Talk:List of Internet phenomena

This article was nominated for deletion on July 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep, WP:POINT.

• Archive of talks ended by February 2006
• Archive of talks ended by June 2006
• Archive of talks ended by November 2006

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)

Intertextuality

I won't add this to the article, because I don't have evidence on hand to support my claim. However, the difference between a Fad and a Meme is the concept of Intertextuality. For example, the recent "IT'S OVER 9000" gag is becoming a Meme, because jokes have begun appearing about the price of a PS3 on eBay being over $9000 USD. To assist in controlling what things are classified as Memes, I offer that two, or some set number, of examples be needed of the Meme at use in this capacity of intertextuality. In other words, that a fad has spin off fads in other sources would classify the original as being a Meme.67.87.189.225 03:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Tila Tequila on "celebrities"?

I mean, she isn't really famous outside the internet... --Escondites 05:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

She has been in Playboy, on the cover of the magazine Stuff and Maxim, as well as being on VH1...when does one make the leap to "celebrity?" MightyAtom 06:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LawForKids.org

I added LawForKids.org to the list and even included links to the various parodies, but someone removed it. Why? I think it should be mentioned. "You are both suspended." - NES Boy 12:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A source for most memes

I know Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica have historically hated each other, but this topic is one that ED users are most knowledgeable about, since that is the focus of the website (not as 'hate site' as often claimed). The meme category http://www.encyclopedia dramatica.com/index.php/Category:Memes and more importantly the 4chan memes article http://www.encyclopedia dramatica.com/index.php/4chan_memes are probably the most reliable sources of what is and isn't a meme currently available on the internet. The etherchan wiki is another such source of meme related information, but currently has technical difficulties. I know that these website definitely do not pass the wikipedia guidelines for a course, but as this article is about memes, and ED was created to document drama and memes, I strongly believe this should be an exception. As isn't the whole point of Wikipedia many people collaborating by contributing to the topics that they have knowledge about? The average wikipedia user who hasn't lived online in places such as 4chan's /b/ (where this stuff starts) really shouldn't be the ones deciding what is and isn't notable as a meme. --Einsidler 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ED is not considered a reliable source, for what should be obvious reasons. Chris cheese whine 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

4chan is not the final authority on memes, by any stretch of the imagination. 4chan's /b/ is nto the onlly place memes start, as any denizen of, say, YTMND or Fark will tell you. Being a 4chan in-joke does not raise something to the level of an Internet meme. As one who has fought some 4chan-related vandalism here (repeated vandalism to the Candle Jack entry in Freakazoid!), I'm suspicious of anyone who claims 4chan is a reliable source. Jay Maynard 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, and I think I have some insight into what is and isn't a meme... Jay Maynard 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with the reference to Chuck Norris stating that he's more famously known as Walker Texas ranger, this seems incorrect. Wasn't Chuck Norris a major movie star for fifteen years before the show? I personally can't stand his work but don't feel this is accurate.--Colin 8 08:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

so i herd u liek mudkips Karozoa 17:41, 11 December 2006 (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)

Crazy Asian Mother

Two boys do a skit about how an Asian mother reacts to a B+. It's most hilarious line in the skit is " we ain't like no white people we don't give timeout. From the far China maybe no timeout, we got something called knockout."

That's hardly a neutral POV...
138.243.228.52 11:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Serious troubles with the examples

This wiki is more a repository of "what's famous", not "what's a meme" and even citing a regional or little known "personalities" in internet.

A real memes are uses for synonyms or even adjectives, for example Chuck Norris for a hardie guy.

MEMES is not equal to FAMOUS.

Anyways i miss BUSHISM.

Unfortunately, something must be "famous" (AKA, notable) to be included in a Wikipedia artcile. Wavy G 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Celebs

Not one of the celebs fir the description of "An Internet phenomenon (sometimes called an Internet meme) occurs when something relatively or completely unknown becomes hugely popular", please lets stick to people whjo became famous through the interent or its just a junki article as any celeb can claim to be famous on the internet (easily sourceable) and it would make for a meaningless, deletable article, SqueakBox 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Celebrities

The definition of an internet phenomenon can not be limited to the definition suggested; that one rises from the unknown to internet fame. The definition is faulty, as compiled and edited editions of content featuring celebrities very well can be regarded as a phenomenon, and is created by people whom are NOT celebrities.

Internet meme?

I wouldn't say a lot of the things listed here would apply for the whole internet. Or even Americans for that part. These "universal fads" effect only a few subcultures of nerds and not the whole internet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.224.54.236 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2006 (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)

Bin Laden flash video

The "Bin Laden: Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide" flash animation featuring cartoonish versions of Colin Powell, George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden and the accompanying song that was popular in October, 2001 should probably be included on this page. --69.155.133.137 23:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

never put your picture on the internet

http://www.fadmine.com/Fun/never-put-picture-on-the-internet.html

this and similar, isnt this already a fad now?

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

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)

Nobody's Watching

Isnt anyone gona mention Nobody's Watching a failed tv pilot that was uploaded on to YouTube and now has its own website and myspace profile.

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)

notable cat is nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooootable

I don't see why Longcat keeps getting removed from this list. First, he wasn't notable enough to warrant his own article, which is true, so it was suggested it would be moved to a list such as this. Now it keeps getting baleeted, while things like Limecat stay. Longcat is much more prevalent than Limecat, so I don't see why one stays while the other gets baleeted. --Lakerdonald 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it based on previous deletions here for not being notable. Is it notable anywhere aside from 4chan (or whichever site it's on)? -- Jay Maynard 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure:

• www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Longcat (i'm surprised that link worked, since ED is a powerword on Wikipedia, and is blocked, and will get me the banhammer).
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

The list goes on. Sure, none of the above are old media, but they just simply go to show how widespread across the Internets Longcat is. I realize that it fails WP:V, WP:NCR, WP:NPOV, and WP:AIDS, but I just ask for consistency: either keep Limecat and Longcat, or delete them both. --Lakerdonald 23:12, 19 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)

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 [11]. 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)

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)

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 things that happened on 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)