Talk:List of Internet phenomena/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Move Article?

Shouldn't the article be moved to "List of Internet Phenomenas" as that is the plural? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan78 (talk • contribs)

No, phenomena is the plural. Phenomenon is the singular. Jay Maynard 13:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Pron

Notpron was inspired by Pron. For all intents and purposes, the reason any and all current internet riddles flourished is because of Pron, so it should be listed as opposed to its offspring. The Notpron article is currently in AFD mode for a myriad of reasons, so there should be no objection to editing this. StewartDaniels 11:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but can the Pron entry be sourced? Is there any way, for example, to demonstrate ts popularity? A Google search is likely to be even less useful than usual... Jay Maynard 12:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, it can't really be sourced using a search engine, and I have absolutely no idea how to source it. Anybody else who remembers it, feel free to help on this one. I also don't know the proper course of action here, should it be omitted until it can be sourced? I see other items listed that aren't sourced, so I don't know. Incidentally, I'm rather surprised to see that youtube and myspace are not listed on this page (unless I simply missed them), those are arguably the two biggest internet phenomenoms in the history of the web.StewartDaniels 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In Fiction

Do you think the two charecters Ender's siblings create as their online personas from Ender's Game merit being added to this section? dimo414 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Chronological Order?

Anyone know if there a chronological list of the internet memes available anywhere? I think it'd be interesting to see it optionally organized by date and not just categorically... any thoughts? --Dankind 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Where the Hell is Matt?

Doesn't a link belong here? The video's on youtube, it it's considered viral... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.238.180 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that this is a phenomenon...

Ok..I edited the page with info about Delfin Quishpe (aka Delfin hasta el fin), an ecuatorian singer who made a homage about the twin towers tragedy, but because of the goof, was involuntary comedy...but that edit was deleted...maybe he is not well-know in USA or Europe, but in Latin america, is a phenomenon...I will give you some sources...in spanish...and a link to his video... What do you think? [1] [2] [3] [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.143.77.18 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

"large woman" moshzilla

Not to nitpick, but I don't think the woman can be considered large. She might be slightly overweight but I wouldn't call her 'large' in comparison with the average american woman. Thanks -avigon (nsi) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.242.229.35 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Uncyclopedia

I added Benson, a user from Uncyclopedia, to the people category, but the edit was removed. I understand that a user from a website may not be as big as some of the other people on the list, but posters on other sites are included on the list of well-known people too (like Lee Hotti), and anybody that is a member on Uncyclopedia knows about Benson. Within a week of Benson first posting on Uncyclopedia, he was even given his own forum on the site (Benson's forum), and was well-enough-known that others had even formed imposter Benson accounts. I have even seen references to Benson on forums on other sites. I feel strongly that Benson should be added to the list of people, and if asked, I will find more evidence on Uncyclopedia to prove this. Jaybenad 22:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

HSOWA, aka "Hot Skitty on Wailord Action"

Is it really that notable?

-- Mik 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A Mexican Video Out of Link

As said by the user who talked about Delfin Quishpe, I think the article about MeAnda - Don should be listed here because IT IS an internet phenomena in Latin America. You can check this googleing "MeAnda" "MeAnda Don" and "VideoGENTE" and you should see all blogs and pages that mention the video. Also, try a search for "Meanda" in YouTube and you'll find at least 4 pages for the video uploaded by different users (not counting all results that don't appear with that word).

In the other hand, the site has claimed his videos are copyright-free (they have a CC license posted in their site [5]) and the owners of the site have included an article there about the "MeAnda - Don" wikipedia entry. Please bring comments to revert the unincluding. --Kalfusion 06:46, 25 January 2007 (—Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 25 January 2007 - I have no clue why the bot doesn't archive this thread, so I will do it in a few minutes! mabdul 16:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC))

Fark.com - List of Farkisms

There's currently a list in the Fark.com article with a list of 'farkisms and cliches', which is really nothing more than a list of various internet phenomena (most of which really didn't originate on fark.com anyway, despite what most farkers would probably tell you). I think it would be best to merge that list with this one here, linking to the fark.com article with a 'see also' reference. Dr. Cash 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be more appropriate to prune the list on the Fark article to reduce it to thinks which originated on Fark, with a see also pointing here. Chris cheese whine 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this on the grounds that the Fark article has a certain purpose, which is to list internet phenomena which are widespread on that website. If it is merged with this one, that purpose is lost. Regardless of whether they originated on Fark or not, not every internet phenomenon is important within the Fark culture (and the reverse is true as well - if a phenomenon is limited to Fark only, would it really be considered important enough to place in this article?). In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a member of Fark.com (a "liter", though). By the way, you may want to put that template on the Fark article as well, in the interest of fairness. Otherwise, you're only getting an opinion from the members of this article. Esn 09:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dch111 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Oppose, as the Fark article is designed to deal with the community and jargon that a part of Fark.com. Were "Farkisms" to be integrated into this article, it would begin a slippery slope of including all community-based web site mannerisms. Countvonbob 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.87.59.131 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Oppose 209.9.196.99 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree to pruning, for reasons given. Sfacets 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

JewsDidWTC notability...

Notability established by being "exposed" on CNN. Not the only old media coverage I know of, but the only one I can find offhand. --Leam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.120.254.174 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Merge from Barrens Chat

The Barrens Chat is definitely a meme/phenomenon... it even sparked some T-shirts. Hojimachong^talk_con 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Paint Huffer

What about Patrick Tribett? Didn't see him on the page, although I may have missed him... JohnathanZX4 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

New format

• I don't know if I like the new format of the article that gives each meme its own subsection. It looks rather ungainly and, quite frankly, ugly. I think the page should revert to the old format. JuJube 07:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't like it either. I particularly don't like the way that whoever changed everything removed almost every single link on all entries. I had to go through and check each entry to see if it had an article and link it. I'm not even close to being done yet. What a mess. Wavy G 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your efforts. :) JuJube 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I see that the change in format stopped after the videos section (although that doesn't mean they're done), so the fixes thus far seem to be sufficient. I'm quite over the frustration now. As you can probably tell, I have about a 1/8th inch fuse. Wavy G 08:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't decided if I like it or not...but whoever made the change didn't remove the links: a bot came along and "fixed" that. -- Jay Maynard 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahh, I see Wavy G 22:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't like it either. It's too unwieldly for a list and hard to read. I'm reverting it tomorrow if no one else does or gives a good reason to leave it like this.139.102.241.40 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I made a copy of the last good version of the article (before an anonymous user ruined it) in my user space. Feel free to edit this one if your plan is to go back to the old format eventually; I just don't think it's a good idea to simply revert the page, though. JuJube 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Done and done. Preserved all the changes to actual content. I think a list should be a list -- not a collection of chapters.139.102.241.40 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• The long list of very short sections is ugly and pointless. The old layout definitely looks better. —xyzzy_n 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Length of Article

Wikipedia:Article size

• Presumably this article is only supposed to cover current or active memes. The list will get very long if you include all memes since the beginning of time. Dead memes need to be weeded out or moved to another article or something.139.102.241.40 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, why should it only cover current memes? // Liftarn

ummmm... length? 139.102.241.40 17:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it should perhaps be split in some way (it's already divided into People, Bands, Videos and so on). // Liftarn

What constitutes a current meme though? I mean some memes are old meme, some are new meme, some will nevar die, and some are forced meme. -- This is a mudkip... ^{I heard you liek it?} 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"List of people who have gained internet fame"? Kind of a long title. I think this article might be better as a category rather than a list. That way we can keep the old stuff without having to deal with length issues. How does that sound? 139.102.241.40 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Feiss

I have no problem with removing the other folks that User:Newyorkbrad removed, but Ellen Feiss is notable in her own right - even to the point of starring in a movie. See, for example, this interview.-- Jay Maynard 17:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Her notability is for matters other than what is referred to in this article, but I won't object to the reversion. Thanks for explaining here on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Restores

I restored Amir Massoud Tofangsazan, Brian Peppers, and Qian Zhijun. Amir and Qian have Wikipedia articles based on their internet notability, which this is a list of, so I don't understand their removal. WP:BLP has no application here.

I left removed some drunk sorority girl who had her picture taken in a dorm. There is a minor paragraph about her in some other article but I don't see her as being an internet phenomena. Maybe with a source that SHE is the phenomena it should be restored but I don't see her as a major anything.

I also restored Brian Peppers, which in the current atmosphere is going to cause wiki-drama. The few sentences in this article are neutral and sourced, and the entire claim for him having anything in Wikipedia is the internet phenomena around him - that's exactly what this is a list of. WP:BLP is not a censorship hammer of an excuse to delete everything remotely negative about people. There is no call to purge Wikipedia of anything and everything having to do with the guy, in fact, many people see the short blurb in this article as a compromise to not having a complete article about him. SchmuckyTheCat 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As the person who previously deleted these paragraphs, I don't think the entry about Brian Peppers is notable or appropriate. Having said that, in candor I have to agree that the entry is somewhat more responsibly written than what has been written about him elsewhere. With respect to the other two entries you mention, I find the linked articles to be questionable in their own right, but today may not be the best day for discussing them. Therefore, I have left your reversion untouched and would welcome additional comments from others, leaving the timing of such discussion to the informed discretion of our contributors. Newyorkbrad 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed Peppers. There is no compromise that can ever be considered encyclopedic or moral. It is a YTMND fad that makes fun of someone. Absolutely should not be anywhere on Wikipedia. I've also removed lots of other crap that has snuck in lately. --- RockMFR 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Doc^g 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete it now

We might as well delete this article now. The admin community has it in its sights, and the result of their slash-and-burn tactics will be the utter gutting of this article as a useful resource. Anyone who does more than disagree on talk pages will be banned...just ask Doc. -- Jay Maynard 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You may replace anything I removed, if you can attribute it to a reliable source.--Doc^g 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, all I have to do is copy the reliable source from the article it's linked to. That would double the size of this already huge article (well, it was huge before you started indiscriminately hacking and slashing), not to mention the huge amount of work involved. No thanks. -- Jay Maynard 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's up to you. But laziness is no excuse for us ignoring WP:BLP. --Doc^g 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you assert the removed material violates WP:BLP. Why does it? In particular, did every entry you nuked violate the policy? Was every entry negative? Did you even bother looking, or just get out your machete and start hacking? It is that utterly indiscrimiinate action that leads to my despair that the article will ever again be useful: you've already threatened to use your admin powers to uphold your view in what is essentially a content dispute, by hiding behind a policy that you have yet to explain its applicability. -- Jay Maynard 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I quote from WP:BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.

What about each of the 49 entries you removed was controversial according to the definition quoted? If you can't say why, then how can you justify using WP:BLP to destroy the article? If you can't justify it, then how do you intend to support your threatened block? -- Jay Maynard 01:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going through 49 items, you may replace anything that is adequately sourced. Even without BLP if unsourced material is challanged, the onus is on the user who wishes to retain the material to source it. (see WP:V). Source it and it can go back in, don't and it doesn't. This discussion is pointless. --Doc^g 01:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on me, it's on you. You're the one wanting to make wholesale slash and burn changes. Revert my last changes and I'll see you at WP:AN/I. -- Jay Maynard 01:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that many of the people-based items here raise serious issues of notability, privacy, and appropriateness for Wikipedia even if they were properly sourced and unquestionably true. Avoidance of undue weight on negative aspects of living persons' lives and preventing Wikipedia from causing wantonly cruel harm to innocent people for minimal encyclopedic gain are also legitimate goals. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jmaynard has now been blocked for reverting my removals. he's had fair warning. I've posted a note on ANI if anyone wants to comment.--Doc^g 01:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the burden of proof is on the editor adding inforation or advocating its retention. Particularly in the case of biographical content, WP:V is a must. We don't leave unsourced material sitting out there waiting for a source. If you want information in an article, find a source. It shouldn't be difficult to find a WP:RS if it is truly a meme.--Isotope23 01:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you make an "internet meme" category and do away with the list? 139.102.241.40 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Put Simply

MODS = FAGS

And Most memes are made by the Anonymous for NO PERSONAL GAIN so they don't get copywrited or trademarked and the Bullshit they want. Also I can back up a large number of image macros/memes from /b/ with hard links

Proposal for deletion

This article has lost any and all relevance to anything now that Doc has come in and euthanised half of the article. Officially going to submit for deletion. 70.58.114.69 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal submitted and put at top of article page. This page is now nothing but bands who have become popular on the internet, and that is not only not noteworthy but also extremely common due to things such as Myspace. Also, prejudices against certain communities and TRUE memes by TOW staff have caused this section to be almost impervious to new content which mainly comes from those communities. Please delete. 70.58.114.69 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Simply deleting the article outright is too drastic a measure. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, what should we do? I doubt that anyone will put in the massive amount of work that Doc demands. -- Jay Maynard 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert and allow adding of sources to reverted version, or else delete. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Doc_glasgow for the full discussion. -- Jay Maynard 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've no view on whether to keep or delete this. But if someone wants it deleted WP:AFD makes it clear how to nominate it - I will abstain. Policy is clear that material on living persons must have reliable sources - so what has been removed can be replaced if, and only if, it is sourced.--Doc^g 17:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't. You've already done your damage; whether the article is deleted at this point makes no difference. -- Jay Maynard 17:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's incredibly easy to find sources for most of the removed content. If you want them in the article, just go to the individual articles for the memes and grab the relevant sources. Nobody's added lonelygirl15 or Star Wars Kid back in yet — are you seriously saying that it is too hard to find sources for these? 60 Minutes, Time, AP, BBC, CNN.... seriously, this stuff is ridiculously easy to cite. --- RockMFR 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I applaud you, RockMFK. Because rather than waste time whining about WP:BLP removals, you've sourced and replaced some of the entries. Perhaps others who are so concerned about the completeness of the article might follow suit.--Doc^g 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the work involved would be much, much less, and much, much more likely to get done, if we had the entries to add the sources to, instead of having to dig them individually out of the article history. -- Jay Maynard 18:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Crap, copy them onto a text editor and work from your hard drive. If you can't manage that, I'll happily retrieve them and e-mail them to you. Stop trolling.--Doc^g 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're resorting to personal attacks in an effort to shout me down. Thanks.

As for working from my local disk, if I were to replace all 53 entries in one edit, that's almost certainly guaranteed to run into edit conflicts - and that would mean even more work to get the information replaced. -- Jay Maynard 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When you are ready to reinsert your sourced content, copy the content you want reinserted to User:Hipocrite/BLPCheck, notify me on my talk page and I'll evaluate it and reinsert what you have appropriately sourced without running into edit conflicts using the power of computers. Aren't you a programmer? do a diff between your version and the redacted version, then take the results of that into a new file and reinsert them by hand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I get the raw version of the entire page? -- Jay Maynard 18:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to say Help:Contents, but [6]. You know about this feature because you regularly "revert" people, which puts the old text of the article in a big edit box, ready for copy-pasting. You are RAPIDLY wearing out my WP:AGF. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not as expert in the ways of Wikipedia as you are. I'll go see if Safari will let me suck out the entire article from that edit buffer. FWIW, to me, reverting is simply going back to the previous edit, then putting in an edit summary and hitting "save page". It didn't strike me (though it probably should have) that the entire article was there, waiting to be grabbed. -- Jay Maynard 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If your WP:AGF will tolerate another dumb question: When I try pasting the text into an editor, it complains that I'm trying to paste characters that the file isn't currently set up to handle, and asks if I should promote the file to UTF-8 or Unicode. Which will Wikipedia accept when I go to paste it back in somewhere else? -- Jay Maynard 18:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia will be fine with either, to first order. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Okkay. Now to see what OS X's Unix tools do with UTF-8. Of course, this will be a moving target, but we'll see what comes of it...and if the hours of work I'm about to put into this article will come to anything. -- Jay Maynard 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Before I spend hours on this endeavor, would someone please look at User:Jmaynard/Repairing List of Internet phenomena and see if I'm on the right track? I'm not fond of the idea of doing lots of work just to be told "no, that's not good enough". -- Jay Maynard 19:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I realise it takes more time than just pasting a URL, but please use {{cite web}} or add equivalent information for online references. Websites change often and it’s important to know what you were citing and when you accessed the content. Also, leave no whitespace before <ref. The citations themselves seem appropriate except for the entry about Tofangsazan, where the claims about the number of hits and media coverage are not yet substantiated. —xyzzy_n 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Like that? You're right, this will triple or quadruple the work involved in fixing the damage. I'm not going any farther until I get some assurance that the entries I re-add won't get deleted wholesale. -- Jay Maynard 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...and meanwhile, another section getstwosixtentwelve sections get nuked, making my job that much harderimpossible. -- Jay Maynard 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just RTF-article-history? Chris cheese whine 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to revert the damage, because Hipocrite will block me into oblivion if I do. -- Jay Maynard 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sure I speak for more than just me when I say whining about it will not get the job done. Chris cheese whine 22:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. What do you think I should do? Especially in light of the fact that admins feel free to delete massive amounts of other people's work and block folks who disagree? I'm not going to spend weeks painstakingly rebuilding this entire article if an admin can come along and destroy it in five minutes. -- Jay Maynard 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I was able to save it from destruction in 11 minutes. You will see me readd the stuff I know about (subjective, I know, but you can add stuff you know about, if you source it reliably) over the next hour or so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. I have no reason to believe that any work I do won't get torched. You didn't save it from destruction; you destroyed it. You can do as you like with this article; I'm done with it. Enjoy your smoking crater. -- Jay Maynard 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN much? —xyzzy_n 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to own anything. OTOH, I see no reason to invest hundreds of hours of work in something that can be - and, as history shows, has been - destroyed in seconds. Editing my work is one thing. Mindless destruction is quite another. There are better things i can do with my time, like flossing the trees in my front yard. -- Jay Maynard 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of non-BLP portions

I see that editors are continuing to address issues relating to this article. In my opinion, portions of the article that do not reflect adversely on identifiable living persons do not necessarily need to be deleted pending sourcing, especially if they are linked to valid Wikipedia articles or if there is no reason to doubt that the content is true. Such portions of the article should continue to be improved, but the concerns in this regard are less severe and urgent than those raised concerning the "People" parts of the article. My opinion, anyway; comments invited. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite's deletion of the vast majority of the article after expressing his opinion in the AfD that the article should be deleted is, I'm sure, against some guideline or other. However, there's nothing I can do about it. It's abundantly clear to me that my work on this article isn't wanted. -- Jay Maynard 22:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been tagged with "requiring sources" for approximately... forever. The only way to guarantee that the article has sources is to wipe it and start from scratch, requiring all new additions to have sources. If you REALLY REALLY loved the old article, you can find a link here, which includes even the "unforgivaeble video series that can be found in numerous places around the web and has gained considerable popularity." Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a whole bunch of stuff that had wiki articles about them. Consider situations where the wiki article is the source of the meme's popularity. 139.102.241.40 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can only speak for me in saying that I appreciate your work on this article just as I appreciate any good-faith contributor's work on any article. I just want to make sure that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for spreading misinformation or invading the privacy of innocent people. Portions of the article that don't raise those concerns are in a different category from those that do. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerned individuals can see the route that I intend to take by my stab at the bands section. I will go through the rest of the article by hand and be done importing sources by Monday. You can help by doing the exact same thing I'm doing, or, even better, going out and finding sources - for instance, I was unable to find an RS for Loituma, but I am reasonably confident one exists out there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You nuke the world and then ask for help rebuilding??! <boggle> -- Jay Maynard 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...or, apparently, destroy. -- Jay Maynard 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hipocrite thanks for the hard work in cleaning up. But about your removals... are you basing what you are removing as verifiable based on the text here in THIS article, or for the text in the article on the subject itself? For example Badger Badger Badger is clearly notable as an internet phenominon--ten seconds of reading that article shows that. But you removed it here. Thanks. - Denny 22:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed everyting that was not justified here. I just went through the entire Bands section (I put an inuse tag on the article so no one would get in my way) and sourced about 50% of the bands, using only the articles on the bands and the sources linked there. I welcome others to import sources from the base articles - and I will get back to it later on today. I will also move to ref references and citeweb after the backbone is in place. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

this was a wholesale WP:POINT slaughter Significantly overzealous of the page. Numerous articles there are verified at their own articles; to wholly RE-validate them here is redundant. Further, I suggest you hold off until the Afd and RfC are finished. The version you've established now gives anyone voting or commenting an entirely different understanding of the page. ThuranX 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What WP:POINT am I trying to prove, exactly? How did my actions, which are trivially revertable, in any way cause "disruption?" I await your apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What apology? You vote delete, then shred the page to a tiny list? As has been stated over and over before, many of these can be supported by their own articles. And since you call it a trivial reversion, I will do so. Let the people decide the issue based on the page as it was when this started, not on some ridiculously reduced page. You could've tagged all the non-BLP sections for citation, instead you deleted them. I'm not the only one to notice this, go get apologies from everyone. ThuranX 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The page has been tagged with various cleanup tags... forever. You have done nothing to help solve this - I, on the other hand, have cited about 20% of the list. You are about to reinclude content that I was able to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt to be false. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting Hipocrite's destruction. I hope that doesn't get you blocked. -- Jay Maynard 22:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If he had ever edited this page before today, I might be more inclined to accept his changes, but 1000 edits (of this page's history examined) and he's only been here today, where he ripped the page apart. There's an ongoing related RfC and AfD. If he'd waited till it survived AfD and the RfC suggestions were applicable, and implemented, whatever they may be, and there were still issues, I'd support his efforts. ThuranX 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please attempt to follow our policies and guidlines and assume good faith. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can actually now AGF, and thank you for your efforts in your last edit. I'm quite happy with the compromise, and thank you for finding cites for what you've found. Once I'm done with some real world work, I'll try to spend some time augmenting the cited proportion and try to find some more cites. ThuranX 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having a hard time assuming good faith, although the latest set of edits after the revert give me some hope. If the original change had been done in that fashion, I would have had no problem with it. I'd prefer keeping the old content around as HTML comments so there's something to go looking for verification for, but my suggestion will be summarily ignored, so I'm not holding my breath. -- Jay Maynard 23:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy about the bands section remaining gutted, but we can go back and find it, and with this much talk page about it, it's not at all lost. ThuranX 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not gutted, it's verified. I went through each and every one of the blue-link articles looking for reliable sources discussing the band's internet phenomonaness. It did not exist for the ones that commented out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been ruthlessly eviscerated. There is no content left of enough relevance to warrant its existence... oh, but it's VERIFIABLE. 70.58.114.69 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet phenomena 2. -Doc^g 18:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this notice be in template form at the top of the page? -- RattleMan 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, and I moved this down here. - Denny 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

New Rule Proposal

I am going to propose a new rule for this page. Some of these videos are said to be popular, but when searched on youtube, they only generate a few thousand hits. My proposal: A rule against inserting videos on youtube with less then 1.5 million views. An exception to this rule is if there is massive popularity elsewhere, such as with numa numa and star wars kid 69.118.112.119 16:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Page views are not an indicator of notability. --- RockMFR 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I think a better "rule" proposal would be to make it understood that this article is not the "Youtube video depository." 90% of the problems maintaining this article comes from the almost daily additions of the "Here's a video of me and my friend singing into the mirror on Youtube" links. Wavy G 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No effort at all

There has been no effort put in by anyone but me to verify anything in this article. The only content edit that was acceptable since last week was this. I will revert to the version that removes all unsourced entries unless someone who is not me takes some initiative to source something. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Digg considered RS for any purposes? - Denny 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to ask you (nor anyone) to inappropriately blow this away... I'm willing to put some time in, but this isn't the sort of thing that could be expected to be done in a week or anything. There's a ton to source. As none of it violates BLP, we don't have a deadline... - Denny 00:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated any interest in verifying the existing content, only readding the unverifed content with sources that fail to show they were "nternet phenomena." Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And agressive reverting to your preferred version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not my intention... but rv means vandalism, it wasn't vandalism. your aggressive summary miffed me a bit, since it was good faith on my part... - Denny 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Rvv means vandalism. rv means revert. You have failed to discuss the phenominaness of your preferred version. Please do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

THanks for wanting to talk it out. pre-tea misreading on my part on the rv/rvv. Wrapping text for my reply, please reply below in new section... - Denny 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nimoy's Bilbo Baggins video

Dictionary definition of phenomena is:

1. a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature.; 2. something that is impressive or extraordinary.; 3. a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.

Going by that with the current article title, any WP:RS that makes note of something on the web (e.g. the video, which I found referred to on a couple of other RS) would qualify out of the box. Now my desire to rename to being a list to track notable or implied popular web content is to keep the list from someday being 1,900 items long in 5-6 years. Going by the dictionary def of the title, lots of stuff gets in easy. Any RS just needs to label something as impressivem, extraordinary, remarkable, exceptional, a prodigy, a wonder, or simply make observations about it. While that could be fun (and we could have eventually literally List of Internet phenomena (A), List of Internet phenomena (B), List of Internet phenomena (C), and so on, it's overkill. But based on the current title... it's too lenient. Nimoy qualifies since it's observed, which is silly. I'd rather we hold off on the content till the naming is sorted. - Denny 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"simply make observations about it?" So you believe that google and yahoo should be on the list? You propose a list that is not "a valuable information source," nor "a table of contents" nor "useful for Wikipedia development purposes." Please assist me in deleting it, per WP:LISTS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested renaming: List of verifiable Internet memes

Aftrer the slaughter, evisceration, and forced reanimation of this corpse of an article, it might as well be named what it is: the only memes on the internet that cna be verified and thus not deleted by the Gestapo that run this site. 70.58.114.69 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now personally removed everything from the article thatw as not sourced and verified. Please change the title of the page. 70.58.114.69 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Cute. Reverted. JuJube 10:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's very funny to undo work for no other reason than to be vindictive. Thsi edit was done in order to keep this article in line with wiki rules on sourced statements. Reversion undone and all unsourced entries are once again removed. 70.58.114.69 10:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, this gives me reason to suspect bad faith. JuJube 10:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"List of popular things related to the Internet"

Given that the criteria for inclusion appears to be "verifiably happened on the internet," I supposed the above title is the only acceptable one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Would that make it too exclusive? to live only events, as in... if something happned on the internet, as an event, like a webcast, as opposed to something (video, person, band) that became popular/notable/infamous via the internet? - Denny 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about List of anything that has any relation to the internet? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Still wouldn't work. According to the latest round of rules handed by down by our malevolent Wikifuhrers and the various SS and such patrolling this hellhole, it has to be covered by the old media in order to be noteworthy and thus not subject to annihilation. Therefore, even if it DID happen on the internet and is absolutely HUGE, it still isn't noteworthy unless the New York Times or something covered it. Thus, the suggestion about "Verifiable" I mentioned above. 70.58.114.69 06:44, February 27, 2007

What are you talking about? RS don't have to be paper newspapers. Half the sources on WP aren't. Please help rather than hinder... - Denny 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of popular things related to the Internet is probably best since it leaves good faith hedge but puts limits in place too. That way it requires two easy qualifiers--RS have to say/imply it's popular in a fashion and that it's internet related. That will limit it largely to things like the spirit of what the article is going for, while keeping people from adding stuff like ip address simply for being internet related (unless some RS says that IPs are popular.... which would be daft). If you like that, lets just sit on it a day or three to see if anyone else pipes up then one of us rename? - Denny 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about List of verifiable internet occurences? 70.58.114.69 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Includes google and yahoo, still. Is that what you want? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest... at first thought, yes. On one hand opens the biblical floodgates, but on the other hand, I'd bet a third of whats in the hidden version of the commented out article could be cleanly excised then. Eventually, a topic of this nature will get so huge it needs to fork. Probably into like an A-M then an N-Z article, but eventually it will need to be broken up. Might as well plan for the future while we're at it. But let me think more on way to work. - Denny 14:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally deleted nearly 45KB of text from the article to get rid of everything unsourced just ot make it fit in line with the Wiki rules you people stand by and hammer down everyone's throat. I don't see tha rticle getting much bigger than it already is, and perhaps it needs to be submitted to WP:AFD again. This article enompasses MAYBE 1% of the total internet phenomena, BUT BY GOD IT'S ALL VERIFIED!!! 70.58.114.69 14:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to serious discussion... If no one objects in a couple of days (Hipocrite, any more thoughts?) I think List of popular things related to the Internet as a title is best as it requires two qualifiers for stuff to be included (sourced as tied into the internet, sourced as popular) without being as abstract as 'phenomina'. Also, leaving the main descriptive as 'things' means that it can be an all inclusive list in a sense, which seems to be the aim of the article now. The title would then describe what the aim of the article seems to have been all along. If RS say that something is popular on the Intenet, it gets a one or two sentence footnote here. Preferably one line maximum I'd think if it has it's own article already. While this would in theory include stuff like Google, it will cut out a significant number of the stuff in here now. Plus, people could always go back and source removed stuff from history and reincluded it later if it qualifies. also, the article can easily expand later when it gets too big. First fork can be say List of popular things related to the Internet (A-M) and List of popular things related to the Internet (N-Z), and later List of popular things related to the Internet (A), List of popular things related to the Internet (B), List of popular things related to the Internet (C), List of popular things related to the Internet (D), etc. as needed. Eventually this could be a whole series (scary as that is...) of super-heavily sourced articles. Out of the gate this article will probably be one of the more sourced one since by definition each individual line will require one or two sources at least.

If no objections and no one beats me to it I'll flip the switch March 1. No major hurry, the article doesn't hurt anything. ok? - Denny 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If I believe the title would allow for the inclusion of google or yahoo, I will request that the list be deleted as "patently worthless." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This list is already patently worthless. 70.58.114.69 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Start-class

Ever since I started slaughtering entire categories as well as nearly 80% of all entries in this article to adhere 100% to your vaunted WP:RS "guideline", it's been put into Wikiproject's Start class. Of course, nearly nothing on this article is actually relevant to the internet and only two could even be considered "phenomena", but IT'S ALL VERIFIABLE!!! 70.58.114.69 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop being a WP:DICK. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MTV News

I imagine that... they may be an authority on music related/pop culture topics. Why was this removed as unreliable source? - Denny 16:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous IP editor is disrupting wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Either he will stop, or he'll start discussing the article civilly. Either way, we can put back to where it was before his changes disrupted such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... would the 3rr you mentioned to me apply to his edits? what about for him? - Denny 16:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If only you haden't revert warred with me over the inclusion of your song you could deal with him instead. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested renaming: List of popular Internet memes

Using "phenomena" in the name I think is a problem. Most of these things look to be popular from common sense (but that would be OR to simply say) and thats what the list is--a list of the most popular internet-related... things. Phenomena as a word needs to go. Meme might be better. How about List of popular Internet memes? It's probably the best, most sourceable thing, and we can then limit article to topics that are sources as being popular on the Internet by WP:RS meeting sources. If no one objects I'll do it in a few days at latest. - Denny 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Or would List of popular Internet topics be a better thing? This is a general list of "popular Internet things". Having to qualify as a 'phenominom' or 'meme' defeats purpose of list, from it's intention as I can see... - Denny 04:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we determine if they a popular? // Liftarn

If WP:RS say that they are. - Denny 14:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the old media determines what is real and what is not. Also, according to that RS article, I have some more deletions to do.70.58.114.69 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the title, however, I did not see any definition of the word meme;It's just implied. And rather poorly at that.

I would change it myself, but I've never heard the term before, so I don't believe I'm a very reliable source. Repku 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A "List of Internet memes" would be a retrograde step, back to a "List of fads", which would not suitable for Wikipedia. Chris cheese whine 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars kid

Alright, I'm really confused. Ghyslain's video and all the hoopla that surrounded it, as well as his psychological troubles and the legal troubles that have resulted from it, have made national news, and possibly even worldwide news. I completely fail to see how the existing Wikipedia article on him doesn't qualify for inclusion in this article, considering that it was distribution through Kazaa that got the video spread in the first place. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe it was removed because it wasn't sourced? It's been decided that everything included in this page must have proper references. I'm sure if you add it back with a reference, no-one will remove it. Rawr 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. I wasn't sure what was being meant by "sourced" the first time, but I think I've got myself covered this time. If the link I cited isn't all that good, here's another URL that might work better: [7]

Thank you for sourcing. Star wars kid is now allowed in this article. 70.58.114.69 10:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also got a question regarding sources. How "notable" should sources be? I just did a quick Google search on the Badger Badger Badger meme and got hundreds of thousands of hits, but not many from truly big publications. I remember when this thing hit and it deserves a mention, but if the entry needs to be sourced, how good of a source is needed? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Read through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. If a reliable source can't be found for this particular meme, maybe it wasn't that notable? But it appears that it is notable enough for a wikipedia article. Rawr 06:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Badger badger badger meme was indeed enormous and was a global phenomenon for well over a year, with tens of millions of views of the flash movie alone. However, since the old media didn't cover it (and therefore cannot be sourced), it is not allowed on Wikipedia and therefore will be removed if mentioned in this article. 70.58.114.69 10:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that a lot of things that many of us know were massivley popular will be hard to source because the mainstream media didn't spend any time on them. Using the "All Your Base are Belong to us." as an example, that phrase, the video that went with it, they were all immensley popular, and have been for quite a while. People still quote lines of of it all the time online and sometimes even in real life. There are numerous fansites dedicated that that saying and when you google for it you get about 1,740,000 hits. Its popular. No denying it. But despite this, when your looking for a realiable source you just can't seem to find any. Im sure there are some articles by respected news outlets that talk about it, but considering how big it is on the internet its gotten almost no attention from the media. My point is many internet memes aren't going to have a decent source to cite in a lot of casses because its internet culture, and the media tends to do a sketchy job at best of covering internet culture. That is going to make this article real rough to cite, since just looking right below the box where i am typing, "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source." Thats my .02 for this page. Cerevox 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

half(or more) dissappeared

Loads of this list just suddenly dissapeared... what happened, i've gone through the edit list and it seems unacccounted for??? Is there any way the previous (longer) list can at least be retrieved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donquigleone (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

You can check the article's history to recover the links to the articles that were removed, or you can look for the Internet memes category. Also, I think that someone made a direct link to a page with all the old links further up in the discussion. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours

I've searched all of the discussions and see no reason why this one site has been singled out. There have been numerous animation sites, some named (JibJab) while others go unnoticed (Homestar Runner and Weebls). Can we think about removing/adding something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobbie (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).hobbie 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled this entry. The reference was stated as "CNET News", which it clearly was not. On closer inspection, it was an article written by Yet Another Random Student. Chris cheese whine 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Verifiability for the actual things themselves is not an issue where they have articles. We don't need sources on this page testifying to something's existence in that case. Each entry on this list needs a source that verifies its status as an Internet phenomenon, preferably one which doesn't require a leap of faith on our part. Chris cheese whine 04:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AYBABTU

"All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

Is someone planning to add that in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.91.145.198 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Alright, who changed the article?

Although the article has been downsized many times, this is a huge change, and many on the list were notable and well-known. Clarify? Raptor Jesus 03:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're too lazy to read the talk page (it's not that long), I'm too lazy to explain it. Chris cheese whine 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow, including my statement, for a complete discussion of the background and issues. Newyorkbrad 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Put something about OK Go band?

I'm not sure of the rules to let matters listed in this article, Internet phenomena. Just remind the success of OK GO band. But I'm not a good writer so... let somebody to decide my suggestion.

PigTail 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source somewhere saying that they are a widespread phenomenon, it can go on the list. Chris cheese whine 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is bunny

I believe many people have seen this in forums:

(\__/) (='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your (")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

Is this somewhere in this article? If not, is it a good thing to add?

No, it isn't in the article. This specifically wouldn't be good for the article, because there are so many different versions of these, such as "Over X% of people have tried a drug. If you are one of the Y% who haven't, copy and paste this into your signature." However, if you want to add a part about all of these in general, go ahead. JDub90 18:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggestions

Shouldn't some quotes from CD-I games be placed on here, such as "all toasters toast toast" and "I WON!"

it said on the Hotel Mario page that it was internet phenomenon..so shouldn't it be on the list?

Bearflip 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop Meme Requests, Please

Attention from the old media is required for inclusion in this article, as has been laid out by the graven idol gods on this site. It is also known that the old media is very slow and wary to bring attention to internet memes. Therefore, there is a 99.99% chance that any meme requested for inclusion on this list will be unverifiable by the old media, and thus unsuitable for this list. Why? Because this is Wikipedia, where a man with faked credentials gets adminship but a video with 10 million views is treated as if it doesn't exist because it's not "verifiable". 70.58.114.69 22:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, I know the reason you posted this: It was because of Roddy Von Seldeneck. Second off: Don't shoot first and then ask questions later, sometimes a fair trial is all that is needed. Roddy IS notable

[8][9][10].

--Emevas 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are primary sources - reliable secondary sources are needed here to verify notability. Sfacets 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think Lonelygirl15 should be added, or has she been discussed already?須藤 02:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this page is utterly useless now.

I refuse to believe there's only about five internet phenomena in the world. Where did they all go? 62.31.67.29 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The mania for reliable sources has more or less destroyed this article, yes. -Toptomcat 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Peanut Butter Jelly Time

I think that Peanut Butter Jelly Time belongs here. The article itself explains why. Thoughts? Ruijoel 10:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want it, add it. If we dont like it, we will delete it. But Be Bold Anyway. Paradox CT 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Meme?

By "Internet Phenomena", do you mean "internet meme" ? Its a much more appropriate term.

No, these are not good examples of internet memes. They're only moderately successful compared to terms like "Google it". Plus Wikipedia doesn't list memes from other formats, so why list the internet ones? Xep 14:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

PSTriple

Shouldn't we add Chad Warden and his infamous PSTriple YouTube videos to this list? [11] [12] [13] --Ferrarimanf355 16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How to mesure notability

At the moment i can see that this article has quite a few pages that really arent notable enough. The thing about internet memes is that there are hundreds of them, some everyone knows about (i.e. "ORLY", Chuck Norris Facts) and some are ones that become popular for a short time or to a smaller group of users and proberbly dont deserve to be on this page (i.e. The Bus Uncle, Loituma Girl). What wikipedia should not do is to make people think that these 'memes' are more popular than they are. So as a level of quality i would suggest only having memes with comprehensive wikipedia pages that explain the origins and influence of that meme and outside sources that demonstrate how popular it is and was. Some of the memes on this page are just funny videos or images which may have got a lot of views or whatnot. To be a meme, it has to have impacted or influenced internet culture in some way like chuck norris facts have. Paradox CT 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)