Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 4

message: Shouldn't the article be moved to "List of Internet Phenomenas" as that is the plural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan78 (talk • contribs) 
:No, phenomena is the plural. Phenomenon is the singular. Jay Maynard 13:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Article? 

message: Notpron was inspired by Pron.  For all intents and purposes, the reason any and all current internet riddles flourished is because of Pron, so it should be listed as opposed to its offspring.  The Notpron article is currently in AFD mode for a myriad of reasons, so there should be no objection to editing this.  StewartDaniels 11:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but can the Pron entry be sourced? Is there any way, for example, to demonstrate ts popularity? A Google search is likely to be even less useful than usual... Jay Maynard 12:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, it can't really be sourced using a search engine, and I have absolutely no idea how to source it.  Anybody else who remembers it, feel free to help on this one.  I also don't know the proper course of action here, should it be omitted until it can be sourced?  I see other items listed that aren't sourced, so I don't know.  Incidentally, I'm rather surprised to see that youtube and myspace are not listed on this page (unless I simply missed them), those are arguably the two biggest internet phenomenoms in the history of the web.StewartDaniels 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pron 

message: Do you think the two charecters Ender's siblings create as their online personas from Ender's Game merit being added to this section? dimo414 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fiction 

message: Anyone know if there a chronological list of the internet memes available anywhere? I think it'd be interesting to see it optionally organized by date and not just categorically... any thoughts? --Dankind 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronological Order? 

message: Doesn't a link belong here? The video's on youtube, it it's considered viral... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.238.180 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the Hell is Matt? 

message: Ok..I edited the page with info about Delfin Quishpe (aka Delfin hasta el fin), an ecuatorian singer who made a homage about the twin towers tragedy, but because of the goof, was involuntary comedy...but that edit was deleted...maybe he is not well-know in USA or Europe, but in Latin america, is a phenomenon...I will give you some sources...in spanish...and a link to his video...
What do you think?
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.143.77.18 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that this is a phenomenon... 

message: Not to nitpick, but I don't think the woman can be considered large. She might be slightly overweight but I wouldn't call her 'large' in comparison with the average american woman. Thanks
-avigon (nsi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.242.229.35 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "large woman" moshzilla 

message: I added Benson, a user from Uncyclopedia, to the people category, but the edit was removed. I understand that a user from a website may not be as big as some of the other people on the list, but posters on other sites are included on the list of well-known people too (like Lee Hotti), and anybody that is a member on Uncyclopedia knows about Benson. Within a week of Benson first posting on Uncyclopedia, he was even given his own forum on the site (Benson's forum), and was well-enough-known that others had even formed imposter Benson accounts. I have even seen references to Benson on forums on other sites. I feel strongly that Benson should be added to the list of people, and if asked, I will find more evidence on Uncyclopedia to prove this. Jaybenad 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia 

message: Is it really that notable?
-- Mik 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSOWA, aka "Hot Skitty on Wailord Action" 

message: As said by the user who talked about Delfin Quishpe, I think the article about MeAnda - Don should be listed here because IT IS an internet phenomena in Latin America. You can check this googleing "MeAnda" "MeAnda Don" and "VideoGENTE" and you should see all blogs and pages that mention the video. Also, try a search for "Meanda" in YouTube and you'll find at least 4 pages for the video uploaded by different users (not counting all results that don't appear with that word).
In the other hand, the site has claimed his videos are copyright-free (they have a CC license posted in their site ) and the owners of the site have included an article there about the "MeAnda - Don" wikipedia entry. Please bring comments to revert the unincluding. --Kalfusion 06:46, 25 January 2007 (—Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 25 January 2007 - I have no clue why the bot doesn't archive this thread, so I will do it in a few minutes! mabdul 16:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Mexican Video Out of Link 

message: There's currently a list in the Fark.com article with a list of 'farkisms and cliches', which is really nothing more than a list of various internet phenomena (most of which really didn't originate on fark.com anyway, despite what most farkers would probably tell you). I think it would be best to merge that list with this one here, linking to the fark.com article with a 'see also' reference. Dr. Cash 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be more appropriate to prune the list on the Fark article to reduce it to thinks which originated on Fark, with a see also pointing here.  Chris cheese whine 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose this on the grounds that the Fark article has a certain purpose, which is to list internet phenomena which are widespread on that website.  If it is merged with this one, that purpose is lost.  Regardless of whether they originated on Fark or not, not every internet phenomenon is important within the Fark culture (and the reverse is true as well - if a phenomenon is limited to Fark only, would it really be considered important enough to place in this article?).  In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a member of Fark.com (a "liter", though).  By the way, you may want to put that template on the Fark article as well, in the interest of fairness.  Otherwise, you're only getting an opinion from the members of this article. Esn 09:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dch111 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose, as the Fark article is designed to deal with the community and jargon that a part of Fark.com. Were "Farkisms" to be integrated into this article, it would begin a slippery slope of including all community-based web site mannerisms. Countvonbob 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.59.131 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose 209.9.196.99 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fark.com - List of Farkisms 

message: Notability established by being "exposed" on CNN.  Not the only old media coverage I know of, but the only one I can find offhand.  --Leam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.120.254.174 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JewsDidWTC notability... 

message: The Barrens Chat is definitely a meme/phenomenon... it even sparked some T-shirts. Hojimachongtalkcon 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Barrens Chat]] 

message: What about Patrick Tribett? Didn't see him on the page, although I may have missed him... JohnathanZX4 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paint Huffer 

message: *I don't know if I like the new format of the article that gives each meme its own subsection.  It looks rather ungainly and, quite frankly, ugly.  I think the page should revert to the old format. JuJube 07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format 

message: I have no problem with removing the other folks that User:Newyorkbrad removed, but Ellen Feiss is notable in her own right - even to the point of starring in a movie. See, for example, this interview.-- Jay Maynard 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her notability is for matters other than what is referred to in this article, but I won't object to the reversion. Thanks for explaining here on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ellen Feiss 

message: I restored Amir Massoud Tofangsazan, Brian Peppers, and Qian Zhijun.  Amir and Qian have Wikipedia articles based on their internet notability, which this is a list of, so I don't understand their removal.  WP:BLP has no application here.  
I left removed some drunk sorority girl who had her picture taken in a dorm.  There is a minor paragraph about her in some other article but I don't see her as being an internet phenomena.  Maybe with a source that SHE is the phenomena it should be restored but I don't see her as a major anything.
I also restored Brian Peppers, which in the current atmosphere is going to cause wiki-drama.  The few sentences in this article are neutral and sourced, and the entire claim for him having anything in Wikipedia is the internet phenomena around him - that's exactly what this is a list of.  WP:BLP is not a censorship hammer of an excuse to delete everything remotely negative about people.  There is no call to purge Wikipedia of anything and everything having to do with the guy, in fact, many people see the short blurb in this article as a compromise to not having a complete article about him. SchmuckyTheCat 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who previously deleted these paragraphs, I don't think the entry about Brian Peppers is notable or appropriate. Having said that, in candor I have to agree that the entry is somewhat more responsibly written than what has been written about him elsewhere. With respect to the other two entries you mention, I find the linked articles to be questionable in their own right, but today may not be the best day for discussing them. Therefore, I have left your reversion untouched and would welcome additional comments from others, leaving the timing of such discussion to the informed discretion of our contributors. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restores 

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] 

message: I see that editors are continuing to address issues relating to this article. In my opinion, portions of the article that do not reflect adversely on identifiable living persons do not necessarily need to be deleted pending sourcing, especially if they are linked to valid Wikipedia articles or if there is no reason to doubt that the content is true. Such portions of the article should continue to be improved, but the concerns in this regard are less severe and urgent than those raised concerning the "People" parts of the article. My opinion, anyway; comments invited. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hipocrite's deletion of the vast majority of the article after expressing his opinion in the AfD that the article should be deleted is, I'm sure, against some guideline or other. However, there's nothing I can do about it. It's abundantly clear to me that my work on this article isn't wanted. -- Jay Maynard 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This article has been tagged with "requiring sources" for approximately... forever. The only way to guarantee that the article has sources is to wipe it and start from scratch, requiring all new additions to have sources. If you REALLY REALLY loved the old article, you can find a link here, which includes even the "unforgivaeble video series that can be found in numerous places around the web and has gained considerable popularity." Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You deleted a whole bunch of stuff that had wiki articles about them.  Consider situations where the wiki article is the source of the meme's popularity. 139.102.241.40 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I can only speak for me in saying that I appreciate your work on this article just as I appreciate any good-faith contributor's work on any article. I just want to make sure that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for spreading misinformation or invading the privacy of innocent people. Portions of the article that don't raise those concerns are in a different category from those that do. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You nuke the world and then ask for help rebuilding??! <boggle> -- Jay Maynard 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or, apparently, destroy. -- Jay Maynard 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of non-BLP portions 

message: Hipocrite thanks for the hard work in cleaning up. But about your removals... are you basing what  you are removing as verifiable based on the text here in THIS article, or for the text in the article on the subject itself? For example Badger Badger Badger is clearly notable as an internet phenominon--ten seconds of reading that article shows that. But you removed it here. Thanks. - Denny 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed everyting that was not justified here. I just went through the entire Bands section (I put an inuse tag on the article so no one would get in my way) and sourced about 50% of the bands, using only the articles on the bands and the sources linked there. I welcome others to import sources from the base articles - and I will get back to it later on today. I will also move to ref references and citeweb after the backbone is in place. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: this was a wholesale WP:POINT slaughter Significantly overzealous of the page. Numerous articles there are verified at their own articles; to wholly RE-validate them here is redundant. Further, I suggest you hold off until the Afd and RfC are finished. The version you've established now gives anyone voting or commenting an entirely different understanding of the page. ThuranX 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What WP:POINT am I trying to prove, exactly? How did my actions, which are trivially revertable, in any way cause "disruption?" I await your apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What apology? You vote delete, then shred the page to a tiny list? As has been stated over and over before, many of these can be supported by their own articles. And since you call it a trivial reversion, I will do so. Let the people decide the issue based on the page as it was when this started, not on some ridiculously reduced page. You could've tagged all the non-BLP sections for citation, instead you deleted them. I'm not the only one to notice this, go get apologies from everyone. ThuranX 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page has been tagged with various cleanup tags... forever. You have done nothing to help solve this - I, on the other hand, have cited about 20% of the list. You are about to reinclude content that I was able to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for reverting Hipocrite's destruction. I hope that doesn't get you blocked. -- Jay Maynard 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he had ever edited this page before today, I might be more inclined to accept his changes, but 1000 edits (of this page's history examined) and he's only been here today, where he ripped the page apart. There's an ongoing related RfC and AfD. If he'd waited till it survived AfD and the RfC suggestions were applicable, and implemented, whatever they may be, and there were still issues, I'd support his efforts. ThuranX 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please attempt to follow our policies and guidlines and assume good faith. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can actually now AGF, and thank you for your efforts in your last edit. I'm quite happy with the compromise, and thank you for finding cites for what you've found. Once I'm done with some real world work, I'll try to spend some time augmenting the cited proportion and try to find some more cites. ThuranX 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still having a hard time assuming good faith, although the latest set of edits after the revert give me some hope. If the original change had been done in that fashion, I would have had no problem with it. I'd prefer keeping the old content around as HTML comments so there's something to go looking for verification for, but my suggestion will be summarily ignored, so I'm not holding my breath. -- Jay Maynard 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy about the bands section remaining gutted, but we can go back and find it, and with this much talk page about it, it's not at all lost. ThuranX 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not gutted, it's verified. I went through each and every one of the blue-link articles looking for reliable sources discussing the band's internet phenomonaness. It did not exist for the ones that commented out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has been ruthlessly eviscerated. There is no content left of enough relevance to warrant its existence... oh, but it's VERIFIABLE. 70.58.114.69 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 2. -Docg 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this notice be in template form at the top of the page? -- RattleMan 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and I moved this down here. - Denny 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion debate 

message: I am going to propose a new rule for this page. Some of these videos are said to be popular, but when searched on youtube, they only generate a few thousand hits. My proposal: A rule against inserting videos on youtube with less then 1.5 million views. An exception to this rule is if there is massive popularity elsewhere, such as with numa numa and star wars kid 69.118.112.119 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page views are not an indicator of notability. --- RockMFR 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I think a better "rule" proposal would be to make it understood that this article is not the "Youtube video depository."  90% of the problems maintaining this article comes from the almost daily additions of the "Here's a video of me and my friend singing into the mirror on Youtube" links. Wavy G 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Rule Proposal 

message: There has been no effort put in by anyone but me to verify anything in this article. The only content edit that was acceptable since last week was this. I will revert to the version that removes all unsourced entries unless someone who is not me takes some initiative to source something. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Digg considered RS for any purposes? - Denny 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I'd like to ask you (nor anyone) to inappropriately blow this away... I'm willing to put some time in, but this isn't the sort of thing that could be expected to be done in a week or anything. There's a ton to source. As none of it violates BLP, we don't have a deadline... - Denny 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You haven't demonstrated any interest in verifying the existing content, only readding the unverifed content with sources that fail to show they were "nternet phenomena." Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  And agressive reverting to your preferred version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not my intention... but rv means vandalism, it wasn't vandalism. your aggressive summary miffed me a bit, since it was good faith on my part... - Denny 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Rvv means vandalism. rv means revert. You have failed to discuss the phenominaness of your preferred version. Please do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THanks for wanting to talk it out. pre-tea misreading on my part on the rv/rvv. Wrapping text for my reply, please reply below in new section... - Denny 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No effort at all 

message: Dictionary definition of phenomena is:
:::1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.; 2. something that is impressive or extraordinary.; 3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.
Going by that with the current article title, any WP:RS that makes note of something on the web (e.g. the video, which I found referred to on a couple of other RS) would qualify out of the box. Now my desire to rename to being a list to track notable or implied popular web content is to keep the list from someday being 1,900 items long in 5-6 years. Going by the dictionary def of the title, lots of stuff gets in easy. Any RS just needs to label something as impressivem, extraordinary, remarkable, exceptional, a prodigy, a wonder, or simply make observations about it. While that could be fun (and we could have eventually literally List of Internet phenomena (A), List of Internet phenomena (B), List of Internet phenomena (C), and so on, it's overkill. But based on the current title... it's too lenient. Nimoy qualifies since it's observed, which is silly. I'd rather we hold off on the content till the naming is sorted. - Denny 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "simply make observations about it?" So you believe that google and yahoo should be on the list? You propose a list that is not "a valuable information source," nor "a table of contents" nor "useful for Wikipedia development purposes."  Please assist me in deleting it, per WP:LISTS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nimoy's Bilbo Baggins video 

message: Aftrer the slaughter, evisceration, and forced reanimation of this corpse of an article, it might as well be named what it is: the only memes on the internet that cna be verified and thus not deleted by the Gestapo that run this site. 70.58.114.69 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now personally removed everything from the article thatw as not sourced and verified. Please change the title of the page. 70.58.114.69 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute.  Reverted. JuJube 10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's very funny to undo work for no other reason than to be vindictive. Thsi edit was done in order to keep this article in line with wiki rules on sourced statements. Reversion undone and all unsourced entries are once again removed. 70.58.114.69 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the edit summary, this gives me reason to suspect bad faith. JuJube 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested renaming: [[List of verifiable Internet memes]] 

message: Ever since I started slaughtering entire categories as well as nearly 80% of all entries in this article to adhere 100% to your vaunted WP:RS "guideline", it's been put into Wikiproject's Start class. Of course, nearly nothing on this article is actually relevant to the internet and only two could even be considered "phenomena", but IT'S ALL VERIFIABLE!!! 70.58.114.69 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start-class 

message: I imagine that... they may be an authority on music related/pop culture topics. Why was this removed as unreliable source? - Denny 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The anonymous IP editor is disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Either he will stop, or he'll start discussing the article civilly. Either way, we can put back to where it was before his changes disrupted such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks... would the 3rr you mentioned to me apply to his edits? what about for him? - Denny 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. If only you haden't revert warred with me over the inclusion of your song you could deal with him instead. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTV News 

message: Loads of this list just suddenly dissapeared... what happened, i've gone through the edit list and it seems unacccounted for??? Is there any way the previous (longer) list can at least be retrieved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donquigleone (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check the article's history to recover the links to the articles that were removed, or you can look for the Internet memes category.  Also, I think that someone made a direct link to a page with all the old links further up in the discussion. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  half(or more) dissappeared 

message: I've searched all of the discussions and see no reason why this one site has been singled out.  There have been numerous animation sites, some named (JibJab) while others go unnoticed (Homestar Runner and Weebls).  Can we think about removing/adding something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobbie (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pulled this entry.  The reference was stated as "CNET News", which it clearly was not.  On closer inspection, it was an article written by Yet Another Random Student.  Chris cheese whine 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurotically Yours 

message: Verifiability for the actual things themselves is not an issue where they have articles.  We don't need sources on this page testifying to something's existence in that case.  Each entry on this list needs a source that verifies its status as an Internet phenomenon, preferably one which doesn't require a leap of faith on our part.  Chris cheese whine 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: "All Your Base Are Belong To Us."
Is someone planning to add that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.91.145.198 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AYBABTU 

message: Although the article has been downsized many times, this is a huge change, and many on the list were notable and well-known. Clarify? Raptor Jesus 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're too lazy to read the talk page (it's not that long), I'm too lazy to explain it.  Chris cheese whine 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow, including my statement, for a complete discussion of the background and issues. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alright, who changed the article? 

message: I'm not sure of the rules to let matters listed in this article, Internet phenomena. Just remind the success of OK GO band. But I'm not a good writer so... let somebody to decide my suggestion. 
PigTail 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source somewhere saying that they are a widespread phenomenon, it can go on the list.  Chris cheese whine 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put something about OK Go band? 

message: I believe many people have seen this in forums:
(\__/)
(='.'=)   This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")   signature to help him gain world domination.
Is this somewhere in this article?
If not, is it a good thing to add?
:No, it isn't in the article. This specifically wouldn't be good for the article, because there are so many different versions of these, such as "Over X% of people have tried a drug. If you are one of the Y% who haven't, copy and paste this into your signature." However, if you want to add a part about all of these in general, go ahead. JDub90 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is bunny 

message: Shouldn't some quotes from CD-I games be placed on here, such as "all toasters toast toast" and "I WON!"
it said on the Hotel Mario page that it was internet phenomenon..so shouldn't it be on the list?
Bearflip 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more suggestions 

message: Attention from the old media is required for inclusion in this article, as has been laid out by the graven idol gods on this site. It is also known that the old media is very slow and wary to bring attention to internet memes. Therefore, there is a 99.99% chance that  any meme requested for inclusion on this list will be unverifiable by the old media, and thus unsuitable for this list. Why? Because this is Wikipedia, where a man with faked credentials gets adminship but a video with 10 million views is treated as if it doesn't exist because it's not "verifiable". 70.58.114.69 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, I know the reason you posted this: It was because of Roddy Von Seldeneck.  Second off: Don't shoot first and then ask questions later, sometimes a fair trial is all that is needed.  Roddy IS notable
.  
--Emevas 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are primary sources - reliable secondary sources are needed here to verify notability. Sfacets 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop Meme Requests, Please 

message: I refuse to believe there's only about five internet phenomena in the world. Where did they all go? 62.31.67.29 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mania for reliable sources has more or less destroyed this article, yes. -Toptomcat 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, this page is utterly useless now. 

message: I think that Peanut Butter Jelly Time belongs here. The article itself explains why. Thoughts?
Ruijoel 10:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want it, add it. If we dont like it, we will delete it. But Be Bold Anyway. Paradox CT 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peanut Butter Jelly Time 

message: By "Internet Phenomena", do you mean "internet meme" ? Its a much more appropriate term.
: No, these are not good examples of internet memes.  They're only moderately successful compared to terms like "Google it".  Plus Wikipedia doesn't list memes from other formats, so why list the internet ones? Xep 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme? 

message: Shouldn't we add Chad Warden and his infamous PSTriple YouTube videos to this list?
--Ferrarimanf355 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSTriple 

message: At the moment i can see that this article has quite a few pages that really arent notable enough. The thing about internet memes is that there are hundreds of them, some everyone knows about (i.e. "ORLY", Chuck Norris Facts) and some are ones that become popular for a short time or to a smaller group of users and proberbly dont deserve to be on this page (i.e. The Bus Uncle, Loituma Girl). What wikipedia should not do is to make people think that these 'memes' are more popular than they are. So as a level of quality i would suggest only having memes with comprehensive wikipedia pages that explain the origins and influence of that meme and outside sources that demonstrate how popular it is and was. Some of the memes on this page are just funny videos or images which may have got a lot of views or whatnot. To be a meme, it has to have impacted or influenced internet culture in some way like chuck norris facts have. Paradox CT 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to mesure notability