Talk:Anonymous

'This article has been proposed for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is obvious vandalism, sarcastic mockery, or inappropriate according to The Conservapedia Commandments.'

So I read the Commandments, and found that the only issue from my edit was the lack of references. Something I shall fix if necessary.

I feel my only crime was not agreeing with the overarching bias of this site.

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I don't really know much about this purported group, but from what I can find it seems to be a name thrown about by kids who spend too much time on the internet and enjoy pointless vandalism. This article makes them sound almost noble, which is clearly wrong. I think it's you who is biased - take a look around CP and you'll see what an open-minded group of editors can do. Jcw 10:28, 6 June 2011 (EDT)

I have been looking around. I changed this article from a simple statement calling the group a bunch of terrorists to one which lists what they have done. I have tried to include the official opposition by non-government groups (and even included the statements of the Pirate Party). I have tried to keep my opinion out of by merely stating what we can know. They have been known to take part in a series of political motives. I could add a part which states the opinions of the public but that is kind of irrelevant to the actual facts about them. If I was to talk about Quantum Loop Gravity, I wouldn't go out and ask the public what they think of it because they won't really understand it. The same applies with groups who are portrayed by the media as a bunch of terrorists (despite being viewed as 'heroes' when they opposed Scientology). I'll edit in some stuff about the opinion that they are criminals.