Talk:Flat Earth Clock App - Revision history

Icandostuff: Questions

2025-08-16T14:50:17Z

Questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, 16 August 2025
Line 18:		Line 18:
	:I do agree the about the tone and lack of cited claims @[[User:Mindlux\|Mindlux]]. This is the reason this article was marked and as a stub. I also see that someone did correctly mark it with a tone warning as well.		:I do agree the about the tone and lack of cited claims @[[User:Mindlux\|Mindlux]]. This is the reason this article was marked and as a stub. I also see that someone did correctly mark it with a tone warning as well.
	:I do think the concerns in the consumer impact section are valid though (if properly backed up with sources) so the idea is that the notices notify users to address these issues and bring this article to a better standard. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 15:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)		:I do think the concerns in the consumer impact section are valid though (if properly backed up with sources) so the idea is that the notices notify users to address these issues and bring this article to a better standard. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 15:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

			==Security Breach Confusion==
			This line underneath incidents confuses me: "A comprehensive (but incomplete to protect actual members) list of past security breaches was compiled years ago" <br>
			* What is a comprehensive (but incomplete) list?
			* This should be sourced, especially the comprehensive claim
			* Who compiled this list? The focus n protection makes it seem like it was created by Flat Earth Clock, but then why would it be under incidents?
			[[User:Icandostuff\|Icandostuff]] ([[User talk:Icandostuff\|talk]]) 14:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Kostas: /* Concerns about article tone */ Reply

2025-02-24T15:02:15Z

Concerns about article tone: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 24 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Concerns about article tone ==		==Concerns about article tone==
	I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very disappointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.		I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very disappointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.

Line 15:		Line 15:

	[[User:Mindlux \|Mindlux]] [[User_talk:Mindlux\|(talk)]] 07:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)		[[User:Mindlux \|Mindlux]] [[User_talk:Mindlux\|(talk)]] 07:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

			:I do agree the about the tone and lack of cited claims @[[User:Mindlux\|Mindlux]]. This is the reason this article was marked and as a stub. I also see that someone did correctly mark it with a tone warning as well.
			:I do think the concerns in the consumer impact section are valid though (if properly backed up with sources) so the idea is that the notices notify users to address these issues and bring this article to a better standard. [[User:Kostas\|Kostas]] ([[User talk:Kostas\|talk]]) 15:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Kostas: format talk

2025-02-24T14:57:11Z

format talk

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 24 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== Concerns about article tone ==
	I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very disappointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.		I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very disappointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.

Line 12:		Line 13:

	And whilst the last paragraph is the least biased, the "(no trial)", i would deem as unnecessary, and put there solely to find something else to hate about the app. Lastly, I don't think "despite being reported multiple times by several individuals, including myself of major breaches of security, privacy, wrong statements about collected data and breaches of EU and US regulations." should just be left there without any sources. Who is "myself"?		And whilst the last paragraph is the least biased, the "(no trial)", i would deem as unnecessary, and put there solely to find something else to hate about the app. Lastly, I don't think "despite being reported multiple times by several individuals, including myself of major breaches of security, privacy, wrong statements about collected data and breaches of EU and US regulations." should just be left there without any sources. Who is "myself"?

			[[User:Mindlux \|Mindlux]] [[User_talk:Mindlux\|(talk)]] 07:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

: typos.

2025-02-22T07:04:07Z

typos.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:04, 22 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very ~~dissapointed~~ in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.		I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very disappointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.

	Why is "flat earthers" in quotation marks?		Why is "flat earthers" in quotation marks?
Line 7:		Line 7:
	"The app serves a "clock" that tries (and fails) to show how day/night does progress on a Flat earth, and serves as a platform for content to reinforce science denial regarding everything we learned about our universe."		"The app serves a "clock" that tries (and fails) to show how day/night does progress on a Flat earth, and serves as a platform for content to reinforce science denial regarding everything we learned about our universe."

	Is ~~clearely~~ incredibly biased, and not outlining any consumer rights whatsoever.		Is clearly incredibly biased, and not outlining any consumer rights whatsoever.

	The third paragraph is also just criticism of the ~~crerator~~, as well as people who believe in the flat earth.		The third paragraph is also just criticism of the creator, as well as people who believe in the flat earth.

	And whilst the last paragraph is the least biased, the "(no trial)", i would deem as unnecessary, and put there solely to find something else to hate about the app. Lastly, I don't think "despite being reported multiple times by several individuals, including myself of major breaches of security, privacy, wrong statements about collected data and breaches of EU and US regulations." should just be left there without any sources.		And whilst the last paragraph is the least biased, the "(no trial)", i would deem as unnecessary, and put there solely to find something else to hate about the app. Lastly, I don't think "despite being reported multiple times by several individuals, including myself of major breaches of security, privacy, wrong statements about collected data and breaches of EU and US regulations." should just be left there without any sources. Who is "myself"?

: Why is there so much bias within this article?

2025-02-22T07:01:19Z

Why is there so much bias within this article?

New page

I'm not a flat-earther, but i wanted to read this article anyway, and i am very dissapointed in the amount of bias within the first few paragraphs.

Why is "flat earthers" in quotation marks?

The entire second paragraph:

"The app serves a "clock" that tries (and fails) to show how day/night does progress on a Flat earth, and serves as a platform for content to reinforce science denial regarding everything we learned about our universe."

Is clearely incredibly biased, and not outlining any consumer rights whatsoever.

The third paragraph is also just criticism of the crerator, as well as people who believe in the flat earth.

And whilst the last paragraph is the least biased, the "(no trial)", i would deem as unnecessary, and put there solely to find something else to hate about the app. Lastly, I don't think "despite being reported multiple times by several individuals, including myself of major breaches of security, privacy, wrong statements about collected data and breaches of EU and US regulations." should just be left there without any sources.