Talk:Flat Earth Clock App: Difference between revisions
→Concerns about article tone: Reply |
Icandostuff (talk | contribs) Questions |
||
| 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) | |||