Talk:711chan to carry on the fight

Last Line
Perhaps a little too POV. If it is then feel free to remove it, I just couldn't help sticking it in there. Fallen-Griever 10:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also an duplicate of Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped". DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a duplicate, as that article doesn't focus on 711chan and focuses on a completely different matter. The quotes I have used from that article are not looked at in detail and not followed up, hence I think they warrant a new article in order to comment on them properly. Fallen-Griever 11:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything here is a rerun of news we already did. Nothing new here. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The 711chan response was completely ignored and put to one side in the other article, whereas their original comment on "stopping the war" got it's own article. Therefore, I think this retraction too deserves it's own article so people can properly follow the course of events without having to look at an article which is seemingly unrelated (as the other article is about the CoS reponse rather than about 711chan). In fact, the 711chan stuff in the other article should probably be removed, it's just been tagged in there as if to help expand the article to a more decent length, and it hasn't been commented on properly. I consider this an expansion on something which was largely ignored rather than a repost, and I'm also going to request that the 711chan comments be removed from the other article as they serve no purpose in that article on their own without any decent commentary to support them. Fallen-Griever 11:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * there is no need for another article. the one is published and already there. Copying news from one article to another, does not make it a new article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said this was new, I said these comments deserve their own article and I have - as such - produced said new article. If the statement "711chan calls Anonymous to stop" etc. deserved its own article then so does the retraction to that statement, if only to make sure people do not get confused about what is going on. I don't want to see such a retraction buried as if it never happened, which is essentially what has happened with this comment. Fallen-Griever 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much
There are already two stories on CoS up today. Can we leave off on this and have things compiled so we have more detail and a stream of news as opposed to a flood? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't really consider this a CoS article - this is more a follow-up to the 711chan story published earlier in the week than another article about the CoS. Sure, it's about 711chan's reaction to the "War on Scientology", but I wouldn't consider it in the same area. In fact, I wouldn't have used the Scientology template if an Anonymous one or a 711chan one existed. Fallen-Griever 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Publish?
No...no sources...no new news...complete copy and paste from article listed in first comment at top of page. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be new news, it's supposed to be a more appropriate way of displaying the news. This clearly leads to less confusion over the situation at 711chan - especially since you seem to be completely against any sort of hint that Plasma might have retracted his original statement. What is it you have to hide? Stop burying the news. Republished. Fallen-Griever 12:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Un,ess this is NEW news, conforms to policy and such, it will not be published. There is NOTHING new here. It is ALL copy and paste. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you? This is an attempt to make this story (the story of 711chan's "closure") easier to follow. It clearly achieves that goal. It will also tidy up the other article to make the other article more specific to the issue it is trying to tackle. Equally, this article is sourced despite you thinking it is not. The added quotes I gave are from the 711chan website and are publically viewable on their imageboards. 711chan does not allow direct linking to specific articles, therefore you'll just have to look for them yourself. But they are there, somewhere on the /i/ board. Fallen-Griever 12:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirected
I redirected this to Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped", per above comments, per comments at the talk page for Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped". Cirt 12:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, but if that's the case then why wasn't the title for the "711chan tells Anonymous to stop attacks" article changed when there was a shitload more support for that change than there is for this article to be redirected? Oh, wait, admins stick together right? BS. Fallen-Griever 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)