Talk:4chan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

What about all the other borads?

Even though they aren't as significant as /b/, I think it should be fair that other boards are covered in this article. What do you guys think?

re/b/oot

Think we should metion anything about moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods? Tirus 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not unless we have sources. -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? That sounds interesting. Just label it as heresay / temporary news. Part of the function of Wikipedia is to report on things ; very sources, sure, but obviously you both heard it somewhere; just label it as speculation ... - Guest 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wooty, would you do the honors, (simply because i dont know how to report speculation...) Tirus 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not report speculation, "Guest", we are an encyclopedia, a collection of what other people say, not a gossip column or a newspaper. If nobody has reported on the re/b/oot, we can't talk about it. Similarly, I can't add "so I herd that Tirus lieks Mudkips" to the Mudkip article because no reliable source has said so. -Wooty Woot? contribs 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't mention things that didn't happen. MrVacBob 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't happen? Having Cotton-Eyed Joe stuck in my head the last few weeks begs to differ, unless you are refering to the 'banning the mods' bit which I assume is just rumour. As for sources the image already used in 4chan#Anonymity should be fine to verify the use of the term 're/b/oot' as official. Anyone interested in re/b/oot should check dramatica or wikichan. --Lodlongs 07:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think we're supposed to use images to circumvent the need for reliable sources or verification. -Wooty Woot? contribs 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• "moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods?" didn't happen. The event as a whole did but I don't think it's notable. MrVacBob 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang, I'm gone for a day and this thread erupts... Tirus 14:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that this at least warrants a section in 4chan#Anonymity, as /b/ was forced anon for so long but isn't any longer. As for sources, the entire thread, albeit without the javascript/css hacks is archived at the 4chan archive. 12.66.43.157 18:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that is not a verifiable source by Wikipedia's standards. This has been a recurring problem with many things related to 4chan (the Habbo Hotel raids being one of the most memorable). Since 4chan itself is not a reliable source, and the few reliable sources that do report on 4chan do so infrequently at best, it is very difficult to include many specific events that 4chan has spearheaded or independantly caused.

How is that not reliable? It's the thread. Verbatim. And it says, quite plainly, that forced anon is dead.

Hello idiot, you have no reliable source for the claim that the thread is verbatim. Fratley 14:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Forced Anon is back

Archive

I kinda think its about time for some of these threads to go into archives, anyone with me? Tirus 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I was reading through the talk page, and I think it's getting pretty long. Koheiman 14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking, but I don't know how to do it. We need more imput on this! Tirus 14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for semi-protect

... ~Provide explanation of why page is locked here, with link to lock-specific discussion.~ ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.11.21 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I moved this comment from the top of the page and placed it in a new heading. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Tirus 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I kept changing all instances of "moot" to "mootykins" childish, i know. 88.106.124.69 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

hahaha, good ole mootykins Tirus 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Caturday

I came here looking for what 'Caturday' is supposed to be and got redirected to 4chan, which doesn't happen to mention Caturday at all... I know that wikipedia likes to edit things so that we don't have many internet-phenomenon articles (arguably rightly so), but you shouldn't redirect things to articles with no information on them.--129.215.149.99 10:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Memes are unsourceable. There's all sorts of meme redirects that aren't in the article. Check http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/index.php?title=4chan#C under "Cats" for the answer to your question. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say that's fine too. ;) -Wooty Woot? contribs 19:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I say we need more memes::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamsoup (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I noticed the caturday redirect is gone. It would have better redirected to Kittah (which is not a name I hear much any more tbh) anyway General Miaow Say Hello! 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre and /b/

I'm removing the Virginia Tech blurb in the article for a few reasons:

• The Toronto Star article quotes planetblacksburg.com. I cannot find an article about "4chan" or "anonymous" on that site.
• Talk:Virginia Tech massacre seems to think this is a hoax. Here is the link: Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 6#4chan posting

I think there should be some more verification on this before it is added back in. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. It was shooped, someone deleted the 1 at the start, then someone else shooped a 0 in later, but both were faked. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

planetblacksburg.com had an article on it, but it was deleted once they saw it was a hoax. Please do not re-introduce section until we have reliable source that says it was a hoax. --129.241.126.121 12:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

star article about 4chan it may turn out to be notable Greenteagurlie

The article in the Toronto Star seems to have been taken down. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Expressen.se still has it [1]. --GunnarRene 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore, lol. (Steampowered 00:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)).

Yes it does. --GunnarRene 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess it was down when I checked. (Steampowered 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)).

Some one should get a place that has the story and mirror it to a webserver or something so we can have a source ^_^. Tirus 14:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

May 13th

I've added a few lines about moot's redesign of /b/, as of this morning. --Papen 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed this notice as moot has been doing crazy shit to /b/ for months now, and this isn't that different from when that music was playing and the background was flashing, so it's not notable, IMO.--十八 11:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Papen 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What ahppened anyway? Is it gong to be fixed? 70.142.20.138

It appears to be broken at this point. The page is screwed up under both Firefox and IE.--72.130.143.25 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I regret to inform that that is precisely what moot wants you to think.

"you know right now the other "*chans" (jesus i hate this made up word) are probably salivating at the thought of snagging extra users. i say we let them have 'em. 'and nothing of value was lost.' right?"

The page is perfectly viewable if you know how (no, NOT by manually highlighting everything)... since you don't know how, moot does not want you to view it. Sorry. Snarfies 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell how plz thanks, 70.142.20.138 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, click on "View" on the toolbar, then "Page Style", then "No style." Took me all of fifteen seconds to figure out. The amount of pride I feel right now only demonstrates how tired I am.--72.130.143.25 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As of the 14th at 11PM, /b/ is in utter shutdown. all others appear to be fine, but the color-code butt-fark has detered all posting from /b/. Not a single post this afternoon.--63.135.21.99 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting has resumed. Nothing to see here, move along. 83.23.81.105 06:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No it hasnt. It's all one color that blots out all regular text. Only the format change in Firefox can fix that. I don't see any new posts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.135.21.99 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Nonsense, people are posting on /b/ all the time, you just can't see any of the new posts.--Papen 12:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As of May 19th, the sixth day in, /b/ has still not been restored. How long will /b/ have to be, if you'll pardon the euphemism, 'fuxxored' until the hack may be considered notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia? 86.132.242.48 12:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, an uninitiated reader following the link to the site would be utterly bewildered when he arrived at /b/ (even more so than usual), meaning Wikipedia is not doing its job of informing the reader. 83.70.178.165 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you have to get your information on /b/ elsewhere. Nothing concerning its period of being fuxxor'd can be accurately written about on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Link Problem

The internet meme and internet phenomonom links both lead to the same page? Is that purposeful? If so, then one of the links is unnecessary. This isn't my page so I'll let the regs handle it :) sono_ryuu_sochi 0:52, 11 May 2007(MST)

That's not something to be discussed on this page. This is for discussing changes to the 4chan article.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

State of Wisconsin Investigation On January 16, 2007 several Wisconsin (U.S.A.) independent watchdog groups launched a joint investigation into alleged illegal imagery and pics that depict drawn or print media minors and young children engaged in sexually explicit activity. While no formal injunctions have been filed at this time, these watchdog groups claim 4chan violates Wisconsin State Statues: 948.05(1m): Sexual Exploitation Of A Child, 948.055: Causing A Child To View Or Listen To Sexual Activity, 948.07: Child Enticement, and 948.075(1): Use Of A Computer To Facilitate A Child Sex Crime, and that the relative ease in which a child or minor can view the alleged pornographic images poses a clear violation of state law. The investigation is currently ongoing.

I removed this section due to complete lack of sources. Provide sources before adding this section back in. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this article really notable at all?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VoodooKobra (talk • contribs).

Certainly, 4chan is a major source of internet culture, and is more than justified in having an article on Wikipedia.--Papen 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

4chan is one of the "top-tier" sites, along with the likes of Something Awful, where most internet memes originate, before filtering out to the rest of the internet. So yeah it is. 86.2.126.106

No its not. For one, most users do not want it here (rules 1 and 2) and secondly wikipedia doesnt need to cover every website out there, this could easily be a paragraph on the 2channel page or image boards. Robnubis