User talk:Thephantom24

January 2020
Hello, I'm FriendlyCaribou. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Anonymous for the Voiceless—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. FriendlyCaribou (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Larshalt (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing Wikipedia. On the footnote, I provided evidence that the group is a registered business in Australia. Allow the changes to be made. Thephantom24 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You most certainly did when hiding links to private Google drive folders in what seems to the user like a Guardian newspaper article multiple times. Larshalt (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah Thephantom24 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverting the changes made
Why are the changes I am making being reverted back? I also posted an article which proves Anonymous For The Voiceless is not a non profit organization, but a registered business in Australia.

Why is it being reverted back? Thephantom24 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thephantom24. Re your question above, and your post at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Both you and the person who keeps reverting you are quite new users. I have semiprotected the page Anonymous for the Voiceless, which means neither of you can now edit it. You both need to stop edit warring and discuss the changes on the article's talkpage, Talk:Anonymous for the Voiceless. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC).

Important policy notes
Wikipedia includes material that is supported by reliable sources. It is not a venue for you to "spread the truth" as you see it. You have clearly created this account in order to attempt to "expose" Anonymous for the Voiceless somehow, which really needs to stop immediately unless you can provide widely-published secondary sources to support your claims. If you continue to use Wikipedia as a platform to push your agenda, you will ultimately be blocked from editing. Please read through the links I've provided here and reconsider the direction you're taking with this account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I am “spreading the truth” as I see fit. The page that I provided was an official website of the Australian government. The current article is not accurate. It’s like having an article that says Michael Jackson was white when we know he was black. Anonymous For The Voiceless is not a non profit. Thephantom24 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not “spreading the truth” or “exposing.” I linked an article by the gov’t of Australia which shows AV (Anonymous for the Voiceless) to be a registered business, not a non profit. I want accurate information in Wikipedia articles, not misinformation. Don’t pretend to know what my intentions are. Thephantom24 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have to pretend to know your intentions, you have made them obvious by your edits. Nothing in your reply addresses any of the policy pointers I provided in my message above. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would I need a secondary source for an official website of the Australian government? And yes, you are pretending. My edits? Oh, so the google doc. I’m not insisting on that one. I am going with the official website which is clearly showing that AV is a business not a non profit. Thephantom24 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The source you are relying on, https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=63991946105, is simply a statement that Anonymous for the Voiceless is registered as a business in Australia. You seem to think that being a business prevents an entity from being a nonprofit organisation, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that simply isn't the case. In the USA, the category 501(c) organization comprises many thousands of businesses, but they are all nonprofit. In the UK, many businesses are registered charities. Have a look at those articles and see if you recognise how AV fits into those categories. Of course if you find a reliable source that states "AV is not a nonprofit organisation", you'd be quite right to argue that should not be described as one. On the other hand, I haven't found a reliable source that states "AV is a nonprofit organisation", which would be required to settle the argument conclusively. Nevertheless, AV certainly looks like a nonprofit, and I'm certainly inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to that view in the absence of conclusive evidence either way. If you wish to pursue the debate, then I suggest you ask on the article talk page for a citation needed template to be placed as a challenge to the 'nonprofit' description. --RexxS (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also new to Wikipedia, could you therefore explain what would be considered a reliable source and why reference 10 from the article (https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/774df2336450879820ca344a292f1bbe) is not one? Thanks a lot, RexxS. Larshalt (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a whole page called Reliable sources that discusses what we should look for in a source for it to be considered reliable. In a nutshell, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's worth noting that some sources may only reliable for certain statements, depending on the context. Looking at the sources both of you have brought forward, I would have no doubt that each of them is a reliable source to support the contentions that in Australia AV is registered as a business and AV is registered as a nonprofit, respectively. It appears to me that the problem you're having is that Thephantom24 hasn't grasped the fact that nonprofits can be a subset of businesses, and thinks one excludes the other. I expect that when they have sorted that out, they will agree that the more specific description (nonprofit) is the most appropriate one for the infobox, and that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission source would support that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also new to Wikipedia, could you therefore explain what would be considered a reliable source and why reference 10 from the article (https://www.acnc.gov.au/charity/774df2336450879820ca344a292f1bbe) is not one? Thanks a lot, RexxS. Larshalt (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a whole page called Reliable sources that discusses what we should look for in a source for it to be considered reliable. In a nutshell, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's worth noting that some sources may only reliable for certain statements, depending on the context. Looking at the sources both of you have brought forward, I would have no doubt that each of them is a reliable source to support the contentions that in Australia AV is registered as a business and AV is registered as a nonprofit, respectively. It appears to me that the problem you're having is that Thephantom24 hasn't grasped the fact that nonprofits can be a subset of businesses, and thinks one excludes the other. I expect that when they have sorted that out, they will agree that the more specific description (nonprofit) is the most appropriate one for the infobox, and that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission source would support that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a whole page called Reliable sources that discusses what we should look for in a source for it to be considered reliable. In a nutshell, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It's worth noting that some sources may only reliable for certain statements, depending on the context. Looking at the sources both of you have brought forward, I would have no doubt that each of them is a reliable source to support the contentions that in Australia AV is registered as a business and AV is registered as a nonprofit, respectively. It appears to me that the problem you're having is that Thephantom24 hasn't grasped the fact that nonprofits can be a subset of businesses, and thinks one excludes the other. I expect that when they have sorted that out, they will agree that the more specific description (nonprofit) is the most appropriate one for the infobox, and that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission source would support that. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)