Talk:4chan/Archive 4

message: This may not be related to the article, but my edit was rolled back so I figured that I'd take it here. 
As you guys know, or not know, Wikiworld has threatened to delete the Meme articles because of references to sexual intercourse(with children) and such. Therefore, if we are going to still have an encyclopedia over 4chan's memes, we need to link or make another encyclopedia elsewhere. http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=4chan was posted on the Meme article's talk page. I suggest that we use it instead, unless someone has objections to it.--62.249.176.102 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither really have any sort of reliability behind them, as they are both Wikis, but if the main complaint with the WikiWorld site is that they're planning on removing all of the references to child pornography, then how many 4chan memes is that? Ryūlóng 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of them. Hell, some of the memes that relate directly to child pornography shape the core of the community, whether I like to admit it or not. In my opinion, it would be best to shift focus onto the lurkmore wiki, as lurkmore will not delete such references, as lurkmore more or less sprung out of the community surrounding 4chan and as such is not shocked or made uneasy by such references. Another alternative could be the etherchan wiki. Anyway, regardless of which we use, we need to a wiki to direct people to so that they don't put them here. (Steampowered 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they finally erased everything on the WikiWorld articles. Lurkmore's chanchan wiki was originally copied from wikiworld, but has since gotten a bit larger. So, until we can find a better alternative, let's link to that chanchan article, as it's better than the old linked article at wikiworld anyway. (Steampowered 06:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that any sort of linking is necessary; no matter what wiki it is on. I've removed links to self-proclaimed guides, as they are fairly useless to the content of the article. Ryūlóng 06:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see why you didn't remove the link to the WikiWorld article months ago. In my opinion, the link to an outside article is a great compromise. And to tell the truth, I didn't understand shit about 4chan until I read up on their history in the wikiworld article. Now that chanchan's wiki article is actually better and actually looks a bit more professional and even encyclopedic compared to the old wikiworld article, I don't see why their should be a reason to remove a link to this article when one just like it sat up there for months without any objections. These are actually informative sources, not just "self-proclaimed" bullshit guides, and if you want to go to 4chan and make any sense out of the visit, a look at any non-Wikipedia article like the old wikiworld one or the lurkmore guide is pretty much required. A link to an outside article adds greater depth to this topic and the education of an individual concerning this topic, and without sacrificing the integrity of the article. (Steampowered 06:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. It's not some fansite about 4chan stuff. It's a consise encyclopedia about 4chan. It's lack of strict moderation and polish are far outweighed by it's usefulness. 58.178.214.159 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meme articles on Wikiworld 

message: Who or what is cracky chan?i only read the article on encyclopedia dramatica so to see what it actually is i wen on to this but it redirected to this and it doesnt explain what it is in the article.if anyone would be so kind to tell me what it is,it would be greatly appreciated. Dermo69
:Wikiworld or wikichan would give you more information on that subject, information which will be probably be much less biased. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a joke encyclopedia. (Steampowered 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cracky-chan 

message: For the past two days, whenever I have attempted to access the /b/ board, a 404 error screen is produced; Yet I can access many (if not all) of the other boards with no restraint. Is /b/ having technical difficulties, or am I just blocked? Draculix 14:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The block is already covered in the controversy section. I hope that answers both of your questions. (Steampowered 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I know about the new block, and I know it is not yet covered in this article. But blocks in general ARE. So, if you'd like to add information concerning this block, you should more than likely add it to the controversy section. (Steampowered 18:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /b/ 

message: Google appears to confirm that /b/ is or was on the IWF list of banned sites. (Note that I don't mean that "some websites found by Google" - I literally mean Google itself.) Unfortunately, I doubt this meets WP:RS - then again, most of the other stuff in this article doesn't really seem to either. -- makomk 18:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think it's pretty reliable, though it may not meet wikipedia's requirements, seeing as when you visit that link that was given on the page you linked, it shows pretty clearly that IWF was the sender, under the "Sender Information" section. I doubt that submissions can be made in somebody else's name on that website, though I don't really know at all. (Steampowered 01:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side note about /b/ block 

message: I'm starting to think that /b/ should get it's own section in this article. We could move the last two paragraphs of the site description, along with information on the block of /b/ and a couple sentences at the end of the second paragraph of the memes section, and add text to link everything together. This would help this article by keeping all of the sections from drifting too much into eachother. Does anyone else think that this would help the article? (Steampowered 02:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorta done already, I guess :P Ryūlóng 05:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section

message: Article says: "Stickam has recently been the target of ongoing coordinated raids by the users of the /b/ forum on the image board 4chan. They have had such an impact on its development that the two most popular personal tags- phrases users can enter to connect them to other users of like interests- are "/b/" and "4chan", respectively." And there's been two edits of this so far. One is "[ you do not talk about fight club]" and the other is blaming it on YTMND/Ebaums like the Habbo raids. Anomo 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both true, but both lacking sources.  --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YTMND users frequently raid various sites claiming to be from 4chan, and Ebaums users mimic them (like everything else). There have been links to various Stickam pages on /b/, but these are vary rare. --Lollerkeet 17:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stickam]] 

message: Some one keeps spamming with DESU. Please stop now. --Trusader 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this should really stop.  I must really note the huge problem this article has with vandalism.  4Chan, and /b/ in particular, are too popular and have too dangerous an influence for the health of the article.  Might I suggest locking or deleting the article? Medevilenemy 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would deleting the article help anything? Ashibaka tock 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that, admittedly a bad suggestion.  However, locking would prevent further vandalism. Medevilenemy 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Locking the article pretty much defeats the purpose of having a 4Chan Wikipedia article.  If it's been dealt with before, it can be dealt with again.  Besides, how many people honestly goes to read this article who don't already know what 4Chan is? Ghostemperor 22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, not so far as to lock it but some semi-protection is needed. --Trusader 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, semi-protection is the best course of action at this point ~desu. During the latest period of semi-protection, the article was vandalized relatively few times, and the article seemed to be unhindered in terms of progress towards positive developments ~desu. The result was a much improved article compared to what it was just a few months ago ~desu. (Steampowered 10:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DESU 

message: Okay, here are the actual facts: 4chan was a venture started by moot so that he would have an e-mail address @4chan.net. He then started the bulletin board (the first board being /b/) with the intention of it being a low-key English version of Futaba Channel. The original team of moderators comprised some ADTRW regulars on the SA forums because he knew some people there, but Something Awful itself had nothing to do with this website. In fact, its launch was announced on two separate places at the same time: ADTRW, and world2ch. Describing it as an "offshoot of Something Awful" is simply wrong.
Here are the reliably sourced facts: Wikipedia knows nothing. Ashibaka tock 18:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit you just made doesn't reflect this... Also, world2ch's initial action was to flame a lot, and ADTRW's initial action was to actually work on it. MrVacBob 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "<~moot> uh yeah, thats wrong" MrVacBob 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "world2ch's initial action was to flame a lot" -- actually, that was me doing the flaming :) Anyway, changing ADTRW->world2ch was WP:POINT, what I was trying to get across was that ADTRW is not so important that it should be mentioned in the lede. Ashibaka tock 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nightmare X, would you like to explain why you think SA is so important it needs to be mentioned right at the top? Ashibaka tock 17:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was, in the early days, a major source of both members and memetic content for 4chan. If you truly believe World2ch should be added, I suggest you add it to the introduction paragraph rather than deleting the mention of ADTRW. If you disagree with this information being at the top, I would suggest placing it elsewhere in the article rather than outright deleting it. Nightmare X 21:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 4chan.net was stolen from moot by GoDaddy for reasons that remain vague. Ashibaka tock 20:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had he registered with GoDaddy as his registrar for that domain or no? I've heard of registrars stealing domains. I also know that GoDaddy had some bot that registers and cybersquats about every domain they can think of. Anomo 21:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he registered with GoDaddy and they took it. There are details in the SA thread about how ridiculously unresponsive GoDaddy was, but I can't access the post myself. It's page 16 or so. Ashibaka tock 22:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is something that the article should cover. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lollerkeet (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something Awful

message: There's a little icon in the corner of this article that says it's semi-protected yet no notification about that within the article.  And for some reason I can't edit the article at all even though this is far from a new article. --Phoenix Hacker 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the notification, the little icon. You should be able to edit the article, as it is not fully protected.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, it is fully protected.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm not seeing much vandalism on the history.  What's up? --Phoenix Hacker 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what the hell? could someone please contact Tawker? there hasn't been that much vandalism recently. -Nightmare X 11:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen a few cases of vandalism, but nothing to warrent full protection. Odd... --ABigBlackMan 16:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you not see the few thousand "DESU"s on the page? Medevilenemy 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Saw dear 4chan as a "challenge" under Recent Changes header. What exactly needs to be done? (I assume sources-wise) I see a lot of sources here already. --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're all random websites. Ashibaka tock 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I'll research moar. --Wooty Woot? contribs 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: I think that this article should in some way reflect that old /b/tard userbase is growing disappointed by the hordes of users from other sites who go to /b/ because it's sort of "cool". The fame the site gained from the hoaxed terrorist threats and the habbo raids is "killing" /b/, and old posters has ranted about it a lot in the last days. Now the Random board is only reposts of "epic threads" made up by images of Pirates of the Caribbean and a stick man with the face of V, and emo BEING CHEERED UP. The old bitter /b/ is gone and the quality of the humor is falling, with all the newbies wanting to be "cool" /b/tards without knowing nothing of the memes and traditions.
:/b/'s closed, due to nubs? Nah. /b/ has been saying that for as long as /b/'s been around. lurk moar :P --Wooty Woot? contribs 10:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are not in condition of saying 'lurk moar'. were you a /b/tard when you were 13? ...Habeeb it! ;-) BTW now the problem is real... the userbase is flooded with YTMND, Ebaums, gaia kids who believe they're cool because OMG they post on /b/!!!... but now /b/ is no longer the 'cool' and evil cesspit of the intarwebs because of kids getting in there because of 'teh cool', it's a vicious circle... having the url on CNN home page wasn't good for the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.22.68 (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Twinkie house! Well, sure, I agree. I'm just saying it's been said for a long time, not denying it's not true. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: /b/ was never good --Lollerkeet 04:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of /b/ due to fame