Jump to content

Talk:4chan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article4chan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 14, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 14, 2004Articles for deletionKept
February 16, 2006Articles for deletionKept
August 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 6, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 23, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
May 14, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

you should add the theat against stortinget to the article

[edit]

2 bomb threats was posted against stortinget on april 2th. source: nrk. links can not be possted however. i did try. 84.208.108.74 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the information to the article. TurboSuperA+ () 14:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

[edit]

Excuse me, but I would like to request to edit this page. 50.39.228.27 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding /bant/

[edit]

It was created in 2017, not 2014. Source: [1]https://www.4chan.org/blotter. Please fix. 65.92.98.176 (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edited, waiting for approval. Ven3u69 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 4chan being hacked

[edit]

I know not much information has come out around the VERY recent hacking, but keep in mind this would be trivial to include in the article, once more info comes out. Qrunch2 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They leaked the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE and doxxed ALL THE MODS
4chan is --> was? The site is down now
Also the last thing posted was CHICKEN JOCKEY DatChernobylGuy (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun just published this article.
But still, I don't think that's enough. Better wait. Katsumi a.k.a. Upperdecker2562 (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below for not including The Sun, as it is not a reliable source. Knitsey (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Katsumi a.k.a. Upperdecker2562 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I remember that Wikipedia editors are the hugest dunces in the world when they lock articles to “protect against vandalism” but can’t be assed to add up to date information, meanwhile shit like the Ukraine war or Hamas-Israel conflict gets constant updates and corrections regardless of “source reliability”
Add this shit to the article, the website is going down, soyjak.party unironically won. 69.9.82.206 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KnowYourMeme

[edit]

@Knitsey: reliability of a source is dependent on context and I'm 99% sure KnowYourMeme is reliable enough for information I added. MinervaNeue (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A major site being down needs reliable sourcing. This isn't a trivial issue. Can I suggest you take it to the article talk page, there is a thread already started there. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought this was a response on your talk page. I'm a humpty. Sorry about that. Knitsey (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a major issue for 4chan, this would need reliable sources for its inclusion. The sources you added are user generated and are completely unsuitable for the claims, especially when including the username you added. Knitsey (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then can it be shortened to just "On 15th April 2025, 4chan was hacked." before there's reliable enough sourcing? MinervaNeue (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs reliable sources. There is a suggestion above that The Sun article should be included, but The Sun (United Kingdom) is also unreliable. This list is not exhaustive, but might help Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Knitsey (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should find a reliable source instead of just deleting the information. 4chan is obviously down and mainstream media is widely reporting on the leak. 149.167.186.203 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BURDEN. Knitsey (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason you couldn't have just left a tag for needing a better citation. Taking it upon yourself to remove the information which was obviously true is a great example of Wikipedia editors have a reputation for being such dogmatic, unreasonable, prissy nerds. 149.167.186.203 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The information in the edit was of such a nature, site shut down, named editors etc, that suitable sources were needed. This has now been done by another editor. We return to the onus being on the editor adding the info. There wasn't any rush, Wikipedia isn't a source for breaking news, especially when unverified. Knitsey (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you're obsessed with WP:RS, but WP:COMMONSENSE should also apply. When a global site like 4chan goes down and it's being discussed all over the internet, maybe you don't need to act like a digital hall monitor. Nobody’s saying rely solely on KnowYourMeme, but nuking the whole thing instead of tagging it is ridiculous. 149.167.186.203 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not surprised looking at your contributions that 90% of it is reverting other people's edits and then lecturing them on their talk pages?
See WP:KYM. It is user generated and is generally not considered a suitable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]