Talk:Markovian Parallax Denigrate
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Markovian Parallax Denigrate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on May 3 2009. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Readdition of Barely Social content.
editIt's the consensus that this content should be added and only a single user "EnPassant" is against the consensus. Please stop vandalizing the page and edit warring or action will be taken. 122.56.201.177 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am also against. See also Wikipedia:Meat puppet. Veverve (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- And judging by the reversion history, it's not just us. The 3RR report (containing personal attacks) the IP filed against me was a good chuckle, though. ♟♙ (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where is the consensus for **removing** the content? It seems like reasonable content to add, as its a well researched video. Content shouldn't be simply removed without a reason, and I see no reason given. I've added it back in a form that's written more neutrally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresheneesz (talk • contribs) 19:21, April 16, 2022 (UTC)
- Someone who has been here as long as you should know to sign their posts and also that youtube isn't a reliable source. Please read the talk archives, where this topic was discussed extensively. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Readded the content with a reliable source. You're welcome : ) Fresheneesz (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looks fine now, thanks. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do love the fact that this EnPassant user got banned from Wikipedia for ToS abuse. YouTube videos can be definitely be considered reliable when they provide citations and accurate sources. An example of such are the video essays by LEMMiNO. The fact that this would even be a controversial point is just ridiculous. TMIfan (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looks fine now, thanks. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Readded the content with a reliable source. You're welcome : ) Fresheneesz (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Someone who has been here as long as you should know to sign their posts and also that youtube isn't a reliable source. Please read the talk archives, where this topic was discussed extensively. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where is the consensus for **removing** the content? It seems like reasonable content to add, as its a well researched video. Content shouldn't be simply removed without a reason, and I see no reason given. I've added it back in a form that's written more neutrally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresheneesz (talk • contribs) 19:21, April 16, 2022 (UTC)
- And judging by the reversion history, it's not just us. The 3RR report (containing personal attacks) the IP filed against me was a good chuckle, though. ♟♙ (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
General improvements
editThis article has a number of issues. According to the original DailyDot article Susan Lindauer was already mistaken as the author of the messages by then. Not 2016 like the current article states. The current version of this article is also not clear about the fact that an email by that name was one of the emails used for this spam. It was coincidentally the email used with the only archived spam message, and not used for all sent emails.
I also think it is critical that this article mentions the few usergroups that were attacked. An archived message from the same usergroup that the last archived spam message was from has a list of attacked usergroups: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.religion.christian.boston-church/c/zmGKs6entow/m/7h_28WdE0nMJ.
The spam was clearly targeting christian usergroups.
Some of the sources in this article are also really bad. The original article by the DailyDot is where all other articles are derived from and is by far the most elaborate. The german wired.com source is especially bad, stating the texts could be part of a "chatbot"... LevitatingBusinessMan (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've updated the article, correcting some of the Lindauer information. I haven't added the part about mainly Christian groups being target, but feel free to add. Thanks Jonpatterns (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion
editAs 'next year yesterday' will be the 30th anniversary of the posting - an appearance on the main page? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)