Talk:Cybernat

Possibly inappropriate "rm pov" revert

Dear Jmorrison230582, you mostly reverted a recent addition I made under an "rm pov" comment. Please could you explain how this was POV material?

For ease of discussion the removed material was "In May 2014 an SNP minister, Roseanna Cunningham, helped publicise a pro-union ex-soldier's home and email addresses and telephone number, leading to him receiving abusive Cybernat messages". This is a referenced fact from a national newspaper which is not (unless the newspaper is engaged in outright lying) disputed by the minister. The fact is relevant to the article and notable for the seniority of the person involved. The phrasing used is a plain non-judgemental description (or at least. that is what I tried to write). I think the removal was incorrect, and this edit should be re-instated. I invite you to comment. --winterstein (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the word "claimed" in relation to the article in The Herald was a pov edit, per WP:CLAIM. Regarding Roseanna Cunningham, the point of this article is about "Cybernat(s)", not her. I've added context in which the retired soldier received the (allegedly) abusive messages, but we need to avoid the possibility of WP:COATRACK. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jmorrison230582 for a clear reply. I wasn't aware of WP:CLAIM; I take your point on that. Re. Roseanna Cunningham, if a high-profile person publicises someone's address & phone on Twitter, that's liable to result in trolls harassing that person, so it fits within this article; I don't think WP:COATRACK applies -- indeed it was this lapse of care by a minister (of any colour) which I thought notable of documenting. To illustrate: doing the same on 4chan would be a really aggressive act. But I see further edits to this article have been made by yourself. I agree with your edits. --winterstein (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

To say that us so called Cybernats are those who abuse those they perceive as being opposed to independence and the Scottish National Party is not neutral. It suggests that we supporters of the SNP /independence Do Abuse (which most of us don't) I think that online supporters of Scottish independence who are perceived to abuse those who are opposed to independence and the Scottish National Party is fairer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynapHuw (talk • contribs) 03:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cybernat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413130148/http://www.glawest.org/labour-mp-calls-for-independence-supporters-to-be-barred-from-debates/ to http://www.glawest.org/labour-mp-calls-for-independence-supporters-to-be-barred-from-debates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]