Talk:Nanochan

nanochanray

We can debate what does or doesn't belong in this article, but it's not appropriate to silently replace the link with a third-party clone site that most of the users of the original site want nothing to do with. Insert (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2023 (CET)

That isn't what it is, though. It's the only remaining instance after a dispute between two rival administrators of the site, of which one has shut his copy down and the other has not. Not "third party" and not a clone either.Wikiist (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2023 (CET)

What the fuck is "rival administrator" supposed to mean? Hikari was never an administrator of any sort on nanochan, he was what was known as a "trial volunteer" with less privileges than a 4chan janny. This is the best theory about who runs nanoray as far as I know, although as far as I know there's no proof and it's based on observing his and the nanoray admin's behavior. But there's certainly no evidence that the nanoray admin was ever an admin at nanochan. If you have any proof of something different, show me. In any case, replacing the site link without any indication it is a clone run by a different person with different principles instead of a voluntary transfer is not acceptable. Insert (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2023 (CET)

And if by "rival administrators" you mean rival administrators of two different websites, one of which had its contents duplicated from the other, then that's exactly what a third-party clone is. Insert (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (CET)

In any case, feel free to explain your "rival administrators" narrative in the page, but don't just silently change the link. Explain what happened in your view, preferably with evidence, and let other users add corroborating or contradicting evidence.Insert (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2023 (CET)

Also if you're going to remove content, provide a reason for removing the content. Insert (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (CET)

It's pretty clear by now that you (Ook) are running the clone site, and that's why you want to change the link to point there. Look, you can't just make a copy of a dead site and declare yourself the arbiter of its history and culture. At best, assuming the community accepted your site as the continuation of the old one (something that doesn't appear to have happened), you would have some influence over the next chapter of the site's history. Insert (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2023 (CET)

Page has caught the attention of Lambdaplusjs

Relevant thread: [1]

If you're here from there, please consider adding some more material to this article or even starting a page about Lambdaplusjs. Insert (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2023 (CET)

About reverting

I am in consensus with Insert that the changes made are relevant and should not be reverted. So do not revert them, it's 3k lines now. Reverting it over and over again expecting things to change is the definition of lunacy. Have a civil discussion and mention why each line is wrong, and give examples as to how to change them.