Jump to content

Talk:Project Chanology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FMAFan1990 (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 22 March 2009 (→Violations of WP:NOR policy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleProject Chanology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2008Articles for deletionKept
February 13, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
February 28, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 28, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 12, 2008Good article reassessmentListed
Current status: Good article

Valkyrie

The film Valkyrie, starring and produced by Tom Cruise, had a premiere in New York on December 17. Entertainment reporter Roger Friedman noted that it was held "in the private screening room at the Time Warner Center. Not the Ziegfield or Loews Lincoln Square, where most premieres are held in public."[1] The venue was chosen in part to minimize the exposure to Scientology protestors gathered at the Time Warner Center.[2][3] For the same reason, Cruise arrived at the December 18 Los Angeles screening through an underground tunnel.[3] There were also Scientology protests at the European premiere in Berlin,[4][5] where one protester got his V for Vendetta mask autographed by Tom Cruise.[4] Chanology participants shared the limelight with a person in a bunny suit protesting against the hero worship of Claus von Stauffenberg.[4][5]

Added this in. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article out of date. Where is Brave Agent Pubeit?

reliable source news link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/15/2009-01-15_greasy_vandal_in_hate_crime_vs_scientolo.html
youtube video of the event: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrZk0C91mfg
youtube video of it on TV news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFZiSyzcBaQ
another reliable source news link: http://www.examiner.com/r-5514326~Video__When_Hairy_Met_Scientology.html


I hope others can find more sources. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here's another source.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_man_who_filmed_petroleum_jellycovered_sc.html

To sum up what happened:

Brave Agent Filmit
Agent Filmit was very brave
He walked along with Pubeit And dug himself a grave.

--Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There more stuff if someone wants to search. Oh and here's a nice news artcle http://news.ninemsn.com/technology/751795/anonymous-gears-up-for-anniversary-protest too Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will take a look at that news article. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When pubeit goes to trial and is made an example out of by scientology's lawyers, they'll be even more news coverage. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section on Pubeit, please let me know what you think. What a brave soul. Firestorm Talk 05:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks pretty good. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should it also be mentioned that Jacob Speregen is a member Phi Theta Kappa? 1 199.219.129.1 (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless it has been mentioned in a secondary source as related to the incident. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous now thinks Chanology is gay?

The Encyclopedia Dramatica tl;dr article on Chanology has the following at the top "Project Chanology is now considered gay by most chans. Posting about it will get you b&, your IP posted. The project still lives on at 888chan 67chan and 37chan". I skimmed through the article but didn't see any reason as to what happened. We need to update this article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica is not an acceptable source. WP:RS/WP:V secondary source? Cirt (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking on 4chan might be an excellent way to verify the truth. 71.220.215.168 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an WP:RS/WP:V secondary source. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If two anonymous wiki's aren't an "is not an acceptable source", then what is? --Rolontloss (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read WP:RS and WP:V. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia Dramatica isn't a wiki for Anonymous. Anonymous simply has used it and they have encouraged it for traffic. Some anonys have even become sysops, but the main people who own and run Encyclopedia Dramatica are a bunch of people from LiveJournal who never have been part of Anonymous. There's various wikis for Anonymous and they're either dead (wikichan), get little traffic (lurkmoar), or are private wikis (shii's and p0ri's wikis). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

partyvan.info is alive and was setup by LEADERS of anonymous, the place where the raids come from. Anonymous is not just some "LOL WE TALK ANONYMOUSLY" there is a leader and people out there that actually control its users. and Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a bunch of people from LiveJournal. Please "lurk moar". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolontloss (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM. This talk page is for discussion of improvement to this article, not discussion of the subject matter itself. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been a while; nice to see this page is still alive. Regardless, there are no verifiable sources that say Anon regards Chanology as "gay." Unfortunately, despite being the source of the project itself, the chans are NOT acceptable sources. Neither are the wikis. For the record, the partyvan.info wiki is not affiliated with any chan, and can't be considered the "leader" of anonymous by any means. the_one092001 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly Guy Fawkes masks

The masks are from the 4chan meme "Epic Fail Guy", not from Guy Fawkes directly. Epic Fail Guy has a mask made out of Guy Fawkes' face. (Not made to look like his face, EFG is literally wearing Guy Fawkes's face.) 71.220.215.168 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This bit is already in the article with a secondary source. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to this article by User:Are you ready for IPv6? violate WP:NOR

Are you ready for IPv6? (talk · contribs) has continued to violate WP:NOR on this article, and also inserted unsourced material, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], despite warnings to the contrary [6], [7], [8]. This is inappropriate and risks the article losing its WP:GA-quality status rating, and the disruption should please stop. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to fix things, but you edit the page every 30 seconds and I get an edit conflict 99% of the time, I lose all the work, and am unable to do anything. Then I have to deal with you spamming templates at my talk page instead of talking like a human being. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a template on your talk page once. The subsequent postings have been of my own writing. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Cirt here. The edits do appear to violate NOR, and from an outside perspective, his revert was justified. With such a controversial topic, it's very important for the sources and the information to be as sound as possible. Therefore, I'd ask you to discuss this on the talk page fully, so you can justify your additions. I cannot see that so far. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You never looked at my last edit. You looked at an old edit before I changed to Cirt's version. After that, I added a ref Cirt had put in earlier. I then went and cleaned up some extra spacing in templates. this is the final diff You never looked at my last version, you just blindly reverted. My last edit after you was not a revert either, [10] as it entailed me fixing a mistake I made in a previous edit but keeping the template shortening. The article is oversized cleaning up extra spaces is really needed. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the material in question you object to? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This event is different from where Scientology has claimed for a year Anonymous was using bombs.[6]

= violation of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I do not appreciate being lied to. The version you reverted back to still contained the principle source of the dispute: The problematic CNN source. You did not self-revert back to Cirt's version minus the whitespace, you kept the source there. If we're going to have a discussion, keep it honest, please. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to his incident, Scientology had reported other incidents, which were bomb threats.[6]" Is this better or is it unsalvageable? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The source about the bomb threats. Is it a bad source? Or is it the text by it you don't like? Or both?

Okay, also for the stuff you removed and I didn't put back in when I was able to finish editing without edit conflicts. Youtube videos... now WP:RS and WP:Verifiability not only change many times a day, they do not mention them. They basically claim that a video of the incident, even if self-published, is a reliable source. In fact, a video, despite being self-published, is more accurate than any media source. ?? Then there's one source I don't think I added (and I lost the URL, too) because I lost like most of my edits in an edit conflict, but it was a youtube of a news broadcast about the incident on channel 7, too. Well asking about that, too?? Also you had no problem with these sources I added [12] and [13], even though they were blogs. I was considering removing those additions I made myself, but you for some reason liked them.

Also, I've also seen thousands of articles where, well to put into an anology, would be like if Mark Bunker said something on a mailing list (this is only as an anology) or on alt.religion.scientology (this is only as an anology) and well, I've seen tons of articles where people not only have those in, but they outright say it's quite fine to have that stuff in. So... well I don't even how how to phrase the right question about this??? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sufficiently clued up on this topic to judge the quality of the blog posts, because I'm an outside editor here. However, blogs, though generally frowned upon, can be used as sources so long as the author/site is reputable. Blog responses and such are obviously disregarded as sources, because 99% of the time, the content is inadmissible. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other stuff I asked about RS and V? When I was editing lots of people came by. When I asked a lot of questions, most of them stayed away. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the above quoted problem sentence as WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal and would have done so myself. Please discuss the additions as they aren't non-controversial. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt, please address my questions on reliable sources and verifiability I asked you before in the long comment post here above. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with what has already been said by PeterSymonds (talk · contribs). Which source in particular would you like to add back in? Cirt (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
youtube stuff? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would pretty much specifically violate WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about if it's a video of the evening news? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then linking to it violates WP:COPYLINKS - but if you have enough information on the source itself so as to satisfy WP:V, you can cite the news source without linking to YouTube. Which source are we talking about? Cirt (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the one I lost in an edit conflict that I never added as I lost the URL. It was some youtube of a channel 7 news report on pubeit. Now why do say the actual video of the pubeit incident is not allowed. It can't be original research since the cameraman and pubeit are both in jail so it would be a secondary source. Plus what I mentined earlier that most people on Wikipedia consider what someone said on a mailing list to be a valid source. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, none of what you just mentioned would satisfy WP:RS. And please stop referring to this individual as "pubeit". Cirt (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the individual himself, as well as the Chanology community, refer to him as Agent Pubeit. The 9News article refers to him as such also, which meets WP:RS. Firestorm Talk 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will take a look at that source. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy fawkes/EFG?

This article incorrectly states that EFG is 4Chan's name for guy fawkes, this is not true. He did not wear the mask from the beginning, he got it in 2006. In one "episode" of EFG, Guy Fawkes threatens him with a lawsuit, further proving he's not intended to be Guy Fawkes.--86.87.28.191 (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V for this assertion? Cirt (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply remove the offending piece. We don't need to explain the etymology of every *chan meme. Just say that they are Guy Fawkes masks based on the *chan character of EFG, and don't assert either way that EFG is or is not Guy Fawkes. As was already presented, the mask that EFG wears is in fact made from the real face of Guy Fawkes, but it'd be hard to find a source for that. So to balance both factual correctness with sources, simply cut the incorrect part, and don't replace it until we have a verifiable source. the_one092001 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There already are reliable sources satisfying WP:V backing up the current info in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link for that source is dead. Ukvilly (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the info, source, and dead link. Cirt (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest sock disruption

Apparently in addition to DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), we now have YesOn8 (talk · contribs) using socks to disrupt this article:

Some of the more recent socks used to revert to the same material in this article. More info here, here, here, and here. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing issue. If anybody else makes that same edit to this article, it is safe to assume that they are also either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and should be blocked. So if anyone is reading this and considering changing the article in that same way, then don't. You will be held accountable. Firestorm Talk 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this comment by Firestorm (talk · contribs). I am adding some more socks that have disrupted this article to the above list. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YesOn8/Archive, users investigating YesOn8 (talk · contribs) also thought that YesOn8 was itself a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of WP:NOR policy

[14] and then again [15] = violations of WP:NOR policy. This should be removed from the article. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no it should not. I tried to go to the site, but it was down. Please assume good faith. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source to back up this claim? Cirt (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant link has been added. FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Roger Friedman (2008-12-15). "Cruise 'Feeble' in Valkyrie". Fox 411/FoxNews.com. Retrieved 2008-12-16.
  2. ^ Courtney Hazlett (2008-12-15). "Group bungles protest at 'Valkyrie' premiere". msnbc.com. Retrieved 2008-12-16.
  3. ^ a b Hall, Alan (December 19, 2008). "Slender Tom Cruise takes to the red carpet for premiere.... but anti-Scientology protesters steal the show again". Mail Online. Retrieved December 28, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  4. ^ a b c "Anonymous vs. Scientology: Tom Cruise signiert Maske". Heise Online (in German). Heinz Heise. January 21, 2008. Retrieved January 21, 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b Punkt 9 (in German). RTL Television. Event occurs at 0:11:06-0:12:53. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |date2= ignored (help)
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference roberts0508 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology&oldid=278881586"