virgiliu 23 April 2006

The bot is checking the various templates, and is seeing only that you have removed templates like NPOV and AFD. That is considered vandalism... and while the merging is recommended by most, we need a smart merge, not a redirect. That would only remove some of the work done. Logical2u 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Logical2u. Could you please help and do that smart merge? I would do it, but I do not know how to. Many thanks, Virgiliu

AFD debate link

This page has been merged and redirected following this AFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)