Talk:Bonsai Kitten

message: *Hello guys. What about: http://zealcorp.com/bonsaikitten/bkintro.html ? Just a fake copy of the original site?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.102.191.144 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New site with bonzai kittens

message: The whole phrase about how if people had a little common sense they'd know it was false has a POV conotation to it. I'm requesting that that phrase be dropped from the article.
Agreed, this is completely POV: "Any person with an understanding of felines, or indeed even a little common sense" Lydia 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Content

message: I've tried to check the site for a couple days now and I can't seem to get to it.  Is it not online anymore? Wirewad 03:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a host, ie [www.rotten.com.] there are some mirror sites. I think that the weight of people's stupidity has taken it's toll on the original site, but perhaps it just isn't worth fighting the FBI. So much for internet censorship if the FBI can't shut a site down!--Cymbelmineer (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still alive? 

message: The entire first section is written as if Bonsai Kittens actually exist, so factually, the first two paragraphs are incorrect. Psychonaut3000 01:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should start with a description of the Hoax 

message: Can I just remind people that the purpose of this page is to provide a place for people to discuss ways to improve the article. It is not a general discussion forum - this is clearly a topic which evokes strong feelings in some people, but this isn't the place for it.  Dom Kaos (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a forum 

message: I enjoyed the hoax, too.  But does wikipedia need to be a repository of every little popular snippet of the Internet?  I mean we have the Internet for that.  And then considering the thing is not even live any more?
Let's prune the crap.  Amazes me that we have a shitty article on Masada and then have junk like this.  I think there is actually some dynamic where the presence of crap reduces the time spent on worthwhile topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.23 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this belong in an encyclopedia?  

message: A number of the "complaints" on this page appear to be spam. An admin should run a bot program on this, such as Huggle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam on this page 

message: I have added four newspaper notes on the topic of BonsaiKitten.com and a see also section, as well as having done some considerable wordsmithing. I have also began to expand the article focussing on the furor around Bonsai Kittens. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The article needed rewriting

message: the original BK content was done with the alien skin plugin for photoshop.. if anyone cares (to incorporate it into the article) 77.177.149.106 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  alien skin 

message: Can now be found here: http://ding.net/bonsaikitten/index.html
--Molokaicreeper (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Site

message: It looks pretty online to me. Why is it marked as offline?
see http://bonsaikitten.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.61.242 (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site 

message: Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Internet and cats]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bonsai Kitten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317201158/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733 to http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://chronicle.com/free/2001/02/2001022101t.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406052143/http://dir.yahoo.com:80/Society_and_Culture/Mythology_and_Folklore/Folklore/Urban_Legends/Bonsai_Kitten/ to http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Mythology_and_Folklore/Folklore/Urban_Legends/Bonsai_Kitten/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317201158/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733 to http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/02/41733
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed that the date listed as the "start of the controversy" is October 30, 2000, but the launch date for the site (in the infobox) is December 22, 2000. Is there a reason for this, or does it need to be corrected? Lune.Soleil (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting "Start of controversy" and Launch date 

message: , this is not an explanation.  Please see WP:REVEXP.  Articles evolve naturally over time, and unless there's some specific point of contention that's discussed, there is no "consensus" version, just the current one.  If you have any substantive objection to my edit, please make it. Otherwise, I will be restoring my edit.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not complicated.  I like the infobox, obviously.  You don't.  Achieving consensus for your removal is now required. Marcus Markup (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That really stretches the limits of credulity.  Before reverting me (again, without explanation), you've made no other edits to this article.  Suddenly you care about its infobox?  I don't really believe that.  In any case, this particular infobox contains multiple unsourced statements not in the article, one of which directly contradicts information in the article.  What's left can already be gathered within the first two sentences of the article.  Now, how is this useful?  35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm not sure what you are implying.  What, exactly, don't you "believe"?  Your edit came up as potentially problematic on the "Recent changes" feed which I was patrolling, and that's why I'm here... the box seemed useful to me.  But thanks for finally giving a substantive reason for your removing the box. Marcus Markup (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained revert