Talk:4chan/Archive 9

message: This is clearly Uncyclopedia material and not wikipedia material.
It pasted and slopped together with no honest importance or information.
I want to know what editor "ok'ed this article and erased several valid articles I wrote.
This is why we will see the death of wiki.--68.112.54.12 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example? InsaneZeroG (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage 

message: There needs to be something about 4chan's down time, especially the recent off line time that started this Saturday.
I'd do it myself, but my account is only about three minutes old :(
The ongoing conflict with lulznet and the whole soup fiasco should be put up here, as well as the fact that it caused almost every other *chan to go down.
Just a thought.
also, signature
--Loanvital 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also do it, but I gotta go make some soup. William Ortiz 00:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I LOLed. Also, moot has apparently taken some time away from his soup to make a statement about the DDOS attack.. 71.203.209.0 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "caturday nap" 

message: Aside from 4chan itself, I think moot's blog about 4chan http://4chanstatus.blogspot.com/ (provided it is run by moot) and the 4chan archive site (since it archives threads and isn't something like a wiki) are worthy links.  The rest might not be good links.  Possibly, 4chanarchive may only be worth linking to as reference for histories of the site.  Any thoughts? William Ortiz 03:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: It was here or uncyclopedia, I remember seeing a 'camwhore' regular, who seemed to be obsessed with Naruto. I'm sure this looks like a pervert looking for pornography, but really, would I use wiki for this? Can someone clarify if it was here or not, and any other information? Zeek Aran 07:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Pic? 

message: In some 4chan related flashes, I've been seeing a girl with a W on her head an a T on her shirt, who is she?--24.141.132.24 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Whose that girl, what's her name? is she totally insane?

message: Fox11 issued a followup report on Myspace hacking on November 14   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.99.80 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second report

message: Some topics on 4chan after the Wednesday shooting mentioned/linked to an archive of a 4chan /b/ post where the shooting plan was announced, two hours prior to the event. I don't have the archive link anymore, but it would be a good addition to this article if one could verify that that post was not retroactively made/a hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.44.184 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please, there were too many "an heros" lately, let's not encourage them. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Potential shootings should be prevented. all the more reason for cops to watch the Chans. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westroads shooting announcement? 

message: Shouldn't there be something in the article about NIGGERTITS's purchase of 7chan? If all of the stickies and the post on 7chan's news page turn out to be trolling on the part of the staff, disregard that, I suck cocks.
Kinto Watanabe (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 7chan is known for their modtrolls. --Philip Laurence (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it not painfully obvious that it's just the admin's way of mocking 4chan? - 72.94.202.203 (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ITT we show that we're fucking morons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.99.253 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG! MOOT BOUGHT 7CHAN OUT!!111ONEONEONE 

message: Anonymousb543 (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misinformation about /b/ 

message: What happened?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://4chanstatus.blogspot.com/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestiege23 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The domain registrar was hacked while moot was having soup. Damn soup. Every time he has it something bad happens.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.238.190 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4chan has been turned into an Internet forum, "For The Lulz" 

message: None of this matters because there's no reason to believe the hijacking is notable.  If a news outlet picks it up we can bring it back, but until there's a Wired headline that says "/b/tards Driven Out Into The Cold," there's no reason to even include this in the article.  In a month, two months, a year, is this going to be worth mentioning?  Let's wait until we know it is before even bothering to have this (heated!) discussion. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not notable to you, it's VERY notable to anyone looking into 4chan or the 4chan community. Remember, notability isn't global, it's with respect to the topic. If we were to talk about global notability most of WP would be gone. Further, this does not detract from teh article on 4chan, more information is better than less information. Please allow WP to grow, rather than trying to stunt the growth of articles in all likelyhood you don't even care about. If it's important in the history of 4chan, it's notable. burnte (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong - notability is not subjective, it IS global, because this is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if Restaurant X is notable in my hometown if it's not notable in a general sense. Wikipedia is not a news site, if it turns out to be a big deal then add it when it is. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 05:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet if there was an article ON your home town that restaurant may be notable within such an article despite not being notable if it had it's own article. Given how many people are impacted by this it's probably a lot more notable than a lot of other articles or sub-sections on various events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.239.232 (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your argument makes no sense. So if that restaurant had a Wikipedia article, and was closed down by a health organisation. It wouldn't deserve a mention? --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 08:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because 1. plenty of restaurants are closed due to health inspections. If this was an especially notable closing (perhaps the town only has one restaurant), surely someone would write about it independent of the newspaper in a reliable publication, and 2. where your analogy falls apart is that moot can just go "okay, I emailed Network Solutions, got the DNS stuff back, we're all good to go now" and a week later the event will be completely forgotten about. If it leads to 4chan going down forever (lol), it IS notable. If someone writes about the horrible downtime in somewhere reliable, it IS notable. Just give it a week or so, as I'm not too concerned about the sourcing issue. If 4chan is still down, go ahead and make it a sub-section or stick it in the prose somewhere. For now, leave it out - let's wait until it settles down. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 09:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may turn out to be unnotable, indeed. But until that time which proves it to be such, it should be treated as notable. I point you to various "breaking news" articles that crop up constantly, which noone moves to squelch at all, such as the Virginia Tech shooting, which was up and running within a disgustingly short time after the event began, and is only sticking around because certain people think that some guy going bugnuts and killing people is globally notable. Notability, no matter how hard you try to say is global, is still a POV of the event. Your POV is that such and such a thing is or is not globally notable. To further illustrate my point, let's go and put every anime article up for deletion, because starving kids in Africa don't give a rat's ass about Naruto and his mastery of jutsu, and if they don't care, it's not globally notable, is it? For 4chan users, this is important now. It may turn out to be not so notable in a week, in which case it can be removed. For now, it stays. Howa0082 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "But until that time which proves it to be such, it should be treated as notable." - "x is notable, prove me wrong" might be an effective troll technique on /b/ but it does not apply here on WP. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you, so I'm a troll? Fuck off and die, asswipe. Howa0082 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The website is already back up, just as I predicted. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your prediction sucked, because it's still having issues and still recovering. But don't let me stop you from being another wiki-obstructionist! burnte (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wrong, that's original research Lengthy Cat (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're only half right yourself. What the anon said was accurate, but, yeah, it was original research. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Original research only applies to content in the article itself. We don't need to prove in the article that the source is reliable – if we know it is, then it can be used. GracenotesT § 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first part of that doesn't even make any sense. But no matter; I merely misunderstood his post, because it wasn't even a sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lengthy Cat (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a news source. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Complaints about what you came here looking for mean little. If you didn't find it here, that's because you're looking in the wrong place! Editors make the "this is what people come here expecting to see, so we should add it!" argument all the time, but it's irrelevant. Policies trump personal feelings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't let the door hit you on the way out, 70.69. Wikipedia isn't a repository of breaking news on websites, hyperbole to the contrary. You might find the attack site below more to your liking. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moot point (no pun intended).

message: All I've seen so far is bickering about technicalities. I personally believe that the burden of proof is on the detractors of coverage. They must address that I and thousands of 4chan users know that the blogspot site was and still linked to m00t and the original 4chan IP addresses. Therefore, it is a reliable source. --Starks (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I disagree with the notion that an official 4chan status blog is not reliable about the status of 4chan (and indeed the notion that no blogs can be used as citation), I do agree that this hijacking doesn't need to be covered on Wikipedia, at least not yet. --Guess Who (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look farther down the page you linked to, Lengthy Cat. It says self-published or questionable sources can be used, so long as they meet certain criteria, such as "no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it" (moot) and "does not involve claims not directly related to the subject" (it doesn't). Thanks for helping prove that the status blog is valid. Howa0082 (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please lay out reasons for and against covering the takeover? 

message: Starting since Dec. 14th, I can't access fourchan. The status blog said the domain was being compromised or something, but now it redirects to some Glexia thing. Concrete Complex (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glaxia are the domain-register company, from where 4chan.org was bought. They have closed 4chan.org because the domain account was hacked and stolen. Glaxia are working with the 4chan administrators and the FBI on what actions should be taken. I expect 4chan.org to be up again soon. It has not yet been decided if this is notable enough to be mentioned in the article. --Kuckzul (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Glexia is the hosting company that the hackers used. A domain is just a name that points at an IP address (see: Domain name), and when the hackers compromised the 4chan admins' account at the registrar (not Glexia), they pointed the domain at a different IP address: The hosting account on Glexia. See for yourself. Use your favorite DNS or ping tool, etc, to find the IP of "diditforthelulz.com", then do a reverse DNS request on that IP. You'll end up at Glexia, the hosting company. Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im with lengthy cat on this one, diditforthelulz.com just redirected 4chan.org to their own site. Thats why the Glexia page came up when people went to 4chan.org. Tirus (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason we need to wait on this one is because this could be just a temporary fix. Since the main boards are now up it could be not long before the main page is restored. We need to just wait and see what happens.R00m c (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 4chan, being helped by the FBI. Wait, what? --Conradical247 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-important basement-dwelling script kiddies and trolls are not noteworthy. Please take a few weeks to review Wikipedia content guidelines before making any more suggestions Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4Chan is down

message: Only /b/ has nameserver problems. Now start the mighty gathering of "reliable sources" so that this important event will actually be mentioned someday in this article! 85.217.35.224 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back up 

message: I don't really know enough to write about it, but I will write what I know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaZero Alpha (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we need to wait on this one is because this could be just a temporary fix. Since the main boards are now up it could be not long before the main page is restored. We need to just wait and see what happens.R00m c (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 4chan, being helped by the FBI. Wait, what? --Conradical247 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-important basement-dwelling script kiddies and trolls are not noteworthy. Please take a few weeks to review Wikipedia content guidelines before making any more suggestions Lengthy Cat (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead... again