I could go on /b/ right now, and post that I will go kill a Mexican man in NYC today. 4chan's anon whatsit pretty much prevents the ability to ever prove anyone ever is a user of it, or what posts they do make, even if 4chan is in their bookmarks, like it is in mine. The guy who did the Dawson College shootings, he was for sure a VampireFreaks user, because he had a profile and so forth. You can't really prove that he was a user. This is about 4chan itself, not about someone who might've maybe used it but definately shot people up and killed himself. daranz 16:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I don't quite understand this obsession with linking every single psycho who goes on a shooting spree as being a /b/tard, but I do think it's somewhat inappropriate to put on the page about 4chan. The post was made 2 hours after the shooting started. Should Pekka-Eric's posts on 4chan be mentioned? 90.231.13.132 13:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC) They weren't his. ( talk) -Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Who removed the Wikichan link? It's a wiki dedicated to the *chans, I think it's relevant enough to include in this article. The link should last a while because the thread is stickied.

It would be nice if moot made this image free license so it can be put in this article. If you want to reword it to seem more authoratative, feel free to. Just letting people know that 4chan is back online and I have edited the page to reflect this. I'm not sure why it's in 'controversy', though since it's more of a history thing.

this odd self revert edit of mine was because I thought someone removed the link and I didn't see they just moved it. Any thoughts? William Ortiz 03:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Possibly, 4chanarchive may only be worth linking to as reference for histories of the site. Aside from 4chan itself, I think moot's blog about 4chan (provided it is run by moot) and the 4chan archive site (since it archives threads and isn't something like a wiki) are worthy links.

4chan archive 219 indiana thread