# Talk:Chill Guy

please fix the article. i dont have an account or anything so please please fix the spelling. it says he was "doxxed" but it's spelt with one x.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:D6F8:2200:8BB4:DFA8:4E4F:DAA3 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC) 

 Done Neither are incorrect, but I think one "x" is more formal as well. Cheers! Johnson524 19:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Tweets from the brands using the meme are used as sources for the post, why should the official artist's Tumblr not be considered a source but brand Twitters are? Avienby (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Avienby Because they are not WP:SECONDARY sources, and sourcing information using only primary sources does not establish it's notability in the article. I believe that even if you did find a secondary source talking about Bank's merch, it still may violate WP:NOTPROMO, but it depends on how well its neutrally phrased. Oh, and you're completely right that using a brand's own tweet/reel/post would be a primary source as well, which for some reason I wasn't thinking about. I'm removing that information now. Thanks for the heads up, and cheers from another fan of chill guy 🙂 Johnson524 05:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Learn more chill guy meme here Tanhoangtu (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Royiswariii: I hope you are well 🙂 I see you added an unreliable sources tag on the page, and I wanted to ask you about your reasoning for doing so so I can fix the issue and remove the tag. The source in question on BlueSky was made by the author of the artwork, and comments on the one mistake he saw on this specific Wikipedia page, being that his artwork wasn't based on anything like it was reported. I wouldn't consider this statement an "exceptional claim" that would violate WP:ABOUTSELF, but what do you think? Especially since the author made this comment on BlueSky as a way to help clarify some incorrect information on how he made his art, I think it's important to be kept, but if you still disagree I can remove it. Cheers! Johnson524 07:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Johnson524! I'm being neutral that the "exceptional claim" should be applied, however, Bluesky is a social media and inspired from Twitter and it's on WP:SOCIALMEDIA. But, if you want to keep the source, you should search some support reliable sources of articles on he claims. Thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 07:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

68.198.89.130 (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I really have to edit some pages on Wikipedia because some of them are poorly written.

Hello, can you please specify what specifically you want on this page changed/corrected? Johnson524 20:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FifthFive (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Usually we don’t make articles for specific memes without a good reason. Why does this page exist? 65.112.8.16 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While a number of memes are not notable enough to covered, this topic had enough Relaible Secondary citations for it to be covered. Cheers! Johnson524 10:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
but does it really need to be here? many people talk about chris chan yet he has never had an article here Skunkiix (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Skunkiix: How does Chris Chan having/not having an article affect the notability of a completely unrelated topic? The vast majority of memes don't have enough coverage to become articles, but enough reliable and secondary sources exist (ex. USA Today, Indy100, etc.) to establish the notability of the page. Also, being a "b teir meme" as you stated below is not grounds for deletion. If you have any other concerns I'd be happy to answer them. Cheers! Johnson524 09:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

His name is "My New Character" and he is a capybara. HE'S NOT A DOG. HE IS A CHILL GUY THAT DOESNT MEAN THATS HIS NAME. Eggknight (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Eggknight: and thank you for reaching out! The nickname "My New Character" was removed by an anonymous account a few days ago, and has since been reverted. The artwork's name is Chill Guy, however, as stated by the creator Banks himself (please read the description section of the article). There is also no source I could find that called the artwork a capybara, with every source saying it is a dog. I hope this clarifies things, and if you have any more questions feel free to reach out. Cheers! Johnson524 04:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

In the history section, there is an incorrectly written sentence: "The artwork only became viral later on August 30, 2024, however, when a TikTok user under the username "blitzerzz" made created an edit with the artwork, utilizing other memes at the time including the Roddy Ricch song "Ricch Forever", and the American adult animated sitcom Family Guy."
Wording used to describe that the TikTok user has fabricated an edit appears twice to describe this act. The repetition is the words "made" and "created", as they are used right next to each other. I suggest removing one of the two words and personally, I would keep the word "made" and remove "created".
Unrelated to the repetition, I am unsure if the referred post made by ".blitzerzz" (the dot is indeed part of his username) should be called an edit since way more often than not, the term "edit" on TikTok refers to a video composed of scenes and/or pictures with transitions and effects. And what the TikTok user made is not a video but what is more commonly referred as a slideshow. In the phrase I cited to be corrected in the beginning of this edit request, both of the citations (citation number 4 and 5 in the wiki page) used to back up the claims calls the post a slideshow.1 2 So I also suggest replacing "edit" by "slideshow", and remove "Another" in the following sentence or rephrase the beginning of it.
Lastly, is "however" placed correctly or should even be used in the aforementioned sentence? NoahRider67 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@NoahRider67: Good catch! The phrase "created an edit" has been replaced with "made a slideshow" in two parts of the article, and the dot has been added to blitzerzz username. Also, thank you for citing the phrasing of "slideshow", as I previously thought it could be used interchangeably with "edit". The only thing I didn't change were the words "Another" and "however", as I can't think of a better word to go in their place/I think they read fine now, but let me know what you think. Cheers! Johnson524 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

68.198.89.130 (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I really want to edit this on Wikpedia about this meme character for a short time.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made specifically to this page. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cheers! Johnson524 23:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

b tier meme really. why is this here Skunkiix (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Answered above in the section: Notability? (linking for quick access) Johnson524 09:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I found an image that purports to have been the origin of this meme.
If it could somehow be verified, I think it would make for an important bit to add to this article. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@OzzyMuffin238: This appears to just be an edit of the meme, as it was posted only a day ago. I'd also be nice to have at least one reliable citation stating this was the meme's true origin/inspiration, but as it stands, nothing suggests that Banks wasn't the original creator. Cheers! Johnson524 00:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@OzzyMuffin238: So I was doing some digging, and I actually found this report talking about the alleged plagiarism allegations. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! 😀 Johnson524 00:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

68.198.89.130 (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)When can I edit this page about the internet meme phenomenon "Chill Guy" on Wikipedia?!

Hi @68.198.89.130, the semi-protection on this page expires February 10, 2025 at 02:44 UTC. Yeshivish613 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
If you have a request or something specific you'd like to see changed, please comment it so we can potentially assist you. Cheers! Johnson524 16:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @David Gerard I hope you are well. I really would've appreciated it if you had gone to the talk page instead of reverting all that information again, but it's alright. The sources you removed were Decrypt Media ([10], [18], [20]) Unchained Crypto ([11]), CoinDesk ([12]), Bywire News ([13]), Protos ([14]), Finance Magnates ([19]), Crypto Briefing ([21], [28]), and Coin68 ([27]). I have never edited articles about cryptocurrency before now, and have no intention to afterwards, I just learned a brief understanding of them to contribute to the page, which originally only revolved around the meme, pre-memecoin. To go over each source individually:

 Decrypt Media Has credited author, does not claim to be a blog BUT claims to use AI to help in the writing process on their about page. To err on the side of caution and I'll consider this unreliable.
 Unchained Crypto Has credited author, does not claim to be a blog or use AI, and has nothing concerning to note on their about page. I see no reason this source can't be used.
 CoinDesk Has credited author, has blogs but the article on being used on the page is news, and has has its own Wikipedia article which is linked to hundreds of pages. I see no reason this source can't be used.
 Bywire News Has no credited author and claims to use AI, just not on their about page, which I missed the first time around. The publication has its own Wikipedia redirect from its parent company IMPRESS, which is a independent press regulator in the UK, and the fact they rated the coin a 35/100, far below a failing grade, made me originally believe the source was reliable enough to be used, but the former information all but prevents it.
 Protos Has no credited author, but does not claim to be a blog or use AI, and is an independent non-sponsored publication. This source could be reliable enough to be used, but I want to err on the side of caution yet again because of the aforementioned lack of authors, and the fact their "podcasts" are really just text to speech read offs from a bot. While they don't claim to use AI, I still suspect they do.
 Finance Magnates Has credited author, does not claim to be a blog or use AI, and has nothing concerning to note on their about page. In fact, they have a long list of credited editors. I see no reason this source can't be used.
 Crypto Briefing Has credited author, does not claim to be a blog BUT, similarly to Decrypt Media, claims to use AI to help in the writing process. They claim to carefully review any information the AI adds and check it for factual accuracy. Words are cheap though, and somewhat contradictory to that their disclaimer states multiple times they make no guarantee to the "accuracy of any information on or accessed through this website", which I'm sure was added to prevent them from being blamed in the case they report on bad investments, but also applies to using the source as a citation.
 Coin68 Has author, but they use a synonym name of "Song Song", or "Parallel" in English. They are an entirely Vietnamese source, a fact they seem to be proud of, which makes it a little harder to guarantee they are not a blog and do not use AI, but both seem to be true. The main thing that makes me want to err on the side of reliability, however, is that the article itself is quite in-depth, using information and a number of photos and social media posts in a way I don't believe would be possible without a decent amount of human work if AI was to be used, which I again cannot find any mention to. I believe this source can be used for the little it cites on the page.
I can appreciate your commitment to the article's reliable sources, but your edit was very indiscriminate in removing anything that had to do with the memecoin, in the process removing a number of sources I don't see any problems with. In the end, my source check comes to 4/8 or 50/50 when it comes to source reliability. I wish I had done this background check sooner rather than now, but its certainly not 8/8 in unreliability. If you're okay with it, I'd like to add back the information from the sources Unchained Crypto, CoinDesk, Finance Magnates, and Coin68, albeit with some tweaks to remove any information in the sentences only supported by one of the removed sources. Cheers! Johnson524 05:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Crypto sites are unreliable promotional sources, not trade press. Crypto should only be covered using mainstream RSes. Are there any mainstream RSes on the memecoin? If the above are the best there is to cover the memecoin, then we don't really have much to go on at all. At most, maybe Finance Magnates passes there. The descriptive essay (not an endorsed guideline, but a summary) Wikipedia:Notability (cryptocurrencies) is a useful guide - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Oh gotcha, I see what you're saying now, sorry for any misunderstandings earlier. Reading into the wikilink you sent about cryptocurrencies notability; the biggest downfall for most types of these sources is their enthusiasm towards the promotion of virtually all cryptocurrencies, with their lack of neutrality making them biased. The sources above, however, all talk about the memecoin's controversies and general hardships. While there is the occasional promotion, all of the coins speak significantly about these aforementioned drawbacks. Can the neutral statements in these four sources (only [11], [12], [19], and [27]?) be used as citations? Cheers! Johnson524 16:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The sources aren't good and shouldn't be used. If they're all we've got, we shouldn't be going through questionable sources for scraps. If there really isn't mainstream coverage of the memecoin, it probably doesn't belong in the encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@David Gerard: Okay, being very critical of the four sources: Coin68 is only citing a one-off drama surrounding the memecoin, and wouldn't be added back anyways. Unchained Crypto, having crypto in the name, may promote too heavily on the topic they're reporting, violating Notability (cryptocurrencies), with the same going for CoinDesk. I really do believe though that Finance Magnates, with their list of credited editors, fact checkers, and history of non-crypto related news should surely be enough for at least a mention of the coin's history in the article? I made the article before the memecoin was made, but for many viewers, at least according to Pageviews, they only searched for the page after the memecoin and its associated problems took place. Even if we have even just one good source, I believe a mention should still be included to give due weight to the topic. Would that be okay if I re-add just source [19] back to the article? Cheers! Johnson524 17:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
@David Gerard: For these reasons, would that be okay? With this article in the queue for GA review, I want to have it in a state I'm proud of for whenever that is taken up. Johnson524 21:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
I'd say FM is usable. Crypto sources would IMO disqualify it from "good" status without really good reasons to use them - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you finding those poor sources and removing them when you did, and I'm sorry it took me a minute to understand your argument. Cheers! Johnson524 03:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Chill guy is actually a capybara, not a dog 2600:1700:7980:A30:5F1:A47C:2513:8A28 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

So Chill Guy was originally an illustration of a boy who's head was edited with the dog's head next to it. The magazine's name is "Hoc tro cuoi" which roughly translates to "Students Laugh" It appeared in the cover of issue 883. I notices this aticle has no mention of this. there was even a plagiarism hoax around it. I found one source from a Vietnamese newsite called Coin68, but it's written in Veitnamese. Làm rõ việc meme "Chill Guy" đạo nhái ý tưởng từ Việt Nam Christianhatley527 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The meme is from 2023, and the magazine is from 2024, so no 🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
@Christianhatley527, @Thegoofhere: There used to be a mention of this in the article, but it was later regarded as being too trivial to be worth a mention sometime before or during the Good Article review. FWIW, the mention used to look like this:
On December 24, 2024, allegations were brought up and shortly debunked which claimed the artwork used to make "Chill guy" had been plagiarized from issue 52 of the Vietnamese magazine Học trò cười or "Students Laughing" in English. Before being proven false, the allegations caused $CHILLGUY to drop by another 7% to a $172 million market cap.1 Johnson524 16:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)