Talk:Democratic Republic of 2b2t

DRo2b2t
Inquiring on the recent rollback from my revision. I understand its probably incorrect since I haven't been editing frequently for a while, I'd just like an explanation as to what I perceived as a straightforward and decent lead/summary (which is prioritized in Wikipedia for reference) was instantly reverted without proper clarification. Fredmodulars (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Simply put the information in your summary was incorrect and was thus removed as we dont want inaccurate information or misinformation in the wiki as you are well aware of undoubtedly given your history on here --LordGalvatronMC (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The summary is supposed to reflect on what the article provides, thus why it is explicitly mentioned as just condensing the information in the article. That is exactly what I did, and since I do not have access to sources I relied solely on the information in the article. If it was in fact inaccurate, then it would be best to simply edit it to better reflect the events rather than delete the whole thing. I came here to ask specifically what was wrong with it, and although some of my articles were criticized for relevancy to the server when the sweep of deletes and regulation came, they did receive positive criticism when originally presented. I presume my history refers to my wrongdoings against administration, which is aside from article editing.


 * so like, if you wouldn't mind, what specifically was wrong for future reference Fredmodulars (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Fred, The introduction was reverted by Galvatron at my request as I was not near a computer at the time. Given that it was per my request, I believe it is my obligation to answer your question, which I shall do.


 * "The Democratic Republic of 2b2t was an attempt at a group centered on democratic principals as an attempt to combat the popularity of authoritarianism in many rising factions.

First and foremost, the 'attempt' part is irrelevant, as the group ABSOLUTELY did exist even if it was a disorganized operation. The phrazing "...a group centered on democratic principals..." confuses me, what do you mean by "...centering..." on "...principals..."? It was only made to combat authoritarianism in name only, and was extremely LARPy in its doing so. I have no idea what is meant by rising factions, and I don't think you do as none are listed on the article itself, so I am extremely confused as to how that assertion can even be made. Besides this, this sentence contains parallel structure and is going uncomfortably close to run-on territory in my opinion.


 * "However, inefficiency between major leadership, as well as members exploiting elections, miscommunication between governing bodies, and undefined rules due to a "constitution" made without proper attention towards it, totaled into negative connotations being put against the group and its leadership, particularly Gambino, who was responsible for many of the group's shortcomings and unproperly governing the republic."

I list this whole block now to point out that this is most certainly a run-on. It is extremely difficult to deduce the meaning of this section because it is only one sentence. I will address individual sections below.


 * "However, inefficiency between major leadership, as well as members exploiting elections, miscommunication between governing bodies, and undefined rules..."

What is inefficiency between major leadership? Perhaps the meaning of this is lost with the run-on, perhaps not, but this does not make sense in its present form. The electoral exploitation is extremely trivialized here, which strikes me as odd as it was instrumental in more than half of the staff in the Democratic Republic attaining their positions. Given the prominant nature of these activities, it does not seem fitting to pass over them so briefly in the introduction. I don't see any examples of miscommunication between governing bodies, unless you are referring to Gambino sidestepping the council, which was not a miscommunication at all. The parliament had no real powers, which were held almost entirely by the council. Are you asserting the council miscommunicated with itself??


 * "undefined rules due to a "constitution" made without proper attention towards it, totaled into negative connotations being put against the group and its leadership, particularly Gambino, who was responsible for many of the group's shortcomings and unproperly governing the republic."

What does it mean when you say "...[activities] totaled into negative connotations being put against the group and its leadership, particularly Gambino"? Because I legitimately cannot deduce what this is supposed to mean. Gambino did not govern the Democratic Republic. I know this firsthand, as I actually governed the Democratic Republic. He framed the constitution and then attempted to 'pull the strings', which was hilarious in the context of a block game in and of itself, but other than that, he shilled for his shop. Gambino occupied one of 5 councilor positions, which were all anyways theoretically subordinate to the position of President.


 * "The group was later sabotaged due to departures and increasing hatred towards it. It was ultimately forgotten amidst the 7th Incursion."

The group was not directly 'sabataged' by anyone other than WomenAreObjects. The phraziing of this implies more people involved, as well as their leaving the group being the cause. This is simply untrue as their now-vacant positions were filled by others; group activities (minimal as they were) went on. There is no 'increasing hatred towards the group' that I can see anywhere in this article, there is not even evidence to suggest WAO himself 'hated' the group, as his destroying the discord conjoined with the Gambino dox shows it was motivated towards a dislike of Gambino rather than what was formerly a server owned by Gambino. It was an opportunistic move plain and simple. To say that it was 'forgotten amidst the 7th incursion' is also somewhat misleading. 'Overshadowed' would be a much more accurate term, as the server was by no means dead, although it was heavily griefed at later stages.

In the summary, there is no mention of Joey_Coconut, or WomenAreObjects, who are both extremely prominent in the narrative. While I will not dwell on this too much as I am in fact Joey_Coconut, this is a problem as it does not properly reflect article contents. It is the same with the passive mention of the coup, which was quite probably THE most important event to the Democratic Republic besides its foundation and fall. There are also no mentions of the electoral procedure, or Gambino's removal, which the opening would likely benefit from as well.

In summation, the grammar largely does not follow standard conventions of the English language. The information contained ranges from skewed, to incorrect in some spots. I hope that this itemized list is suffices in fulfilling your request for specifics as to what was wrong with your edit. --Joey Coconut1 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes it does. Thank you for clarification, as I did not originally recognize my errors mostly due to my misunderstanding of the subject at hand. Fredmodulars (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)