Talk:4chan

Protection

Just a note - given this, this article should absolutely not be unprotected while it's on the main page. In fact, it might be worth increasing it from semi to full protection. Raul654 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a good idea indeed, I watched closely this /b/ thread and even if there won't be any coordinated attack (/b/ is chaos as a concept), we will see this article edited unproperly or flooded with... Well, we don't want to know.86.197.57.147 (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There might be some issues with that. I think you may want to take it up to AN/I while there's still time, Raul. Nevermind, I've done so. (Addendum @ 10:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)) -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that /b/ is planning both to "invade" Wikipedia and spam 4chan boards with gore (extremely shocking) pictures. This is a serious issue, I believe: Wikipedia should not promote such a website.

Wikipedia is not censored for minors, mores, or twats. Besides, administrators are going to be camping here all the day it's featured. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.69.226.171 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

External links to 4chan

Due to the general content of /b/, should we really have an external link pointing to it directly in the lead? I'm a bit concerned that the free media attention generated by this article might motivate some users there to post stuff that is worse than usual. Thoughts? -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be a link to the 4chan homepage in the infobox. I think a /b/ link would be ok in the ELs section but not up the top (as it's discussed in the article). Giggy (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the infobox, the link was included in the text (I removed it meanwhile but I wanted to point it out). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed before. A /b/ link is not ok. Regardless of breaking rules about not talking about /b/, it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article that could be read by children to link directly to a webpage containing possible (well, 100% probable) pornographic material, bypassing that website's age restriction warning. Meowy 00:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

“ Wikipedia is not censored for minors, mores, or twats. ”

'Nuff said. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, they started, apparently. On a more happy note, I'm glad a handful of professionals dedicated time and effort to make a page about what most people would delete/put under the rug/censor to smithereens, into something worth reading (even by Wikipedia standards) and neutral. One of the finer aspects of Wikipedia IMHO. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not warp my words; I said that in response to /b/tard threats that they would vandalize unless the whole article was taken down. I'm of the opinion the /b/ link is inappropriate, but then I'm biased (it's been brought up at WR that I despise /b/ in particular, largely because they're all castrated rams following a castrated shepherd. The /b/ link should stay or go as consensus determines all the same. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your words were wrote in such a way (at the passive voice, if I must start a semi-doctic talk) that would imply the absolute strictness and accordance of... well, everything about them. If you would have used "I don't think it's ok" in stead of a "bold" it's not ok, or "I don't think it's appropriate" in stead of the unequivocal "It's not appropriate" (which a more unexperienced user would confuse with you claiming Wikipedia rules, and not personal opinions, and yet one as myself notices a big contradiction about the censoring policy), I wouldn't have had anything to interpret ;)

Also, as an user with little knowledge on ones' personal wars with /b/ members, but a more or less lurker of 4chan, I could go further on the line you leave to misinterpret and state that you should be aware the members of that site have no leader/shepherd/whatever you wanna call it. Hell, if moot himself would post a sticky having to attack Wikipedia or a site, it'd be dismissed and mocked by half the members.

Whatever, I just came here to see what all the fuss is all about, I responded politely as a relative outsider, and I ended up in the middle of the "Wack-the-mole" crossfire. I have no intention developing nerves for the lulz of random people on the internet. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, Anime, but please understand where I come from. Like you, I didn't have the nerve to develop nerves for other peoples' lulz. I have been involved in SIHULM debates and am a constant target of Grawp's constant needling and harassment, including one impersonation attempt and two email bombs. I have been *forced* to develop the nerves, and that's one of the reasons my opinion of /b/ is so low.

In fact, as we speak, my talk page is potted in order to block any users continuing Grawp-style c&p death threats. The only "crime" I have committed in /b/'s eyes is refusing to bow to them to add SIHULM in, and enforcing Grawp's Wikipedia ban and calling for abuse reports to his ISP to stop the harassment of Wikipedia administrators. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored for minors, mores, or twats." 4chan has higher standards. Having a direct link to the /b/ section of 4chan bypasses 4chan's age restriction warning that appears when the /b/ link is clicked on the 4chan home page. That's why it isn't appropriate to directly link to it. It's not censorship, it's just being sensible about the website you are linking to. Meowy 01:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, see above, Meowy. I wasn't referring to the /b/ link when I said it; I personally believe the link is inappropriate (since I equate /b/ with a shock site), but I'm conflicted in regards to it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Meowy makes a good point I hadn't thought of. Because of that I also agree that we shouldn't have a link. Giggy (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

moot; capitalization?

I am fine with the name being lower case. However, at the beginning of a sentence I think it should be upper case. What do others think? --John (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at the beginning of a sentence, it should be capitalized. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by: "by 'moot'"? Is this the guys moniker? Can someone clarify the introduction in this regard? Is it a play on words of the word mute? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

User:MikeR beat me to it on fixing the capitalization. --John (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made some edits to improve this. I removed mention of "moot" from the lede; now the first mention of him is in the "Background" section: "4chan was started in 2003 in the bedroom of a 15-year-old student from New York City who uses the pseudonym "moot"." Mike R (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia was started in the bathroom of a ....... Meowy 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. --John (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, hadn't seen this when I undid Mike R. As far as I'm aware, if it's a moniker it should maintain its lowercase at all times. Am I incorrect? Giggy (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't logged onto Wikipedia in ages, but this got my attention. "moot" is proper; please keep it written as such. Also, some of the flaws in this article have bothered me for years, but due to Wikipedia's policies, I guess it's not kosher for me to correct anything. Oh well--toodles!~ -moot (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just suggest changes here and if they're ok someone else will do it for you. That's kosher. -kotra (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yotsuba

I would think it would be fairly easy to source a statement about the site's logo being based on Yotsuba (as well as all of the 404 and most of the ban pictures). Or would it fall under the "obvious" category? -- Ned Scott 19:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you can find a source. I don't think I ever searched for one. I also vaguely recall that some of the ban/404 images are user created through contests, but I imagine they're based on the same theme. Giggy (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Put the Yotsuba note in, as it ties in with the anime part of the site (which hardly anyone uses) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.154 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yotsuba definitely should be in the article. I am very surprised it is not. 404 girl and the 4chan clover are the official mascots and logos of 4chan. Mac Davis (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

King of GETs

I tried editing the Wikipedia article to include the meme that spurred off of /b/'s GET fetish, but I was told that the 4chan wiki, the easymodo archive, and 4chanarchive were not valid sources despite the latter two being confirmed by various sources to be correct. This makes me assume that, if I was able to find a valid article, the information that was removed would be allowed. Is this the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBF Bri 10 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. KOG is still pretty minor in the big picture, but if you can find a reliable source then all the more power to you. -- Ned Scott 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was the one removing the content. My objection was less that the content can be physically verified and more that we have a limited amount of space to devote to 4chan in this article. We should insist on outside coverage of what we do include and further insist that only the best sources be used (as this is a featured article). We would need some reliable take on how significant /b/'s GET "fetish" is in relation to /b/ itself. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We did used to have a list of 4chan memes and such. Personally, I wouldn't bother with much of that until after the article is on the main page, but I wouldn't oppose looking into the lesser memes, as long as we have proper sources for them. -- Ned Scott 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing down the lede

Please remember that WP:LEDE directs us to substantively summarize the article content in the lede. The lede for this article is pretty short for a featured article, and I worry that removing statements as OR might get excessive. Please make sure that a statement you remove from the lede as unsupported by evidence is actually not supported by citations deeper within the article. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy

Boxxy is a notable figure. Not notable enough to have her own article, but notable enough to have a small section of the 4chan article. Newguineafan (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand! I posted at least one reliable news source and one other source, and people still removed it! Newguineafan (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if you're a bit confused here. Everyone's in a bit of a hurry at the moment (I'm guilty of that too). The sources you provided; [1] [2]. I'm guessing the second is the "reliable news source". Problem is that it's a blog and there's no evidence that I can see of the author, "jay", being someone in the know in the business. Does this make sense? And is there something I'm missing? Again, sorry about the confusion. Giggy (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I added another link that appeared in Google News when 'boxxy' is looked up. It appears to be a news source from Australia - excuse the title, but it seems pretty close to a reputable news source. Maybe as the time goes on, more will appear. But I apologize for the people vandalizing this article by continuously reverting it to my version of that article. Newguineafan (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an Aussie, I've never heard of these guys and seriously doubt reliability. Also it doesn't seem to mention 4chan...

If this IS a big meme, or if it turns out to be one, I'm sure media coverage will come eventually. When it does I promise you I'll do what I can to have the information added to the article. Giggy (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxxy was a short-lived trolling meme that started last weekend, in which trolls would post numerous threads with photographs of her, often containing copypasta. It got so bad that moot eventually set up an auto-ban on the word "boxxy" (it's still in effect). ED has an article on her, if you're interested in reading what happened. Considering how new this is, and how most on /b/ believe it will die soon perhaps only surviving at most in a few unfunny images, I think the prospect of putting boxxy on the wikipedia article is pretty absurd. I mean, a couple weekends before this it was "Lamp" that were the "unfunny meme of the now", in which people posted numerous photos of lamps and replied to all topics with the word lamp. In short, there will always be short-lived frenzies. Boxxy was just one of many. 72.33.0.30 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Boxxy" is just one of many so-called camwhores and any perceived notability will die out soon. It's not worth mentioning because it's not a meme and never will be.

/disagree, it's in fact a stupid fucking forced meme that should burn in cancerfag hell.

Speaking as someone who visits /co/ instead of /b/; who the hell is Boxxy? Blue Mirage (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what guys, forget boxxy. Just because there was a massive shitstorm over some possibly-mentally ill 15 year-old-girl for two days doesn't mean she gets to be in the article. Sure, you think she's cute, but that's not good enough; forget it.Mac Davis (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Title page pic

Why are the recent images cropped out? 88.105.15.23 (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Because we don't know the source to them, so we only want to claim fair use on the 4chan screenshot, not any possibly copyrighted picture on there. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

/b/ does not want Boxxy. AT ALL.

Attack on Wikipedia(EN)

Tomorrow allot of 4chan users will flood wikipedia in protest of the whole first page thing, disturbing images will probably be all over. Atleast thats what they are threatening to do!

85.164.82.176 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Concerned Wiki-user

Page is semi'd and was scheduled too late for them to bypass it with registered accounts. Nonetheless, there's going to be an equitable swarm of addies on 4chan while it's featured. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Concerned Wiki-user" is an ASSIGNED PA and has an interesting edit history; it would be a pity if he had to sit out all the fun during a block! --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats not concern to me as there will be no problem in bypassing such mediocre blocks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.82.176 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are easily implemented, 85., and if things get really bad we can and will use them. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And as easily circumvented, actually. These are 4chaners, they're loaded with long fresh lists of temporary open proxies. Most are even in other countries.

Regardless, why would 4chan protest it? If you know them, you know they're shining with satisfaction today, this just made their day. They enjoy every mention of them anywhere, be it negative or positive. 92.101.17.86 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the thread posted at AN/I suggests otherwise. That, and we routinely block open proxies upon discovery. They can waste all the time they want with OPs; we'll just break the Whac-a-mole machine. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And if they are that easily pleased, they really should learn to evolve. --Rodhullandemu 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You fail hard. We do NOT want to be on the front page of wikipedia. 4chan is already filled with enough cancer, we don't need wikifags adding to the mix. Take the article down and any attacks anonymous has planned will cease.

Not going to happen, end of. --Rodhullandemu 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not censored at the request of castrated rams. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Castrated ram"? I've never heard of Jimbo Wales being referred to as that before. Meowy 00:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the /b/tards, Meowy. v-.-v Jimbo doesn't blindly follow Jarlaxle's orders. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But I was not. Meowy 00:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Enough saber-rattling. We'll deal with whatever happens. Enough said. -kotra (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There may actually be an upside to this, but you'll have to be good to work out what it is. No clues. --Rodhullandemu 00:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy of article is cascade protected

I asked User:Juliancolton to cascade protect User:NuclearWarfare/4chan, so any template or image on this page will unfortunately, not be available to edit. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All had already been protected. Cenarium (Talk) 00:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected?

Is this article protected from editing? It's on the main page, that doesn't set a very good example of the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

/b/ had made plans to disrupt the article; there's consensus at AN/I that it should be at least semi'd while MP'd. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We could drop the protection if you would like, but it probably wouldn't last long. Prodego ^talk 00:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing the protection would certainly be interesting, as the gore pictures and hardcore porn which would replace the current text of the article would no doubt provide great entertainment to many. I'm not sure how encyclopedic this would be, however.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

XD -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just came back from 4chan. Members of 4chan are offended by the fact that this is the featured article and have desided to attack 4chan, editing articles until this article is taken down. you have been warned. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.136.137 (talk • contribs)

We are not afraid. Those who think we'd be afraid either are unaware that Jarlaxle was much worse than this before his first ban or that admins have been dealing with his castrated-ram mass-c&p'd death threats for a while. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 00:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And we've already gained, judging by the number of vandal-only accounts already blocked. --Rodhullandemu 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I've taken the liberty of honeypotting my talk page against wethers. It doesn't matter if y'all are acting on Jarl's say-so, you're still doing his work by harassing an admin who's had the nerve to enforce the ban against him. Just remember when he stabs you in the back that I foresaw it. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Forget it guys. Anonymous respects us. Anonymous and Wikipedia are the guardians of the Internets. This does not however mean, individuals would get a kick out of vandalizing this featured article with memes. I originally came to this article wondering if it would only be semi-protected. I'd think "4chan," while it is on the main page, should probably be real locked down, I see a lot of vandalism in the article's history... and future Mac Davis (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be unprotected, there's obviously enough people watching this article to protect it. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect from semi to no protection?? That seems like a very bad idea. I don't think it's worth the trouble trying to tread water with IPs here. -kotra (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And what's the plan? Call the AOL Police on us? Just like Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Fox Noise News (well. maybe not as much), The New York Times, and etc, this will blow over and all will return to normal. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

4chan on the main page of wikipedia?! Damnit I wish I could sage a Wikipedia articleCardboardbox (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. CardinalDan (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

toasting in an epic bread -Smackdat (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly down a bit?

I'm in Steam friends chat with a /b/tard friend of mine, and he says that there's nothing unusual over there aside from a "Let's ward off Wikif**s" page. I think that they're just waiting for the prot to go down; I say we keep the semi up. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

4chan /b/ is 4chan /b/, its only purpose for an organized raid is a bulletin board for recruiting bodies. Raids are organized off site and none of those people care about 4chan being on the main page. BJ^Talk 02:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd think otherwise thanks to that huge thread linked to at AN/I... -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you befriend a castrated ram? -Smackdat (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)