Talk:List of Pokémon (241–260)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive

All inactive discussions have been moved to the second LOP archive. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the recent comments back here. 3 days and 1 reply who isn't you doesn't let a discussion get hidden away by the person who disagrees with it. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I actually had thought the thread was resolved. I wasn't trying to hide anything I disagreed with. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

"So I herd u like mudkips" in July 9, 2008 Wall Street Journal, called a viral phenomenon

"

... Another phrase "So I herd u like mudkips," a reference to a sea creature from the popular animated show "Pokémon," spawned thousands of tribute videos on YouTube. ... viral phenomenon. Here's at a few of them: ... "so i herd u like mudkips": Originally posted on another Web site, members of 4chan adopted the phrase as in-joke. A "mudkip" is a lovable, water creature from the animated series Pokémon. You can watch some of the thousands of tribute videos on YouTube. ... " - WALL STREET JOURNAL - July 9, 2008 - Modest Web Site Is Behind a Bevy of Memes

Habanero-tan (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the ongoing "So I herd u like mudkips" debate (Part 1, Part 2) is moved to separate pages as it becomes too large for this page. Habanero-tan (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of "Articles must be about the subject in question" do you not understand? I've vetted the article; it's about 4chan and unusable for SIHULM. This was brought up and responded to above, in the first section on this talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. I know this is a pet project of yours. I'd like to see some other opinions as well. I'd rather not be a part of the discussion, but when the Wall Street Journal writes about memes and gives three examples of the most popular, it's not inappropriate to mention it on Wikipedia, especially considering how many people appear to want it. Maybe the Semi-Protection can be lifted? It looks like the discussion was popular with anonymous users before the stream of semi-protects began. Habanero-tan (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is *because* of the anons that the semi-protections had to be instated. I would be more than willing to see this page unprotected, but the disruption from anons, especially given that the main article is on a 6-month semi due to this meme and that I have to maintain Axolotl, Mudpuppy, and Mudskipper on my watchlist means that I am leery about removing the semi at this moment in time.

And as a side note, this only became my "pet project", to use your words, when the trolling and threats against the other user who's been mainly involved, Ksy92003 (talk · contribs), and the merging that was taking place at the time decided to stop editing this section. Even so, WP:PCP and some of the meme's defenders are going to agree with me: the meme is better off here; people have simply been acting dumb whenever someone wikilinks that article and persist in bringing it up here (although I can blame that on the FAQ created to head off all the trolling, attempts to shoehorn the meme into this talk page in an attempt to use it as a source ever since Mudkip was still a separate article (which is where the two archives from above come from), and the constant (and recurring) vandalism of Axolotl, Mudpuppy, and Mudskipper). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 03:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jéské that the Mudkip meme simply does not belong on this article, and probably never should. However, I still think that the semi-protection of this talk page was a little rash. Artichoker^[talk] 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it was in the Wall Street Journal, I think it's good enough for Wikipedia. Your original argument was that the news never talks about Mudkips. Well now they do. Just because you have a personal vendetta against 4chan DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Wall Street Journal ran an article directly about the meme I'd have no objections, but the article was about 4chan and is thus only useful there. Sources must be about the subject in question; else there's no claim to notability which the meme desperately requires. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeske, I suggest your personal attitudes about this subject, as well as related ones, are strongly clouding your judgment. Notability absolutely does not apply to information within an article. It only applies to inclusion of a subject as its own article. So your claims about notability are irrelevant unless someone is trying to create an article about the meme. Within an article, verifiability is the regulator (among other things, but this is the one in question). Jeske, please show me where in the verifiability policy it states that in order to cite a source, the source must be entirely about the subject of the article? No such restriction exists. There is a very reliable source noting the existence of the meme, thus satisfying the verifiability and the reliable source policies. The only other concern here is how appropriate it is to mention this meme in the mudkip section in this article. It is indeed appropriate to mention in this section; we are an encyclopedia. Our coverage of fiction should contain as much real-world context as possible. This meme is such context, and a mention of the meme should be included. As a related side-note, Jeske, your protections of this talk page are wildly inappropriate. You are by no stretch of the imagination uninvolved. If enough vandalism to warrant semi-protection existed, a post at RPP would have resulted in a protection by a neutral administrator. You should not be using your tools on a page in which you are so heavily involved. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that a 6 word phrase that generates 29,700 results on google would atleast be notable enough for inclusion as a stub of some sort http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=g45&q=%22so+i+herd+u+liek+mudkipz%22&start=0&sa=N zac4213 —Preceding comment was added at 08:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:GHITS, Zac. And if that's how you feel, seresin, feel free to request an unprot, and I'll step down - but you need to be prepared to deal with the related vandalism on Axolotl, Mudskipper, Mudpuppy, and Saturday. I make my decisions based on policy - which so far has been a double-edged sword to both parties. There has been two deleted articles on the meme, and consensus still present from Talk:Mudkip is that WP:NOT still applies - namely, IINFO. I actually have no objection to seeing SIHULM on Wikipedia - provided it's in the appropriate article (List of Internet phenomena). Anywhere else it reads as an ad. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I felt the protection of this talk page was completely inappropriate. Talk pages should almost never be semi-protected, unless there is extreme vandalism (which there wasn't.) Even the talk page to George W. Bush isn't protected. I urge you to unprotect. Artichoker[talk] 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, Jeske. Let's get consensus again, as we now have an iron-clad source. I support inclusion. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Since a good source has been found, I support inclusion as well. Artichoker[talk] 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion as well. Cratylus3 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm remaining neutral if for no other reason than I'm tired of 4chan's influence on Wikipedia, and including the meme here will more likely than not not affect the vandalism on Axolotl and its kin. Also, this is a slippery slope; you might also want to hit up Talk:List of Pokémon (101-120) for the "FUCK YEAH SEAKING" meme and whatever talk page applies to Bidoof for the "derp" meme. I can guarantee you the source of that meme is far more appropriate for Wikipedia than SIHULM's is. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The origin of a meme should not matter in the slightest when deciding whether or not it should be included. Wikipedia's existing notability guidelines should be the only deciding factor. Arguing that "I don't like 4chan" is a terrible argument and as an administrator, you should know better. Furthermore, can you give me a good reason why "FUCK YEAH SEAKING", etc. should not be included in the appropriate article if they pass notability requirements? As to the vandalism on Axolotl, yes that will almost certainly not stop, but that is no reason not to include the meme. Should 911 conspiracy theories be abridged because it doesn't stop "Jews did WTC" vandalism?

Anyways, you clearly have a vendetta against 4chan /SIHULM which is making you impartial on this matter. You need to start behaving more like an administrator and less like a schoolboy with a grudge. 12.20.35.99 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally! Victory is ours!! 71.37.59.92 (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded thousands of mudkip videos to youtube and got a job as a writer at the WSJ in an elaborate troll on Jeske. 71.37.59.92 (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. What have you guys reached with this? Nothing. - Face 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire. Certain people can get too worked up about something as trivial as SIHULM (look at all the infoboxes on this page and the message below) instead of focusing on the most important part of Wikipedia - adding more/better information to articles. By including SIHULM with a reliable source, we are beating the "I don't like 4chan, it isn't notable" mindset at its own game. This is also another victory (the previous being the ED article finally being restored/passing an AfD) against those with petty grudges against certain websites. _{(Comment abridged, see edit history for full text.)}Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "recent changes monitors" (as you call them, I call them vandalfighters) and the vandals/trolls (either here or at ED) do have something in common. They both do relatively unintelligent work, they both want to feel important and in control, and they both try to gain respect with it. But it took a 100 tries to add that meme to the article. It takes me 5 edits to block another disruptive troll. So... yeah, I think I rather be on the side of the vandalfighters. Cheers, Face 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that most vandals/trolls do unintelligent work. However, I don't think that very few of them want to feel important and in control - from what I've seen the underlying reason/primary motivation is because it's entertaining/amusing, especially when it becomes obvious that said vandalism is getting under the skin of some of the editors.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that a relevant piece of information has been added where consensus required it. I don't think that's "nothing." What I think is more important is that it has been shown that an admin willing to abuse his authority does not automatically get his way here. That is a relief to me. Unfortunately, rude people will do their best to be poor sports about this, but in the end the inclusion is just obvious and correct, and that's not "nothing." Reason has prevailed, and I'd say that's something. Cratylus3 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not oppose its inclusion. It appears to be long-lasting enough, fine, just add a little mention. What I do oppose however, is you calling Jèskè "an admin willing to abuse his authority". He has been reverting the SIHULM edits and the SPAs for months, and rightly so, because there was no consensus and things were getting pretty bad (vandalism, personal attacks). I'm sure that gets annoying after a while. Now that there seems to be a consensus, he stopped reverting it. He's still against inclusion, well, that's his opinion. - Face 19:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, seresin's comments on Jeske's "wildly inappropriate" use of his tools are fairly clear and my comments regarding his abuse of authority are in line with them. You should perhaps take up your objection with seresin. I am also not understanding what you were referring to with your statement of having reached "nothing," in light of your more recent statements and edits. Cratylus3 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest, Cratylus, that you cease the ad hominem attacks or I will report you at AN/I for this. You're baiting at this point. And Face, I'm neutral on the matter now, not opposed to it, largely because not only do I have bigger fish to fry, but, as I correctly predicted, Axolotl's still getting SIHULM up the ass. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 23:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please report me to AN/I for this, Jeske. I'd like to know if my behavior has been violatory. I think I've expressed opinions you don't like, which is not the same as breaking the rules. I hope. Let's find out.Cratylus3 (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

←You both need to calm down. If you still wish to carry on, I suggest you take this dispute elsewhere, this page is not the place. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

While articles used to demonstrate notability need to be about the subject in question, I'd like to point out that once we've established notability (not far off, from the looks of it) that article could be used as a citation to beef up the section where we choose to put this, unless I'm mistaken. So keep that article on hand. Suigetsu 01:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, glad to see Jeske hasn't given up on this subject, if anyone's the guy to take this bullshit under his wing, it's definitely that dude. Suigetsu 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible note

To all the anons out there: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BILLBOARD AND WE WILL DELETE SIHULM ON SIGHT UNLESS YOU PROVIDE RELIABLE SOURCES DIRECTLY DISCUSSING THE MEME. WE DO NOT TOLERATE SPAM ARTICLES AND WILL DELETE THEM ON SIGHT AS VANDALISM. (I apologize for the yelling, but my nerves are a tad frayed after having to block *yet again* a SIHULM VOA.)

So if you think you're being clever by attacking other articles (Saturday, Axolotl, and Mudpuppy, to name a few) or creating fluff articles (administrators can see the revisions of the deleted page) you're not only sadly mistaken, but foolish as well.

My recommendation? Go off to a wiki that will tolerate SIHULM, because Wikipedia will not. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a question; what is SIHULM? Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There's an FAQ linked at the top of the page regarding it, and the meme was the focus of the deleted article above. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 22:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the acronym; excuse my block-headedness. Artichoker^[talk] 22:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to the FAQ page, and I post it here too:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Consensus about this is shifting after it was mentioned here. This (and other signs) seems to indicate that the notability of the meme is increasing. This FAQ must either be updated, or removed.

Cheers, Face 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats right. I mean, whats it going to take, do we need to have the meme mentioned in the next State of the Union address? The Wall Street Journal is good enough for crying out loud! Its really time the obsessive-compulsive suppression we've seen from ksy92003 and Jeske comes to an end, I only wish they hadn't lacked the foresight to understand the inevitability of mentioning Mudkip's overwhelming liekability. Zaphraud (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Leave Ksy92003 out of this; he hasn't been involved for the better part of a year, Zaphraud, thanks to the merger. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Mrrph-mph!)} 23:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the FAQ a few days back but any other changes are welcome. It's also mentioned in the article. —Giggy 08:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jéské, but I've come back into this. I was prompted by a comment Zaphraud left me a couple days ago, which I just checked Tuesday evening. My year-long hiatus from this chaos has been quite relaxing, but I've returned and my stance has not changed.

As Jéské said earlier in this section, the thing we're looking for before including mention of the meme is this: is there any reliable source that asserts the notability of the meme? Nobody, to my knowledge, has yet to provide any reliable, non-4Chan (or similar websites) sources that assert the notability of the meme and/or any significant impact on.. well, anybody. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the notability question has been settled. Since a separate article for sihulm is not in dispute here, the notability issue is moot. Cratylus3 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reread the notability guidelines. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article" (emphasis mine). As discussed before, inclusion of content in an article has nothing to do with the notability of the content itself. Do we remove mention of a famous person's children because his children aren't notable enough to warrant an article? Within an article, if information regarding the article's topic can be verified by a reliable source (which the WSJ clearly is), it can be included. The source does NOT have to assert notability. If you can make a good case that the meme's inclusion in the WSJ is not sufficient to meet WP:V, I won't oppose its removal from the article.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ksy92003 and Jéské have shown a long-term overzealous obsession with this article, and their apparent lack of understanding on the basic inclusion principles of Wikipedia show they need to cease their involvement here. 71.212.47.34 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As Cratylus says below, please do your homework and make sure the people you're accusing of malfeasance on an article actually edit the article before that. I've been too busy dealing with SIHULM elsewhere, not here - in fact, this page has been off my watchlist for the better part of a month precisely because of people like you who prefer to throw stones naked in a glass house. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is over with "except for the screaming." The people you've fingered have not edited this article recently. Even if we assume you're right, the matter can be dropped. SIHULM is in. Cratylus3 (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page to wiki article

Does anyone else seriously feel that this talk page should get its own article? You could take a pageful of the ridiculousness that is above (throw in a couple crying baby image macros) and have a serious discussion about the degeneration of information quality in modern media.72.186.157.71 (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is within the notability guidelines. Cratylus3 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen it mentioned offhand in some of the guidelines and appears in lists of stupidest wikipedia issues. 02:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.51.124 (talk)

You mean WP:LAME? - Face 11:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This talkpage, as well as its archives, are so awesome they deserve their own t-shirt. Suigetsu 01:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not; Wikipedia abhors self-refs, and I'm not aware of any news articles mentioning the dispute. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)