Talk:2020 in the MicroWiki community
When is a depature a departure?
I'd say I'm sadly still present in this godforsaken hellhole of a community, should I really be considered to have departed? -Emiel MinistryOfForeignAffairsEncylopaedicRepresentationProject (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Addition of Template:Obscene
I saw that the page has an uncensored profanity, but there's only one case of it. Should a Template:Obscene be added to the beginning of this article or should this be allowed to slip through? I'd like to know about others' opinions before making an edit rashly.
The line with the profanity is:
""Pavlov clique" — Yaroslav Mar and Alexander IV, Emperor of Pavlov, the "shitfights their behaviour triggers""
Thanks, Sez (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Given the large length of the article, a profanity template for such a small section would be pointless, however I believe it should probably be censored like "sh*tfights their behaviour triggers". ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 01:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Addition of Template:Dubious
Multiple citations are clearly opinions stated as facts, and as such should either be amended to show as such, or removed.
- Such as? Could you list them? ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 01:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
"A scandal where members of the Essexian government were criticised for raiding a Discord server called MicroPub, originally beginning with the banning of multiple Essexians from MicroWiki@Discord." - Which (as much as I am also biased) is clearly opinion stated as fact, as there is no proof either way as to who was responsible for the raiding. This is further exemplified by the citation  for this, which is a one-paragraph opinion piece that basically just says "yeah Essexia did it", I seem to remember seeing more examples of this throughout the notes and citations, but I am currently busy so I'll have to find them later, however, I also think the existence of this once probably means it afflicts the article in other places that I won't notice since I obviously only know things from the perspective of an outsider in all cases but Essexias. - QueenTerry
- If that is the only section add "(disputed)" to the text instead when you start a talk page discussion. All citations on the matter used the term "raid", and thus it is used here. Most raiders were, in fact, members of the Essexian government, as shown in the server ban logs as well (which cannot be linked as a citation). Even the server administrators acknowledged most of the raiders were Essexians (which were all in MicroPub firsthand). Many Essexians themselves have even accepted and claimed to have been involved in "The Great Shag". The deleted article even claims that allegedly the government handed out medals for "anti-pedocracy" for, what an Essexian called, "participants". Most people, except of course Essexians and people with close ties to it, agree that this is fact, and thus it should stay in the article. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 14:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ives Blackwood: The year zero does not exist in the anno Domini (AD) or Common Era (CE) systems. Astronomical year numbering, which includes the year zero, is not included in this article's opening. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 ～ (talk | edits | full) 19:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)