4chan Camwhore
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
4chan Camwhore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ http://www.inquisitr.com/3429/4chan-b-in-the-spotlight-over-palin-email-hacking/
^ Gunnar Johansson and Åsa Asplid (2007-04-18). " "I dag ska jag döda" " . Expressen (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 2007-06-10 . Retrieved 2008-02-27 .
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) [ reply ]
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.
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) [ reply ]
moot is always lowercase This Is Because moot Needs No Introductions... If you do not believe me check moots own sig at 4chan
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
"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.
Take this section out of the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipped ( talk • contribs ) 14:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Why are the recent images cropped out? 88.105.15.23 ( talk ) 11:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
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 [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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.
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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. Ryan 4314 ( talk ) 00:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
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 )
4chan on the main page of wikipedia?! Damnit I wish I could sage a Wikipedia article Cardboardbox ( talk ) 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
Added working link . Blue Mirage ( talk ) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Any reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmeuprudeboy ( talk • contribs ) 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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) [ reply ]
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.
"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) [ reply ]
How is asking you guys to replace a crap image with a better one vandalism? Have you all gone nuts? -- Kjootle ( talk ) 13:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
These pics are all much much better:
PS whoever deleted my last post is an idiot with no intent on improving this article!
Moot's real name is now said to be Richard Goin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.249.23 ( talk ) 12:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
I didn't know where to fit this -- Enric Naval ( talk ) 19:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
4chan has over 9000 different subforums, there are also many other things about this article which may need to be improved.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.49.33 ( talk ) 23:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
I'll be nominating this article for a featured article review if it stays in the current mess it is. Just to mention some major problems, all but one of the 5 sources are reliable in the boxxy section. The entire Boxxy section is in the wrong place according to what an Internet meme is. The screenshot now contains images of unknown origin, there's less images than there was before. There's also plenty of other things may need to be added to keep the article up to date.-- Otterathome ( talk ) 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
I wouldn't be opposed to removing the Boxxy section all together. Just because shes the flavour of the month does not make her significant, and the section on her is obviously in the wrong place as per Otterathome. I'd be bold and just remove the section all together but it probably has to go somewhere... Matty ( talk ) 07:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
to the Boxxy section of the article, since an article about Boxxy has been created. Thanks.-- 'Cause It's No Good ( talk ) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
This (pdf) academic paper seems very useful. Publication info . It has a lot of (mostly critical) information about 4chan, Anonymous (group) , Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. There is not exactly a wealth of academic citations here so far. -- Apoc2400 ( talk ) 20:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
http://kenny-glenn.com/
4chan has spent a considerable amount of time spreading his name because he posted two videos of cat abuse on youtube. I'm putting it in the article with news sources YVNP ( talk ) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
to replace footnote 49:
http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9849597 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorraledEnt ( talk • contribs ) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
I think a stronger reference is needed to even mention the cat, much less give 4chan so much credit as being the detectives behind the abusers unmasking. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
===Dusty the cat===
In mid-February, 2009, two videos featuring the severe physical abuse of a domestic cat named Dusty by its owner were posted on various public websites and found their way to 4chan. The 4chan community, outraged by the abuse, successfully tracked down the originator of the videos, a fourteen-year-old Oklahoman, and he was arrested. Dusty was treated by a vet and taken to a safe place. [http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/20090216.OBS5029/?xtmc=dusty&xtcr=1 Un "tortionnaire" de chat arrêté grâce aux internautes] (in French), February 16, 2009, [[Le Nouvel Observateur]][http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=9850040 UPDATE: Lawton teen films himself abusing cat, posts on YouTube], [[KSWO-TV|7 News, Lawton, Oklahoma]], February 17, 2009http://www.inquisitr.com/18170/4chan-b-goes-after-cat-abusers-wins/
Before re-adding anything about this, it is important the sources you use actually mention '4chan', none of them do except the inquisitr.com article, but this is an unreliable source. If a reliable source does come up which specifically talks about or mentions 4chan in regard to this incident, feel free to re-add this section.-- Otterathome ( talk ) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
see this .-- XerxesK ( talk ) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
and fix the butterfly knives/locker quote? The quote is "In the high school of the internet, /b/ is the kid with a collection of butterfly knives and a locker full of porn."
Sorry, it gets quoted secondhand a lot, and it just kind of bugs me.
Cheers,
ChrisLanders1 ( talk ) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Does anyone else think a brief mention of the other boards should be made? Even in the form of a list? -- DFS454 ( talk ) 13:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Hmmm, yeah. Its pretty annoying imo that all they really talk about is Rick Astley and Tay Zonday. They really should add some more about all the other wonders 4chan has to offer...and what about its sister sites? Like 4gifs, ect..? (kudos to the over 9000 reference..great placement) end, Tito^^ 13:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
This section was lost. Can it be put back?
Immediately following widely publicised killings, particularly school shootings , false claims of responsibility have surfaced on 4chan - supported by fake and back-dated screenshots of the killer writing that he is about to commit murder/suicide at the location. For example, while news of the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre was breaking, some news sources reported that the killer had posted about his plans on 4chan. Most such news reports were quietly removed once it became clear that the post was a hoax, but several months later some such reports still remained posted without retraction. [2]
Belongs in TOTSE . Ottre 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Somebody stated in the section on memes that it is pronounced like 'theme'. Could we possibly get a source on this? I have heard it pronounced as 'me-me' and 'mei-mei', so I highly doubt that the standardised, universal pronunciation is /miːm/.
Luk suh 01:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Link no. 71 is broken. The story is no longer at that web address. 118.100.180.232 ( talk ) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
I'm adding a very brief bit of text onto the moot section of the article regarding [ http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1885481,00.html moot making the list of 202 in their voting for the 100 most influential people. Discuss? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zblewski ( talk • contribs ) 23:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Did it ever occur to you people that 4chan cannot be explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.158.52.229 ( talk ) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Does anyone know this? I came to the article looking for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.0.199 ( talk ) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Should we really include in this article that moot's real name is "Christopher Poole"? It is almost common knowledge among 4chan veterans that this is simply a portmanteau of Chris Hansen (host of To Catch a Predator ) and "Pool's Closed", a reference to the raids on Habbo Hotel where users would stand in front of the pools saying, "Sorry, the pool's closed due to AIDS "; the name is also chosen because its initials are CP, short for child pornography , a common topic on 4chan. Unfortunately, I can't find any news articles to support this, but it is quite certain that his real-world name is NOT Christopher Poole. Luksuh ( talk ) 18:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
This article from an NYT-syndicated blog has reported on the basementdad twitter story. Is this worthy of inclusion? Skomorokh 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
There have been several attempts made by users to talk about some of the negative aspects of 4chan by critiquing the methods the site uses to earn income and the content of the site itself. Links to back up these claims from legitimate news sources have been supplied and yet the criticism subsection of the article is consistently deleted.
I understand that users of 4chan are a prominent constituency of wikipedia, but I don't believe that gives this article the right to be invulnerable to criticism. I understand this is a featured article and whatnot, but I believe its NPOV is debatable. I suggest we add a section so readers can weigh both pros and cons of the site. Youtube has such a section, why shouldn't 4chan? -comment added by Shiosai ( talk • contribs ) 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Not trolling see yourself: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFFast ( talk • contribs ) 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
ED reports that 4chan was shut down bu FBI and moot is arrested. Can someone confirm? If it's true it should be included in the article IMHO. 79.178.132.15 ( talk ) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
After the online poll was won by legion, our success went even farther than we could imagine.
Our little mootles has been included in the actual TIME 2009 100 list. The print one.
He was included in the Builders & Titans category, article by Rick Astley .
Article needs updating about YouTube attacks, http://news.google.com/news?&q=4chan .-- Otterathome ( talk ) 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Its not like it mattered anyway, It was all reverted back to normal in a matter of days. And nobody remembers it but you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.154.168 ( talk ) 02:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
Where the article talks about "eggroll" becoming "duckroll" this is wrong. Firstly this would not be filtered as egg was not the entire word and also "egg roll" is two words, anyway. Thus to remain accurate this should read:
In 2005, a meme known as the "duckroll" began, after moot used a word filter to change "egg" to "duck" across 4chan. Thus, words such as "egg roll" were changed to "duck roll". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.248.46 ( talk ) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastshift ( talk • contribs ) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC) [ reply ]
HUUU look at me using the talk page like it's a forum instead of just quickly fixing the error that was pointed out. rzrscm 1:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.115.130 ( talk )
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page .
In telling this story, Poole sounds uncharacteristically perturbed. The presenter "looked at me with this dumb stare, so the next day I brought in my laptop" and showed her some of 4chan's metrics. "She said, 'Oh, wow.' "
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suicide of a Canadian student that took place on October 10, 2012
A screenshot of Todd's YouTube video
^ Jump up to: a b "Canadian teen found dead weeks after posting wrenching YouTube video detailing bullying" . Fox News . October 12, 2012. Archived from the original on June 7, 2013 . Retrieved April 21, 2013 .
^ Jump up to: a b "Amanda Todd suspect Aydin Coban writes open letter proclaiming innocence" . cbc.ca . CBC News . Archived from the original on July 9, 2015.
^ "B.C. judge rules Amanda Todd's name can be reported during cyberbullying
Wet Cum Shot
Short Hair Nude Teens
Jodie Marsh Young