Talk:Anonymous/Archive 1

leg/i/on

the news fox says anonymous will kill me and rape the corpse. should we mention this in its own article? Faulty 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if the ringleader and mastermind of it all, Eric Bauman, is cited correctly.

Erm. This might not be the right place. But I was here yesterday, and since then I lost my lulz, so I have to retrace my steps my mom says. If you find my lulz please return them to me. Thank you.

Fox news bad reporting

I think the misreporting is encyclopedic. I think I may be in the minority though. Where could you even put this event? On fox news page, under idiocy? Let me know if anyone decides to create an article on this or knows where to mention it. cite:Fox News Report ._-zro ^t_c 08:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Its news worthy because its an internet phenomenon and there is also a community there. SomethingAwful has an article about its forums.--Stilanas 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There hasn't been an article on Something Awful Forums since November 2006. And besides, newsworthiness doesn't guarantee enough notability for an encyclopedia article. Newsworthiness is certainly good enough for Wikinews, though. :)

I don't personally feel that there is enough to have an entire article dedicated to this misreporting, but I would certainly say it could be mentioned in, say, Fox News Channel controversies, provided we could find enough reliable sources pulling them up about the utter ineptitude of the report. ;) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a mention of it on the 4chan article. See Internet Hate Machine

-- Mik 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

heh baleeted by wikinazis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.107.182 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox 11 News LA is very different from Fox News the cable channel. They are run by completely different people and work entirely different. Ninja337 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon = soon?

What about the Shakespearean use of the word "anon" to mean "soon"? Where is this covered in Wikipedia? 65.91.102.204 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a disambig page for "Anon" but can't figure out how to get it to take effect. It looks like "Anon" redirects to "Anonymous" which subsequently RDs to "Anonymity". I agree about the ordinary english word "anon" needing an entry spot, if only an RD to wiktionary. Mateo LeFou (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

for the Anonymous hacker group listing

whoever put " who engaged in a campaign against the Church of Scientology beginning in January 2008" is a retard, there should b no information specfic to an event as if that was everything that mattered from the group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.196.225 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

See the /b/elow section 128.61.149.93 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the line

• Anon (activist group), the anonymous group of hacktivists, known for their digital assault on the controversial Church of Scientology.

as it has no relevance to the average person for the word anonymous, and shouldn't be linked here. This should be added to something like the 4chan page or something else. 128.61.149.93 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I also removed

• Anon (activist group), the anonymous group of hacktivists, known for their digital assault on the controversial Church of Scientology.

Since this line was roughly identical to the previous one, and has no effect on the general populous. 128.61.149.93 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since they're now covered in the mainstream media [1] I think they are of general interest. Subsolar (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Give it a few years guise, anonymous as an internet phenomenon is just taking off... only 3 million people from 200 countries subscribe to the idea of anonymous so it obviously isn't Wikipedia-worthy yet.

Anonymous is not a direct product or project of any single site (and not 4chan) and they are not hactivists but activists. Coverage of the protests against Scientology are widely reported.

Wageslave (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous should most certainly be listed on this disambig page. "it has no relevance to the average person for the word anonymous". I'm sure it has more relevance to the average person than the Andorran Band named Anonymous which is listed on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackster (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pwned. That's a nice line on the bottom of the page as well. 202.169.180.156 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology protests

Given that the "Anonymous" protests against the Church of Scientology are now garnering international media attention, I believe some mention of this activity should be found on thid Anonymous disambiguation page. If one searches for "Anonymous," on Wikipedia, seeking information about this activity, one will be brought to this "Anonymous" page. Therefore, for ease of use, I believe some mention should be included so the user may then proceed onward to the correct page. Legal Wiggle (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. I came looking for info about "Anonymous" the protest group and did not see anything on the main page. I do not equate Project Chanology with "Anonymous" since it's the latter that shows up in the media and not the former. Sstucker (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with both of these points. Wageslave (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. Anonymous has gained mass media coverage. I was surprised that they were not listed on this page. Jackster (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A. Nony Mous

What about the signature A. Nony Mous used in many writigs to disguise the name? --75.70.195.236 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 A. Nony Mous