I think that this at least warrants a section in 4chan#Anonymity, as /b/ was forced anon for so long but isn't any longer. MrVacBob 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)ĭang, I'm gone for a day and this thread erupts. The event as a whole did but I don't think it's notable.
"moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods?" didn't happen. Wo o ty Woot? contribs 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) I don't think we're supposed to use images to circumvent the need for reliable sources or verification. Anyone interested in re/b/oot should check dramatica or wikichan. As for sources the image already used in 4chan#Anonymity should be fine to verify the use of the term 're/b/oot' as official. Didn't happen? Having Cotton-Eyed Joe stuck in my head the last few weeks begs to differ, unless you are refering to the 'banning the mods' bit which I assume is just rumour. No, you shouldn't mention things that didn't happen. Wo o ty Woot? contribs 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Similarly, I can't add "so I herd that Tirus lieks Mudkips" to the Mudkip article because no reliable source has said so. If nobody has reported on the re/b/oot, we can't talk about it. Guest 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Wooty, would you do the honors, (simply because i dont know how to report speculation.) Tirus 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC) We do not report speculation, "Guest", we are an encyclopedia, a collection of what other people say, not a gossip column or a newspaper. Part of the function of Wikipedia is to report on things very sources, sure, but obviously you both heard it somewhere just label it as speculation. Just label it as heresay / temporary news. 
Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Think we should metion anything about moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods? Tirus 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Not unless we have sources.
0 kommentar(er)
