Talk:B3ta

message: Towards the bottom, the unsourced statement "b3ta undeniably reduces office productivity," I would recommend linking to the "board stats" page to back up the claim (http://www.b3ta.com/board_stats/mainboard-users.html or simply http://www.b3ta.com/board_stats).  Couldn't hurt.  - Agent Muu (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Can we please have an open discussion regarding what content should be edited and/or removed, instead of letting an admin decree what can and can't be in there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greebowarrior (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully. I agree with comments by Liverpool Scouse and 5telios - there should be a compromise that involves keeping the reliably sourced content and pruning some of the other material. Addhoc 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree fully, and also this over-zealous mod has deleted the Rob Manuel page and stuck it on a protected redirect, with absolutely no consensus or debate. The mod claims that the page was "heavy vandalism target" with no evidence to support his assertion. I suggest that a mod replaces the page with a version from  archive.org and if there's a debate to had about whether it should exist - then we should have it, after the page is reinstated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.246 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-zealous pruning of the article 

message: I have taken the initiative to remove all the POV violating, unsourced garbage and in-jokes from the article, which was most of the article. We are running an encyclopedia, not a fan site for your little project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acknowledged, but is full protection necessary? In stripping the 'cruft' from the article it could be argued that you've also removed a lot of its points of interest for readers, and now you've prevented anyone from adding anything back. It all seems a little excessive. -- CountdownCrispy talk contributions 10:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to publish a needlessly detailed blow-by-blow guide to a website of questionable notability whose membership have specifically targeted Wikipedia for hard-to-find vandalism. As the website has specifically targeted this Project for vandalism, and as the article's prior contributors have clearly not had the best interests of the Project in mind (in terms of crafting a neutral, factual, verifiable encyclopedia article), I doubt unprotection would be beneficial, either to the subject of the article, nor to the Project. There is nothing salvageable in the content removed, and I am beginning to wonder whether or not the subject should have an article in the first place.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have removed an awful lot of content without any prior discussion and then protected the article to prevent editing or adding anything back - in a way this smacks of an abuse of admin privileges based largely upon personal opinion (the removal of content without discussion and consensus first would be considered vandalism perhaps, were you not an admin).  As just one notable example, a newsletter that is sent to 100,000 people every week is very notable yet you have removed the section entirely.  Whilst I agree that some of the article could have been trimmed and sourced better, I agree with the above editor in that the amount you removed is indeed excessive and I ask that you remove the block or at least downgrade to a semi-protect againt IP vandals. Liverpool Scouse 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree --5telios 09:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe you are acting in an unprofessional and retaliatory fashion. As a neutral user to this matter, I would like to add this: Wikipedia is not b3ta's soap box, but it is equally neither yours. Protecting the page and removing nearly all of the content from it is an abuse of power. The semi-protection on the page is also un-necessary, as it is not a vandalised page. You have done this to concrete your edit to avoid public criticism.   The current revision of the page does not make any sense, with sentences cut off mid-way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.246 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reduced the protection to semi protect. Addhoc 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've attempted to alert Wereon of these rather alarming edits, as he / she appears to have been a keen editor of this page in the recent past. If another Wikipedian knows of a better way to proceed then please advise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.67.246 (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr Gustafson, Stephen Colbert has also, very publicly, issued satirical threats of Wikipedia vandalism. Are you now going to go and delete the article on him and the show on which he threatened the vandalism? B3ta is a humor website which should be taken with a grain of salt. To do otherwise is disingenuous and a total calumny. B3ta does have a value as an article as it is a source of many popular internet memes and virals. I am sure even you have received something a B3tan has made in a humorous email from a friend or associate, although you are probably not aware of it. Coder Keitaro 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the verifiability policy, "any edit lacking a source may be removed". Also comparing article editing with Nazi persecution is in poor taste. Addhoc 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: True enough, however in all honesty, I consider there is a significant difference between overzealous article editing and book burning. Addhoc 16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: So it seems to me that b3ta is just a British rip-off of 4chan, innit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakashi-sensei (talk • contribs) 09:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems that B3ta is a just British ripoff of Futaba? ;-) Anyways, out of curiosity, is there any "cross-pollination" of images between the two sites? 24.80.238.196 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: During the past year, 4chan memes have somewhat infiltrated b3ta board, to many board members' disgust, but this mostly occurs on the board during the US waking hours ("gay shift") rather than the UK waking hours.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.59.3 (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  4chan? 

message: This article has been flagged as "relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject" for over five years now. Surely b3ta has gotten enough press/blog/interview coverage since then that we can use a third-party source to pick out the "prominent" memes, rather than relying on passing editors adding their own favourites over the years? --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still lacking sources 

message: The Sickipedia site originally started as a spin-off from b3ta to collect sick jokes, however it has now taken on a life of its own. Most of the regulars on Sickipedia are no longer b3tans. I'd be in favour of splitting Sickipedia off into its own article. Comments? Squirrel (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sickipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on B3ta. 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/20131029191936/http://dictionary.mictoboy.co.uk/define/B3tan/ to http://dictionary.mictoboy.co.uk/define/B3tan/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002133440/http://dictionary.mictoboy.co.uk/define/CaC/ to http://dictionary.mictoboy.co.uk/define/CaC/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023074744/http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/44914 to http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/44914
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604055655/https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.zone_mr.sickipedia to https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.zone_mr.sickipedia
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sickipedia.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320064626/http://www.joe.ie:80/football/football-news/internet-rages-over-sickipedia-muamba-joke-0022341-1 to http://www.joe.ie/football/football-news/internet-rages-over-sickipedia-muamba-joke-0022341-1
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) 06:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on B3ta. 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://www.webcitation.org/6fGaFusLM?url=http://www.sickipedia.org/ to http://www.sickipedia.org/
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6fGaFusLM?url=http://www.sickipedia.org/ to http://www.sickipedia.org/
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) 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified