Talk:BonziBuddy

message: I have radically stubbed the article, and cleared out the old discussion.  The article was, quite frankly, an embarassment to us.  Extremely bold negative claims, backed up with no sources.  Quite frankly, several of the people who contributed to the article should be banned from coming near a keyboard until they have learned to engage in proper encyclopedia writing.  Well.  Enough of my ranting.  The deal is: this article needs to be rewritten, with very careful line-by-line sourcing to legitimate mainstream publications for every claim.  The claims should not be made BY wikipedia, but should instead be ATTRIBUTED to the sources.--Jimbo Wales 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even though it was not sourced, from an empirical view some of it was "correct." I'll do the attribution as you wish, but it is going to look kind of nasty :). 
(I'd like to find some "positive" sources as well, but nearly all are info on how bad it is, how to remove it... HEH!)
* Gonna find some "positive" sources about the Stuxnet worm and the Crazy Boot virus too?  Sheesh.  They call it "malware" for a reason, you know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.137.231.145 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I made some changes.The application is spyware,that's without doubt.But you can change or revert it if there are mistakes in new article.--Bugtrio | Talk 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is looking pretty good so far!  We want the article to be neutral, and I am afraid that the neutral facts will be pretty negative no matter what we do.  That's perfectly fine.  The most important thing is that, as we have done so far in the rebuild, we cite sources in a serious manner, we don't go beyond what the sources say, we make no difficult claims ourselves.  So far, so good, this is looking like a model rewrite as far as I can see.  Thank you! --Jimbo Wales 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on BonziBuddy. 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/20110716163243/http://www.sunbeltsecurity.com/ThreatDisplay.aspx?tid=3271&cs=DDC5975EB3DF633062FB55CC2DB78140 to http://www.sunbeltsecurity.com/ThreatDisplay.aspx?tid=3271&cs=DDC5975EB3DF633062FB55CC2DB78140
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603232334/http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia/archives/2006/09/breaking_myspace_backlash_sighted_in_mainstream_media.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_fineonmedia to http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia/archives/2006/09/breaking_myspace_backlash_sighted_in_mainstream_media.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_fineonmedia
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428054141/http://www.spywareloop.com/news/bonzibuddy to http://www.spywareloop.com/news/bonzibuddy
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/grayware/printerfriendly.asp?GNAME=ADW_BONJING.A
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/2212851
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In early 2014, BonziBuddy experienced a massive leap in popularity due to a man from a livestream featuring the program among various other adware and malware programs. Should it be mentioned in the main article, or not?
:If I were in charge, then yes. But alas, since it's not in the mainstream media, it's not fair game here on Wikipedia. DatGuyonYouTube (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be. It deserves a mention in this article, although I don’t think it would useful to talk too much about it. After all, it has a status as an internet meme. Not enough to justify its own article, but at least a mention would be good. The only problem is I don’t think there would be any good sources to back up that it’s an internet meme. 24.126.165.174 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Bonzi's status as an internet meme be mentioned in the article? 

message: Shouldn't there be a "In Popular Culture"/similar section about Bonzis popularity as an Internet Meme? Looking through the edit history it looks like there was a "Status as an Internet Meme" section at one point, but it was removed for being unsourced. I'll remake it with sources at some point if nobody objects :) --Gunnaaa (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In Popular Culture" section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion