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)

Raul, I am afraid your link above is now 404.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

posts on /b/ does not last for 2 days. that's why. — CHANDLER^#10 — 03:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of it would be nice for understanding the context of this section... Wikipedia sections do tend to last relatively longer :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The thread was linked to in AN/I; one sec and I'll have it here, Piotrus. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 03:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Try this Raul654 (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Attitude to Newcomers Note

I'm making this an official request to add the following in the following places.

"Before reading this article further, it should be noted that the community in general does not have the highest praise for newcommers. In particular, /b/, which ahs adopted the term "newfag." On /b/ in particular, new visitors are met with the utmost hatred and contempt.

At the top of the /b/ article:

"It should be noted by the reader that, as previously stated, /b/ has harsh negative feelings towards newcomers. It is also stated that /b/ is the one place where people can be a 'complete, uncarring, inhuman monster.' This includes every form of images, material, and other media of every element of reality that is considered uncivil. This includes gore, animal gore, racism, sexism, etc."

At the bottom of the /b/ article: "It is not recommended visiting /b/ unless you are a fast learner, adaptable, and have stamina for the nauseating."

I'm trying to reach some sort of compromise here. This edit will allow viewers of this article to be forewarned, and keeps the "cancer" away from /b/. This is also for the viewers' sake, as Anonymous has certain talents that are far from helpful to the unprepared. Additionally, those who have delusions of "attacking" Wiki, which not out of the realm of possibility of success, would end badly for all involved.

Valkyrie ID (talk) 08:54, 15 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)

I agree what Yotsuba should definitely be mentioned in the article. --Drabant (talk) 11:22, 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)

Boxxy is relevant, considering the divisive effect she's had on the population of 4chan. Most of her detractors are forgetting the fact that she was not a forced meme, but a natural phenomenon. The aggressiveness by which she was promoted is in response to the fanatical protesting of her presence on the board. This should be of interest as a method of understanding how 4chan functions as a cultural microcosm. (talk)paul (talk) 01:06, 15 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)

Yeah, thats what ED is for. LamontCranston (talk) 06:20, 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)

Relax, with the protection nothing too unusual happened. 1 or 2 newf**s pretending to be skilled hackers in with the 4chan crowd making threats and creating accounts to screw up the article was always going to happen. Wikipedia is a free to edit encyclopaedia and 4chan is an anonymous message board, moot tries to make a living off of his adverts (who I am sure will have no objection to the publicity) but apart from that these 2 sites aren't that different... well apart from one being an encyclopaedia and the other being message board.

Any /b/tard worth his salt is an intelligent creature, Wikipedia spreads free knowledge. Only morons find vandalizing random articles funny. Walk into any class of 12 year olds and you'll find at least 2 kids who have vandalized Wikipedia articles, don't confuse /b/tards with idiots, because they aren't. There is no typical 4chan user, just as there is no typical Wikipedian. Many 4chan users will have helped create this article.

If you still ain't reassured, know that if Wikipedia made Al-Qaeda or the Mafia a front page article then Jimbo Wales wouldn't end up blown up or with a horses head in his bed... he may find himself kidnapped and inside a party van but that is a different story.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* both sides of this "argument" are highly disappointing. Everyone knows that this page has been copypasta'd so editing it will have no effect-this is just a pissing contest. But on to the point-at least allow me to add a note to the article, preferably at the top of the article, very accurately stating that users of 4chan, in particular, /b/, are generally hated. in addition, I would like to add a note to the top of the /b/ section of the article, going a little bit more in depth to what a newcommer would expect to see. All very professional, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie ID (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest your changes here on the talk page, citing reliable sources. If they're good, an autoconfirmed user will make the changes for you. That's the best we can do until the protection runs out. -kotra (talk) 01:44, 15 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)

The fundamental idea behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Ryan4314 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but semiprotection for highly vandalized pages is a commonly accepted necessity. And if you don't believe this page would get vandalism by the steaming heaps if it was unprotected, I suggest you take a look at the comments above and below. -kotra (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the vandalism, it was all reverted within the minute and was rarely made twice in a row. I would question the futility of putting an article like this up on main page and then freakout OMGZ vandals! In many ways this has been a victory for 4chan, we advertised that anyone can't edit and that we don't think our vandal hunters are up to the job, by resorting to page protection.

Part of the reason the vandalism here was so low when it was unprotted was because the channers took offense to my calling them wethers following Jarlaxle's orders and en-masse spammed my talk page with (ironically) Jarlaxle-style vague threats. I've been pulling more shifts on RC and my own talk page than I have on 4chan or this talk page. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I love the way you said earlier "tread water with [the] IPs", I'm imagining you saying it really scathingly with your tongue hanging out. It's like the IP's are a collective group of 4chan users secretly trying to bring down the internet, and not just in fact mostly normal people. It also conveyed what a nuisance you find them now that you are part of the wiki-l33t, they probably should've banned anyone from joining right after you did ay? lol Ryan4314 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If /b/ wants to see semiprotection as a victory for them, conveniently ignoring the thousands of other semiprotected articles, more power to them. The fact remains, though, that we semiprotect articles all the time, and this one article isn't particularly special.

As for your comment about IPs, please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't talking about all IPs, and I agree with you that most edits by IPs are good. I like IPs. They're just not worth the trouble on high-vandalism articles like this. When things die down again, it will be unprotected. Don't worry, /b/ will get their chance to vandalize their own article for the lulz. They'll just have to wait a bit. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This one isn't special, so why is everyone talking about it changing the protection on it numerous times? Sorry if you thought I was putting words in your mouth, I just got the impression you don't hold IP editors in high regard. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not special in that it's semi-protected. It's somewhat special in that it was semi-protected while being featured (although that's happened with other articles). It's also somewhat special in that it was being considered to be fully protected. But it wasn't fully protected, and it probably won't be. I was referring (as were you) to it being semi-protected, which in and of itself is not special. And no problem about the rest. -kotra (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a tradition not to protect the TFA. Though it has been precedented, for example Israel remained semi-protected most of its time on the Main Page. Cenarium (Talk) 20:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd heard about this tradition, but didn't know it was formalized. In any case, I think we agree this is one of the situations in which semi-protection is necessary, as per that guideline. -kotra (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The page has been unprotected for twice thirty minutes only, they had no time to create threads to target it. If they had, the article would have received several edits a minute and successive vandalism edits would have frequently occurred, readers would see vandalism as often as the article or more, which is not acceptable. We can easily handle dispersed attacks as happened earlier today, but not when massively focused on an article. I agree though that it's not the kind of article expected to appear on the Main Page, that was a rather bold move. Cenarium (Talk) 20:02, 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)

SAGE

SAGE

SAGE --mboverload@ 05:44, 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)

Because he isn't. He's not a Grawp sheep. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 02:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ebaum violated copyright laws ?

Is there a source for this claim in the Internet_attacks section ? The reference at the end of the paragraph [3], is a deadlink. In any case, wikipedia cannot make a claim in its own voice (i.e., without attribution) that laws were violated , unless we can cite a court ruling. Abecedare (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Added working link. Blue Mirage (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source. However, there are several problems with the current description of the eBaum incident in the wikipedia article:

1. The Wired article does not mention 4chan! Instead it says, ""the people on YTMND took it into their own hands."
2. The article does not say that contributors to Something Awful and Newgrounds participated in the attacks. Only that they had been victims of eBaum's tactics. Quote: "But Lutz was hardly alone in his anger. For years, contributors to viral-media sites including Something Awful and Newgrounds had reported similar treatment."
3. It was a video and not a Lohan image
4. The source doesn't state as a fact that copyright laws were broken, and neither should wikipedia unless a court has ruled on the issue. Instead we can simply describe the facts and let the reader reach his own decision, "On January 9, 2006, eBaum's World posted a video of Lindsay Lohan originally posted on YTMND, without crediting its author and adding its own watermark."

Of course, unless point (1) can be resolved by finding another source talking about 4chan's role in the incident, the paragraph should be removed from the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph for now. Please feel free to edit back (with appropriate rephrasing) once additional sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's featured article

?

Any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmeuprudeboy (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, for the lulz? LicenseFee (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GTFO my main page Raden (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a great article. The "Background" heading is inconsistent with most articles using "History" instead. The article sections aren't in any sort of order. There's repeated information (compare the first paragraph of the article to the first Background paragraph) and just trivia throughout the article. The Internet Attacks section contains a juvenile timeline writing style. I don't see why this was featured. It doesn't just need a good once-over, it needs to be rewritten. ✈ James C. (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's featured because of the FAC discussion. Any complaints should have been raised there. If you really think this should not be featured, there's Wikipedia:Featured article review but I don't think the article is in a state for demotion. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a minimum time of six months between FAC and FAR, and the article was only promoted in late September. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of FAR or not, if someone raises issues we can try to fix them. Taking James' points in order; a history section would be inappropriate, I feel, considering the information in the section. The intro is supposed to summarise the article, hence the seemingly repeated content. I'm going to take a guess at what you consider trivia, and flatly state that if we took it all out we'd have a five word article leftover. Feel free to be more specific, though! The internet attacks section lists internet attacks, so it lends itself to timeline-style writing. Feel free to suggest changes (or make them yourself) which you think will improve this. Cheers. Giggy (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does it best when it does it bold :) And it is a very brave and bold choice to give 4chan FA status. It is a well researched, well written article, and not at all an embarassment to have on the main page. ITT - MOAR EDITIN, etc, etc, doktorb _words^deeds 20:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Successful troll is successful

This joins Exploding whale into my favorite FAs. This was deleted how many times? And then became FA? Its the little article that could!--Cerejota (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Relieved Giggy is relieved. Seems the internets didn't die when this hit the main page. Giggy (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Or did they... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give thanks to the tireless admins and IRC bots. Thank you all :) NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)