Talk:Million Mask March
Latest comment: 2 years ago by PrimeBOT in topic Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jurgen.Prambs. Peer reviewers: Ali.ahmed.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
MMM 2019 edits edit
The vandalism against this page has to stop now. Balayka (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- What vandalism? Primefac (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- It appears you systematically throw away additional information. If you're not happy with the sourcing there are other ways to improve the article than playing censorship. We have enough irl to be honest so it is really infuriating to experience it on Wikipedia. Balayka (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm happy to add things in that are relevant. I think the only thing I removed was the fact that Anon posts on Pastebin every year to announce things. We cannot use pastebin itself to verify that information, so if you know of a good source that says how they disseminate information I'm more than happy to see it in the article. To be honest, this article could use some improvement, so if you're thinking there's something we just have to have let's talk about it and try to figure out how to make that happen (if possible). Primefac (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- You and your little navel are happy to add things that are relevant? Because the important thing to you is how you pretend to be police on Wikipedia. You have NO authority or whatsoever to define by your very own dumbass what is relevant or not regarding anonymous. You removed a number of times the mention of Marches in Amsterdam. You've been replacing sources with stupid media that no Anons around the world acknowledge as their work. You removed data about the #OpVendetta that a mere GOOGLE SEARCH would have proven you in miliseconds had been covered by over half a hundred articles. You're polluting everyone with your weird self labelled (Official) Anonymous YouTube channel, whilst everybody knows there is no such a thing and will never be, especially if it is tied in with putaclicks adds and baits like your ludicrous Night Wings III stuff ("some metal group" wikipedia does not even know btw). You chain-removed in pastebin primary data that is used each year by thousands of anons and for sure YOU are not able to verify information, you have to cross reference it, should you have any idea what is the meaning of it, which process does not start by deleting.
- To wrap it up, you have not the first embryon of idea of how to start half split troubleshooting in terms of cooperative to an international collaborative encyclopaedia project, hence I strongly question the possibility of a discussion, as everyone knows there is a limit to bullshit. But pray, assuage some frackin' wondering that suddenly hit me... would you be Estupido in Jefe 'named' Q? ¡förmlich verboten! especially to thought dictator apprentice.
- Balayka (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- I will admit, the YouTube video isn't exactly supported by a great source, and I've removed it. On the other hand, neither of the sources used about the 2012/2013 marches talk about Amsterdam, and we can only include content that's actually given elsewhere.
- The name-calling is a little much, though; I don't really know any dictators. Plus, it doesn't usually help to insult people who are genuinely trying to improve an article (or at least keep it within the Wikipedia guidelines). Fortunately I'm an easy-going person and know you probably don't really mean half of it.
- To get back to the original issue, what do you see in the article that should be removed, and what should be added? For the latter, do you have any good sources to back up the claims? Primefac (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- The name calling goes with local culture... Everybody should be able to take the piss when they messed themselves up dude :lol:. What you can delete for sure, or add important warning about how unreliable it is, is the millionmaskm arch .com stuff. I've told a little about that on your :talk page. To sum it up a) it's privately owned, which should always raise your highest suspicions re: Anonymous. Second, loads of Anons started distrusting here for about 6 years now. Third, it embeds ludicrous stories about Assange not being detained or having been responsible for 9111. Wikileaks published on 4 of Nov. 2015 a statement about her actions being damageable to support to Wikileaks.
- I'm happy to add things in that are relevant. I think the only thing I removed was the fact that Anon posts on Pastebin every year to announce things. We cannot use pastebin itself to verify that information, so if you know of a good source that says how they disseminate information I'm more than happy to see it in the article. To be honest, this article could use some improvement, so if you're thinking there's something we just have to have let's talk about it and try to figure out how to make that happen (if possible). Primefac (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
- It appears you systematically throw away additional information. If you're not happy with the sourcing there are other ways to improve the article than playing censorship. We have enough irl to be honest so it is really infuriating to experience it on Wikipedia. Balayka (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
We're aware it might b very difficult for Wikipedia policies to handle the bunch of us, with the usual rules of primary/secondary sources etc. But we have to think a little out of box to make it right here. And now that you're being nice, I am all ears. Balayka (talk)
02:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)