Talk:4chan/Archive 5

message: I added  to this article twice, it got removed twice by Ryulong. Places with the  notice, in particular, seem to be in need of verification - however, some of these  tags are disappearing as well. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't want to get into an edit war here. - Chardish 08:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been removing any statements that I feel are unsourceable that you tagged with .—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything else I've explained through my edit summaries.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been removing statements completely, whereas somethings that did happen are difficult to source, such as the discussion boards being part of the dis.4chan.org domain (which they are after going to the site and seeing that the text boards are dis.4chan.org/something) or the downtime (which could only really be sourced with detailed information about incoming traffic, which I'm finding difficult to read at alexa's traffic rankings). Other things are also hard to source, yet encyclopedic.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 2Ch was the first imageboard-type site, and the fact that 4chan's name is based on 2channel is obvious and doesn't need sourcing. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some people are not completly with the "in" crowd of the internet so new people (newbies?) will need to know that. Tirus 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Most of the article is pretty neutral, which is good, but the "Hal Turner" bit seems definitely biased. I mean: "Hals radio segments refer to the attackers as 'pranksters', while in reality, they are warriors in the force known as Anonymous. Much like their organized raids against the infamous MMORPG Habbo Hotel, which is now held down by a spin off website conducting occupational raids, their assault on Hal Turner proved an unforseeable success. Although, many /b/tards still 'weep over those brave /b/rothas who never made it home'." Warriors in the force of Anonymous? How dramatic! The 'infamous' MMORPG? It seems pretty ordinary to me. 'never made it home'? I find this whole section pretty bizarre. --71.125.20.130 01:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal Turner is not mentioned in the article currently, and Habbo Hotel is not mentioned either.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Hal Turner raids, as well as a news source verifying such information. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is neutral desu! DESU! Blonde Knight of Teuton 12:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: I disagree with the date fotmat 2006-08-23 being used as this is US only and not NPOV which is important.
:See WP:DATE. It is ISO date formatting that is supported by the MediaWiki software. This only really affects new users who have not set their preferences or anonymous users who do not have a Special:Preferences to set.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.. that would be the International date formatting. US format is month-day-year, which I agree is very annoying. --King Nintendoid 18:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DATE

message: Does anyone know date when 4chan began, I think it would be a good addition to the article? 87.194.98.220 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 October 2003 Ashibaka (tock) 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of 4chan

message: User:Thijs!bot has been linking :Simple:4chan to this article.  Unfortunatly, :Simple:4chan is deleted and salted. I left a note on User:Thijs!bot owner's page (found on the Dutch wiki here: :nl:User:Thijs!) so hopefully Thijs! can fix the bot.  Although, a better fix would be to write up an article for the Simple English wiki to replace the salted page.  Any volunteers? --Transfinite 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was caused by a interwiki link to :Simple:4chan from :es:4chan.  The links to Simple have been removed everywhere, so the bot should behave correctly. --Transfinite 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links 

message: Checking the edit summary, I see "rumours of closure". When did this start happening, it was fine this morning. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 20:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be down now. --Wooty Woot? contribs 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It always goes down. It's probably just a server hiccup. It's not like the 4chan Party Van has any need to shut it down.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RUSHUR? I think we've got a V&, as 7chan and 12chan are down too. 420chan is barely working. edit: "[1/27 14:55:28] * moots changes topic to '4chan | oh no power failure | everybody dies'"--Wooty Woot? contribs 21:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OH LAWD! MAH CHANS! Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's up, except for /b/. Now, GET ON WITH YOUR LIVES. I know I will.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly noted. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Rumors of 4chan's closure are always in circulation. It's closed something like 4 times in the past, after all. Clearly you need to lurk more. :P 71.203.209.0 06:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lurk moar!  D:< Dieter Weber 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4chan's dead. Prepare to kill yourselves. Vkeios 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I blame the Mooninites. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 05:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really dead? 

message: Can somebody please tell me why Wikipedia is biased against Anonymous, and allowes 400+ Articles on unimportant Pokemon characters,YET a page on Pedobear,Cockmongler is instantly deleted because its sexual in nature? Cockmongler is FAR more noteworthy then a Sneasle. i smell sum bias on Wiki's behalf. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EatMyCar (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. If and when multiple independent works about Cockmongler or Pedobear are published in reliable sources, having an article on either would be no problem. --Slowking Man 01:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He also seems to ignore O RLY?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya rly! --Slowking Man 01:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Grinman! --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you both fail it. It's Richard C. Mongler. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 02:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While the subject of 4chan memes is open ... should SHOOP DA WHOOP, and the "Im in your blank, blanking your blank" things be added to the page? Brain fork 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Never. See WP:RS and WP:V.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the existance of SHOOP DA WHOOP's image on google as well as youtube count for RS and V? Brain fork 06:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources are unfortunately unreliable-- they can be used to astroturf, etc. Ashibaka (tock) 06:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about the fact that by searching SHOOP DA WHOOP on Wikipedia, one is automatically directed to a WHOOPless 4chan?  Brain fork 06:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People make stupid redirects. There is nothing that we can reliably source to the Shoop da Whoop/Lazer firin meme, nor cock mongler, pedobear, happy negro, teh Rei, Assdip-chan, being gay for Bridget, longcat, or Candlja—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accordding to the Wikipedia article Internet Meme, "When the jokes are reposted enough so that the majority of the websites users are aware of it, it becomes a meme."  Therefore, because the majority of 4chan users are aware of such memes as Shoop da Whoop, cock mongler, pedobear, etc. they should thusly be included in the article. Brain fork 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but their existence cannot be reliably sourced. We all know about them, but we cannot link to /b/ and say "Look, there's Pedobear" because /b/ is too fast. A list of memes can never be reliably sourced, and frankly, most of Internet meme, unless the separate articles are sourced, should probably be deleted. O RLY? is the only one that I know of has had some level of press coverage. There's no critical commentary of Pedobear or the Cock mongler in any sort of newspaper or publication.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are other places that can be linked to, such as Urban Dictionary that have been used in other articles as an authority.  Brain fork 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urban Dictionary is an unmoderated heap of neologisms and fail, not a reliable source. --Wooty Woot? contribs 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is it used on other articles as a source?  If it's good enough for there, it's good enough for here.Brain fork 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memes again! 

message: Deleted the Hal Turner article since 4chan had nothing to do with him. Instead, it were 7chan /b/tards and of course ebaumsworld people that did it.
:You mean the Hal Turner section or the Hal Turner article itself? The lattter is still there. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hal Turner 

message: What happened today? I got a message that I needed to double check something with this page today, and I found this massive entry trail. was this a planned swarm, or what?TheGreenFaerae 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems some 7chan users were bored and decided to vandalize the article because their site is currently down.GarTheDestroyer 08:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How sad that some people have nothing better to do than useless vandalism...TheGreenFaerae 08:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  [trolling comment removed] --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 8 

message: All of this is fairly new news, why isnt there any history?
Lurk more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.123.11 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no u. No sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Has /z/ gotten over 2M posts?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lawl, /z/ doesn't exist. Anymore. (Steampowered 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I meant /v/. Bonnielass 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't say that they have only gotten over 1,000,000 posts, it says that they are the only boards to have ever gotten past that number. I'm pretty sure no other boards have gotten over 1 million. (Steampowered 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, but wouldn't it be nice if they knew how many posts there were at the moment for both boards? Bonnielass 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but do YOU want to update that all the time? Let's just keep rounded down to the nearest million for now, unless you start updating it all the time. That'll keep it up to date and accurate more of the time. (Steampowered 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old news 

message: I propose the including of 7chan to this page.  While it may not be a major site itself, it is a part of the history of 4chan and should thusly be included.  Brain fork 05:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 7chan is not part of 4chan's history and its existence cannot be supported by any sort of verifiable or reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, Hal Turner's site, about twenty different blogs and assorted other wiki's all claim 7chan's existance and that it played an important role in the Hal Turner raids.  In addition to this google turns up 89,100 hits on 7chan.  Brain fork 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are reliable sources. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lawl, anti-7chan conspiracy (Steampowered 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, ever since Ian shut /i/ down, the whole site has bombed. --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well, seeing as tiled goatse is all that's on their front page at the moment, I don't see much room to say otherwise, even if I actually wanted to. (Steampowered 09:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Again I will cite Internet Meme, Urban Dictionary is cited as an external authority on on the definition of the word "meme."  By searching "7chan," one gets this.  If Urban dictionary is credible enough for the Internet Meme article then it's credible enough to use as a source for the inclusion of 7chan. Brain fork 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 7chan.org is actually quite a big website, by far the second biggest chan in America. I think it should either be included or have its own page (preferably the latter). Also, it IS related to 4chan's history, as many members banned during the B-day crackdown are now patrons of 7chan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.216.6 (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 7chan is back up now. And Wikipedia can be stupid sometimes. But, the rules, we must follow them. Pacific Coast Highway {The internet • runs on Rainbows!} 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: /R/ some reliable sources and they'll be added. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jesus, don't any of the wikipedia mods actually visit these sites!? 7chan is very obviously a site to merit it's own article or at least a mention in the 4chan article. 4chan and 7chan are intertwined in their histories, there is absolutely no reason why 7chan has no mention. Specusci 15:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No reliable sources. Also, underage b&. -Wooty Woot? contribs 18:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mods want proof it exists? http://www.7chan.org might be a good place to start, and I think that the fact that you dont get a 404 is proof enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.216.6 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, depending on what idiocy Ian might conjure, it could very well 404. :-\ Specusci 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of 7chan 

message: Working from experience in Second Life, I know that there are several groups that use either the overt /b/tard designation, or some other instance of /b/. I'm not sure how to link to these groups since the info is displayed in the Second Life Engine, so if anyone could help out, I would appreciate it. Also, I know some of you will say that they are not the same group, and I don't think they are either. But in Second Life, and, form what I hear World of Warcraft, there are groups that call themselves by these designations and even "grief" other users. I wouldn't use grief in the article, because it would be blatant POV, but they are out there, and they deserve a mention.TheGreenFaerae 10:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a mention here, because this is an encyclopedia devoted to covering published and sourced work. However, on WoW and SL wikis, you might add them. Ashibaka (tock) 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Ashibaka said, also, most of those groups are old and have no members. PN is the leading SL raiding /b/ organization, but they don't "deserve a mention" here unless they get some press coverage. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS doesn't require a reliable source to be published, just third party and verifiable, which this would be. And there are groups that are far from defunct, such as the /b/rotherhood of the /b/lade, which i have dealt with on numerous occasions. This verifiability does block a good number of personal websites from being used as sources, but the fact that they are in the records of Second Life, which is far from a personal website, makes them verifiable enough to qualify.TheGreenFaerae 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that anyone can set up a group in SL for 100 lindens, which is a negligible amount of currency in said game? --Wooty Woot? contribs 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yeah, but that still doesnt change the fact that said groups exist, does it?TheGreenFaerae 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they notable? Have the groups done anything to seriously disrupt SL? I'm a member of the Patriotic Nigras and even we haven't done anything of note on even blogs such as the Second Life Herald or the official Linden blog. --Wooty Woot? contribs 06:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a global security council (a coalition of anti-griefer groups) that lists your group, the Patriotic Nigras as currently being the biggest threat. This council is made up of such prominent anti-griefing groups as the Justice League, the Anti-Griefing Guild, and the GLC, so yeah there is notability.TheGreenFaerae 08:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to disagree with you about the Wikipedia part, and perhaps we can get a third opinion here, but could you link me to this security council? --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can give it to you in Sl, if you want to meet up that way. I am perfectly open to outside opinions.TheGreenFaerae 08:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My IP range, MAC address, and hard drive ID have all been banned, can't do that. Could you just link me to a site? --Wooty Woot? contribs 08:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: slbanlink.com has a list of names banned, and the notecard explaining reason for their bannings is usually membership with 7chan or the Patriotic Nigras. I could copy the notecards and all the relevant text form SL, but there is no way to hotlink it.TheGreenFaerae 08:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is no mention in the Second Life Herald, or the Linden Blogs, because only the most extreme cases, like the orb of destruction get listed there. The day to day stuff is sually not listed, because it's not vital to the grid.TheGreenFaerae 08:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There has also been discussion that, as the tactics sued by soem fo these organizations constitute what is essentially a Denial of serivce attack, some major land woners have begun to discuss the idea of bringing the FBI in to deal with it.TheGreenFaerae 07:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  /b/tards in other online areas 

message: Why is there a redirect from Pedobear when there is no string "pedobear" in the 4chan article at all?? 195.148.99.21 11:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted for the longest time, and it was recreated in the past week. I have deleted it, again, and protected it from creation.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain to us /why/ you did that? I was looking for "pedobear" and it's not even in the 4chan article. --213.46.1.82 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try another wiki, this is an encyclopedia of reliable facts and we can't include random crap Ashibaka (tock) 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's rich.  The complaint is legitimate: an article should not redirect to another if the two aren't stated to be related explicitly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.168.135 (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesnt it go against Wikipedia standards to have Pedobear redirect to 4chan, and then have NO mention of Pedobear in the 4chan article?
I think we should delete the 4chan article too since it's just a website full of "random crap" as you put it.  Yongke 17:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from Pedobear 

message: Hal Turner might've called it a DDOS attack, but from what I've been told it was just a legion of /b/tards accessing his site and thus eating up his bandwith. Which would make it no more a "DDOS attack" than is the Slashdot effect. 71.203.209.0 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 71.203.209.0 is right. The Hal raid consisted of using up bandwidth and not much else. Some people ordered hundreds of dollars worth of pizzas, building supplies, etc. to his house, but that is pretty much the only illegal thing that anyone on 4chan or 7chan did. Specusci 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DDOS?

message: I was looking through the 2ch article and it has large sections on apparent racism (against foreigners in general, there is an entire section on korean racism, etc etc) and I was wondering whether the 4chan article wouldn't be deserving of such a section as well.  Just an idea, I haven't really thought it out much but feedback would be nice. Secunda1 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have reliable sources to 4chan's racism. 2ch is known throughout Japan, and is used for news and whatnot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2ch article is absolutely horrible. It is incredibly poorly referenced, especially the racism sections. This 4chan article is actually better referenced than the 2ch article. --TrollHistorian 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something I noted... 

message: I added  to various lines and paragraphs that had no sources. If they appear in other sources already cited I want to know which one (by I mean I want to see the citations in the article). --TrollHistorian 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I contest some lines and want to see references for those statements 

message: This image complied fully with Fair Use, as was explained in full on the photograph page. It was also used as a citation for the statement that /b/ exists in Second Life, which would otherwise be original research. I will not revert again, as it would violate 3RR, but it does belong there.TheGreenFaerae 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to state that it seems the image is not needed as the statement it is used as evidence for has been accepted regardless. While it is still my view that the image was fair use, it may not be necessary anymore.TheGreenFaerae 09:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BinSL.jpg 

message: We don't need to have a completely up to date front page image every time moot posts something new, right? -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we do.  Floaterfluss  (talk) (contribs)   15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Specusci 15:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no we don't. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to update this article everytime moot makes a post on the front page. It makes this article less-than professional to go "OMG, IT CHANGED *upload to wiki*".—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop updating the front page image every other minute