This article has been receiving a lot of attention from new editors, so I jumped to conclusions.- Cast ( talk) 06:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I was more curious why User:Sceptre didn't say anything on the talk page about it. You seem to be more experienced than I was led to believe. (Also, to easily make a new topic, hit the + tab, next to History.)- Cast ( talk) 06:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Hell, I just checked your user page.
That way, there can be no argument against additions. For now, I want to focus on getting more sources and then adding information as we go. This article is new enough that nothing editors slaved over for hours upon hours was lost, and it can all still be accessed if we need to retrieve it. I agree that large edits should be discussed, but everything that is done can be quickly undone, so there usually isn't a problem to jump the gun and make a change without discussion. Seems someone felt the information provided didn't deserve to stay for various reasons. What happened to all the content which was deleted without saying anything on the talk page? Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) If you check the History tab, you can see past edits, and notes an editor might leave to explain the change. Unlike the generations before us, events that matter to us don't wait for things like academic notability they happen faster than even we are capable of realizing. If not, then people like the ones who proposed this article's deletion will only help spread ignorance.
You are the ones I expected to expand and improve the article. Many of you know a lot more about Anonymous, even if you aren't privy to its underpinnings. I admit that my first effort was not perfectly written-that's where you all come in.
Gathering non-news sources was particularly problematic (I hope that the article does not reference only journalistic material). I knew early on that writing Anonymous was going to be a challenge. I do feel that it is a significant, yet poorly documented presence-if I did not feel it was worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia, I would not have started it. I began writing the article in direct response to the recent Project Chanology protests, but knew of Anonymous' prior existence. I just wanted to thank everyone who has shown interest in the article, whether they liked what they saw or otherwise.
0 kommentar(er)
