Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)

message: It took me ages to finally work out what this phrase meant from the various talk page archives. Just the comments I have read in those surely show that it's a big enough phenomenon to justify a page, whether or not documentary evidence can be found anywhere else? At least, is it possible to put a 'sticky' explanation of the phrase at the top of this talk page? Other sites actually link to these talk page archives and it's as clear as mud until one has searched through pages and pages of mystifing arguments, what the saying actually means.
I have to say, I did get the distinct impression that wikipedia most certainly does not liek mudkipz.
Codeye (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for memes is very high - see All Your Base Are Belong To Us and O RLY?, both of which meet that threshold.  It's worth noting that both memes have been referred to off the æther, whereas SIHULM hasn't aside from a tangential mention on a newspaper article about 4chan. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 03:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I don't really know how to use this thing and I'm not even registered but I am real and not a troll. Alright if it has completely nothing to do about the pokemon and has something to do with a guy scrwing a mudkip doll, WRITE ABOUT THE GUY AND THE DOLL, NOT THE MUDKIP. At least mention 2 - 4 sentences in the Mudkip entry about it in Wikipedia at least or put in a Mudkip (Disambiguation). The lack of explanation on the origins of mudkip is also not helping. I thought this site was all for information and notable things. When it can't publish the fact that it's CREATED OUT OF A STUPID POST OR NOT, I actually feel for some people. Here, when people want information, they almost always go wiki, otherwise they Google but probably end up here on the results page. When they don't get what they want they either a) give up or b) google again in which case a is more persistent with lazy people. It's like you're asking us "why write X raping Y on the X and the Y articles? X and Y are part of the series on human beings and X raping Y is A STORY ABOUT THEM, NOT ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS" Recording events, no matter how trivial, as long as it is fact-proven, which it is, is not a strange thing to do. I only want justice to be done. I only want a mention of its origins (I mean the text it was based on, people practically DON'T KNOW how it got popular on 4chan, for all they know, someone could've crapflooded mudkips and not knowing about /b/, they think the /b/tards thought it was funny and crapflooded it all over again, which it is NOT and WILL mislead people to believing what they want) and other fact-proven, useful things and I will be happy to shut my tramp up. The Pokemon elitists won't complain if we make a page named So I herd U Liek Mudkipz (Meme) will they? Hell why not put an additional "Not a pokemon" or "it has got nothing to do with pokemon" at the end?
Also, how do I do this? maybe im doing it wrong, oh wait I'm doing it right am I? :\ Well at least I got that off my back and I want a straight answer, adressing all the remarks I have made. Please. As I've said, a lenghtier mention would satiate me, I swear. 125.160.167.40 (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just chill. The meme is in internet phenomena. A link to that is on the mudkip section. This discussion is settled, nobody wins, nobody loses. The information is available in a reasonable way, and you can just simmer down. All you're going to do with a rant like this is start yet another interminable crapfest of which there's a few archives already. Cratylus3 (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So I herd you liek mudkipz? 

message: I think it should also be mentioned that mudkip has become popular on Deviantart (www.deviantart.com) At one point all avatars where changed to mudkip as a April fools joke.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerSam (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that dA jumping onboard a forced 4chan meme is particularly noteworthy. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The meme originated at D-ART, see the Mudkip Archive02. 4chan just made it forced. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't there been some YouTube videos with it in it? And didn't I just make a userbox? Tezkag72 01:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So did I. Doesn't mean shit because neither Wikipedia nor YouTube can be used as sources. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn. Well, I know I saw some story online on it, from some news source. Finding it's something different. Tezkag72 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's already sourced in the article, but that story's about 4chan, not SIHULM. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Nein, Herr Ksy. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mudkip 

message: Isnt Entei based on the Beast in Beauty and the Beast?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.100.253 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If he is, then Mudkip is based off of a 4channer's pet dog. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entei 

message: I've seen a lot of vandalism, almost exclusively in the Mudkip section. I think we should semi-protect this. Tezkag72 01:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Get used to it - the section is ALWAYS gonna be under 4chan/ED attack because it is the subject of a forced Internet meme. I'm not semi'ing because I've gotten completely tired of accusations of bad-faith from 4channers after some of their ranks tried to troll the meme onto one of the source articles and every other article remotely related to it (Mudskipper, Axolotl, Mudpuppy). I've requested at WP:RPP. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it is now. Tezkag72 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: I really think the internet meme deserves more than just a one sentence mention, when there has been thousands of 4chan posts, YouTube videos, etc. I think there should be a subsection under Mudkip about the meme, with an image for an example. Anyone agree? Tezkag72 01:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree; that's undue weight to the meme. Shadowrun timeline does not have a section all to Dunkelzahn, despite his monstrous influence on it. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree. An image of Mudkip with those obnoxious buck teeth? I think not. This is an article about Pokemon. Not what some guys made a joke about on the internet. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Pokemon, not the meme. It should be mentioned on the List of Internet phenomena page instead.--ZXCVBNM 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With that being said, I don't think this belongs in the Internet Culture project because this article is about 20 Specific Pokemon, not just Mudkip. -Sukecchi (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, Mudkip doesn't have its own article (and won't unless someone manages to bring up sources which'll let it pass WP:N), so the whole article has to be placed on the project (I've no objection to the tagging in this case). As to the lower keyboard row, that's precisely what I said - A LOT - before I stopped editing this article altogether due to JA/G 4channer harassment. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the Mudkip article would still have nothing to do with the meme. Just like you wouldn't include the Pokemon article in the project because of "let me show you my Pokemanz." The I.C. project should include articles SPECIFICALLY about Internet culture, and even though it's vandalized a lot, this isn't one of them.--ZXCVBNM 22:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not simply create the "So i herd u liek mudkipz" page that everybody wants?  It's been years and it's still not dead.  So MAKE THE PAGE.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.255.209.242 (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No source or notability; no article as a result. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And NARH, please read Wikipedia:Notability. I backed down from it last time because I misinterpreted the policy; don't make the same mistake. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 08:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would indefinite create-protection of the page in question be in order? I find it strange that the meme redirects directly to this page, which doesn't have anything to do with it other than having Mudkip in it.--ZXCVBNM 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it redirects to the Mudkip section. I don't think salting would be appropriate; the page hasn't been created that many times, and sources may come up anytime. If anything, Mudkip should have its own article, and the meme should have its own section in that article. Tezkag72 22:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the grand scheme of things, Mudkip really isn't that more notable than Torchic, Totodile, Sunkern, Doduo, Zubat, Mothim, or Mantine. All that can be presented is in-universe information, and that really doesn't fit in with Wikipedia policy. SIHULM isn't even relevant enough to warrant it's own section if such an article did exist; it takes up only two lines on this page, and that is after years of dispute and peopl searching for reliable references. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone was knowledgeable enough to type in the entire meme to the search bar, they probably wouldn't be searching for the article about Mudkip, otherwise they would just search for "Mudkip." Because of this, the redirect should either link to List of Internet phenomena and the one-sentence mention be moved there, with reference, or it should link to 4chan who created the meme.--ZXCVBNM 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and do it then.  I've been suggesting that for a while now; the only problem with it is that I'm not taking any actions related to Internet memes because I already have agents provocateur antagonizing 4chan against me. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 04:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--ZXCVBNM 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: (RI) And reverted by Cratylus3.  I'd like to hear his arguments for keeping it in the article. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you think there's been enough strife, Jeske, without inciting more? Zxcvbnm, please read the umptillion discussion pages on this. Cratylus3 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he did, and I'm not trying for strife this time.  He was just being bold, that's all, since he feels that the meme's mention is utterly irrelevant to Mudkip as concerns the Pokémon franchise (something I agree with, but won't protest either way). -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with the move; people looking for the meme would be better suited looking at the list of internet phenomena, as the actual information on the Pokemon Muskip would likely be of no interest to them. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the Bulbasaur article has a section on "cultural impact", I won't try to start an edit war, and I'll leave this be.--ZXCVBNM 05:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: First of all, the meme has nothing to do with Mudkip at all. Something that I mentioned to Jeske well over a year ago about this stupid meme is that it originated from a story of a kid ****ing a Mudkip doll. So I think two things have to happen before the meme is mentioned either in its own article or the Mudkip "section": 1) somebody's gotta prove the notability of the meme, and 2) somebody's gotta show how the meme has any relevance to a freaking video game character. Ksy92003 (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm starting to see a consensus, but I think we're gonna need some more input here. To IPs wanting to put in your two cents: There isn't going to be an independent article on SIHULM anytime soon; this discussion's about its appropriateness in *this* article. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 08:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A small subsection, or even just a couple sentences more than there already is, is not undue weight, and doesn't fail WP:N. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 14:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Undeadherbie's asking for an article, not the section already there. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I honestly don't see how it can possibly be expanded more than it is, and reliably cited at the same time. MelicansMatkin (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither do I. I'm usually an inclusionist, but I don't support there being a page for the meme unless more sources are found showing its notability. Then it can be expanded much more. Tezkag72私にどなる私のはかい 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: And promptly reverted by Cratylus3 again 8-|. Despite what appears to be a consensus here on this page for it not being included in this article. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back; it's clear to me there's a consensus amongst the legit editors here (i.e. those who don't come to this page specifically to troll). -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm disappointed that you're insisting on seeing bad faith where there is simply disagreement. I'm reverting it to the way it's been for months, and the way that it ought to be. As seresin said, this is relevant, and sourced, and belongs here. Your rabble rousing and name calling just reflects poorly on you, jeske. Cratylus3 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only calling spades spades. In this whole debate, you're practically the only named account in favor of the meme that has not been indef'd as a vandalism-only account, Cratylus. More compelling arguments have been brought up that it should be in List of Internet phenomena, not here, and consensus can change (and has done so in this case), Cratylus. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Uh, it seems to me as well that there is a clear consensus among editors on this talk page - yourself excluded - that the meme has nothing to do with either Mudkip or Pokemon. besides, the meme itself redirects to List of Internet phenomena, and that also contains the exact same information as is present in this article. Consensus is against you, Cratylus. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Zxcvbnm, Sukecchi, Ksy92003, Jéské Couriano, and MelicansMatkin are all for it's removal from this page due to it having nothing to do with the subject at hand. And from my scouring of it, I see only Cratylus3 opposed to it's inclusion, with Tezkag72 neither for nor against inclusion just so long as it has some sort of mention on the encyclopedia (though he'd prefer it to have it's own page). That's a pretty clear indication to me. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:UKWikiGuy's also against its inclusion, lest I be mistaken. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 00:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Part of do not do this don't you get? 69.132.87.99 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "Not at all related to the Pokémon Mudkip" do you not get? -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 02:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[So i herd u liek mudkipz]]" is bigger 

message: I thought the pokemon was based on an Axolotyl. Betaben (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof? By the by, sinular and plural is Mudkip. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't Mudkips an Axolotl? 

message: This debate has apparently been raging for over three years now. Folks, HTTP has only been a protocol since 1991, so that means this debate has been ongoing for 16% of the life of the World Wide Web. Its stupid to think that it will ever be forgotten about at this point, if for no other reason than it's been automatically mirrored too many times over the years. The Mudkip meme has outlived the vast majority small businesses that were around when it began, and outlived the employment tenure of more than half of American CEOs who were in position when it started... 
There is no mistaking that this truly is the most legendary Pokémon of all time.Zaphraud (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I always wanted to keep it there. It's definitely the thing that Mudkip is most notable for, and even the most notable thing about any of the Pokémon on this list. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a nice chuckle when a friend linked to the archive of the mudkips discussion
"Besides, nobody is even going to care six months from now. Zazaban 16:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three years and still going strong 

message: If you intend to deny Mudkip its own page then this is the only logical and fair conclusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.63.86 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's get rid of all the other meme pages. They're just drivvel anyways. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mudkip almost got its own page, but there wasnt enough sources to warrant an article. Using WP:Other Stuff Exists has no effect. Other memes might have more reliable sources. Also it has been said that "So I herd u leik mudkipz" things will not give Mudkip his own article. It did help Mudkip be popular, but it doesnt allow it an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, OP is ignoring this. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  So should we delete chocolate rain and all other memes off wikipedia?