![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The article is correct in that it did not originate on Something Awful. The original site for the distribution of this image, regretably, does not wish publicity or for its name to be linked to this image. The user who put together this image is still more than welcome to claim ownership. Unfortunately, while true, nothing in this paragraph is particularly verifyable, so it is not appropriate to place inside of the article itself. -- 68.229.247.45 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this entry is a complete travesty. Regardless of the nay-sayers objections, this image and its history deserve much more than what has been given here; it is a remarkable piece of internet history that should not be forgotten.
That said, I'd like to request that someone knowledgeable in the etymology of the image review and clean up this article. As it is today, there are 3 different time periods listed for when the image was created and just as many named creators. If the true origination of the image cannot be determined precisely, it would be best to simply say so, rather than sporadically naming all the possibilities.
Also, this Talk page needs to be cleaned up as well; half of it is completely irrelevant. BurntSky 08:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what did they want to say? Was it religious like don't masturbate, protect the cats or something like that? Why was it sent? Who sent it ? (a religous group or animal protection group?) -- Jondel 00:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that this is appropriate for an encylopedia. Can anyone show me why it should be here? -- Josiah 03:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is the assertion that the phrase was "familiar to most internet users" at all accurate and verifiable? Unless the definition of "internet user" somehow goes beyond someone who at some point casually uses the internet, I think this statement is quite an overstatement. Can someone rephrase it? There are more "internet users" than teenagers who haunt slashdot and similar sites. -- R. fiend 06:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion I saw it before March 2002, the time of origin currently quoted in the article. I think that I first saw it in 2001, or perhaps even 2000. -- jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)
I could've swore the base image of the domokuns chasing the cat originated on dreamless.org in the 08 - Meaningless section of the forum during a routine photoshopping contest. It wasn't until later that the second cat along with the catchphrase was layered over the top. --Sean
I just deleted the link to XXXchurch, since when I clicked on it, it killed my Galeon process and thinking it was a spam link. I now see that it might be relevant. If you put it back, please add some warning. -- Dylan Thurston 05:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed this: "In Yoshiyuki Sadamoto's manga adaptation of Neon Genesis Evangelion, the angel Kaworu Nagisa is seen strangling a stray kitten out of pity."
It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. -- Tony Sidaway 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there really a space after the three periods? -- HappyCamper 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the article: "...such as one that says "Every time you masturbate,
Mack Brown loses another big game. Please, think of the Longhorns." The kitten being chased by the Domo-Kun is replaced by a Texas Longhorns running back, and the close-up of the kitten's face is replaced by a frustrated looking Texas coach Mack Brown. The parody referred to a long losing streak Brown had against top-10 teams prior to the 2005 Rose Bowl."
Google turns up 1 hit on "Every time you masturbate, Mack Brown loses another big game." and that hit is this article.
Even limiting the quotes to just the first phrase ("Every time you masturbate" Mack Brown loses another big game) generate no non-Wikipedia-mirror hits.
If anyone can find a
citable source, then please cite it and restore the information to the article. Thanks,
Johntex\
talk 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The caption under the picture says "This is not the original image, as the original says 'Lie', not 'Masturbate' "
This information isn't in the article itself. Either the caption is wrong, or that additional information should be incorporated into the article itself. 69.120.160.97 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=time+you+wikipedia ( via). -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19 t19:39z
in links section of page there's link to http://www.cincinato.org/cajon/informatico_dios_gatito.jpg
something like domokun: kitten joke. the link seems to open one broken image with ad text. since the image is broken it only shows ad "please visit my websites to support balbal" and long list of websites. i find this clearly advertising and i dont understand why is the link there in the first place.
i suggest it to be removed. -- 80.221.2.1 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed that this one wasn't deleted. The phrase has been around far longer than the mid-nineties as speculated and although I can not provide a source, this is not an original saying. This article is about a photoshopped picture, not an internet meme. I don't think this even qualifies as a meme since the saying was a bit of humor from before the internet was popular. The fact that so many people want to keep this page should not stand in the way of its deletion, since those people obv. don't read wikipedia's rules. Flying Hamster 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on the lack of independent reliable refs, I voted to delete or merge, but now that the result is keep, I checked GBS and sure enough there are some reliable refs to be cited; so some of you guys who voted to keep should do the work and add them now, OK? Dicklyon 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article says the "image created by a member of the humorous British website B3ta in 2002." but this is incorrect. The image was created by a fark member at fark.com.
Even B3TA own site supports this:
http://www.b3ta.com/features/awards2003/
"3. Every Time You Masturbate, God Kills a Kitten (fark forums) This picture, which first appeared on Fark, was so popular that the kitten is now named "Cliché Kitty". And they now refer to porn with "protect your kittens."
Moebiusstrip 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I ran across an article from a July 22, 2007 issue of the New York Times ("Hello, Kitschy" by Rob Walker). It was discussing the history of a new Nicktoons program that features the Domo character. The argument is that it was possible for Nicktoons to find a market for this show because for years this character has been subject of photoshop manipulations on the web. The article makes an explicit reference to this image of the kitten (I'll include the whole paragraph here):
"In fact, any major exhibition on the history of clowning around on the Internet would have to include a particularly infamous image: a stock-photography kitten appears, via digital manipulation, to be fleeing two angry monsters -- Domo dolls, of course. Resembling a public-service ad, with text that is sophomoric, funny and not worth printing here, it has been referenced and forwarded so many times that a Wired column suggesting a fanciful course on Photoshop for the Web included this homework assignment: Convince someone that you made that one picture with the kitten running from Domo-kun."
As New York Times and Wired articles seem to help make things notable, this seems like relevant information. The interesting thing is that I remembered the photo but forgot the "sophomoric" phrase. The number one search result on google for my search for "kitten domo" was the wikipedia article. I'm glad the article hadn't been deleted.
That being said, I don't know if it's really info. for the article as the author is creating a narrative that places this image into a much bigger, and perhaps more socially significant, story. DPerkel 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is "photoshopped" a word? I saw it in the article and was quite surprised but then looked at the comments here and it seems people use it a lot in here. So maybe it is a proper word, like "googled" - there's lots of argument around " googling" but I can agree that not to be an error. "Photoshopping", however, makes an obvious reference to a closed-source program (taking away your freedoms, and all that stuff), and I don't hear it often in my environment. Balrog-kun ( talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Googling "everytime" do find the grammatical difference between "everytime" and "every time," I found this as the third search result. Maybe my fault for thinking "everytime" was a word, but still, this is absurd.-- Ellissound ( talk) 09:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a new meme every other week on the Internet. I don't see a wikipedia page for Bad Luck Brian or Scumbag Steve. Gtwy ( talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
The article is correct in that it did not originate on Something Awful. The original site for the distribution of this image, regretably, does not wish publicity or for its name to be linked to this image. The user who put together this image is still more than welcome to claim ownership. Unfortunately, while true, nothing in this paragraph is particularly verifyable, so it is not appropriate to place inside of the article itself. -- 68.229.247.45 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this entry is a complete travesty. Regardless of the nay-sayers objections, this image and its history deserve much more than what has been given here; it is a remarkable piece of internet history that should not be forgotten.
That said, I'd like to request that someone knowledgeable in the etymology of the image review and clean up this article. As it is today, there are 3 different time periods listed for when the image was created and just as many named creators. If the true origination of the image cannot be determined precisely, it would be best to simply say so, rather than sporadically naming all the possibilities.
Also, this Talk page needs to be cleaned up as well; half of it is completely irrelevant. BurntSky 08:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, what did they want to say? Was it religious like don't masturbate, protect the cats or something like that? Why was it sent? Who sent it ? (a religous group or animal protection group?) -- Jondel 00:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that this is appropriate for an encylopedia. Can anyone show me why it should be here? -- Josiah 03:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is the assertion that the phrase was "familiar to most internet users" at all accurate and verifiable? Unless the definition of "internet user" somehow goes beyond someone who at some point casually uses the internet, I think this statement is quite an overstatement. Can someone rephrase it? There are more "internet users" than teenagers who haunt slashdot and similar sites. -- R. fiend 06:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have a strong suspicion I saw it before March 2002, the time of origin currently quoted in the article. I think that I first saw it in 2001, or perhaps even 2000. -- jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)
I could've swore the base image of the domokuns chasing the cat originated on dreamless.org in the 08 - Meaningless section of the forum during a routine photoshopping contest. It wasn't until later that the second cat along with the catchphrase was layered over the top. --Sean
I just deleted the link to XXXchurch, since when I clicked on it, it killed my Galeon process and thinking it was a spam link. I now see that it might be relevant. If you put it back, please add some warning. -- Dylan Thurston 05:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed this: "In Yoshiyuki Sadamoto's manga adaptation of Neon Genesis Evangelion, the angel Kaworu Nagisa is seen strangling a stray kitten out of pity."
It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. -- Tony Sidaway 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there really a space after the three periods? -- HappyCamper 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the article: "...such as one that says "Every time you masturbate,
Mack Brown loses another big game. Please, think of the Longhorns." The kitten being chased by the Domo-Kun is replaced by a Texas Longhorns running back, and the close-up of the kitten's face is replaced by a frustrated looking Texas coach Mack Brown. The parody referred to a long losing streak Brown had against top-10 teams prior to the 2005 Rose Bowl."
Google turns up 1 hit on "Every time you masturbate, Mack Brown loses another big game." and that hit is this article.
Even limiting the quotes to just the first phrase ("Every time you masturbate" Mack Brown loses another big game) generate no non-Wikipedia-mirror hits.
If anyone can find a
citable source, then please cite it and restore the information to the article. Thanks,
Johntex\
talk 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The caption under the picture says "This is not the original image, as the original says 'Lie', not 'Masturbate' "
This information isn't in the article itself. Either the caption is wrong, or that additional information should be incorporated into the article itself. 69.120.160.97 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=time+you+wikipedia ( via). -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19 t19:39z
in links section of page there's link to http://www.cincinato.org/cajon/informatico_dios_gatito.jpg
something like domokun: kitten joke. the link seems to open one broken image with ad text. since the image is broken it only shows ad "please visit my websites to support balbal" and long list of websites. i find this clearly advertising and i dont understand why is the link there in the first place.
i suggest it to be removed. -- 80.221.2.1 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm amazed that this one wasn't deleted. The phrase has been around far longer than the mid-nineties as speculated and although I can not provide a source, this is not an original saying. This article is about a photoshopped picture, not an internet meme. I don't think this even qualifies as a meme since the saying was a bit of humor from before the internet was popular. The fact that so many people want to keep this page should not stand in the way of its deletion, since those people obv. don't read wikipedia's rules. Flying Hamster 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on the lack of independent reliable refs, I voted to delete or merge, but now that the result is keep, I checked GBS and sure enough there are some reliable refs to be cited; so some of you guys who voted to keep should do the work and add them now, OK? Dicklyon 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article says the "image created by a member of the humorous British website B3ta in 2002." but this is incorrect. The image was created by a fark member at fark.com.
Even B3TA own site supports this:
http://www.b3ta.com/features/awards2003/
"3. Every Time You Masturbate, God Kills a Kitten (fark forums) This picture, which first appeared on Fark, was so popular that the kitten is now named "Cliché Kitty". And they now refer to porn with "protect your kittens."
Moebiusstrip 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I ran across an article from a July 22, 2007 issue of the New York Times ("Hello, Kitschy" by Rob Walker). It was discussing the history of a new Nicktoons program that features the Domo character. The argument is that it was possible for Nicktoons to find a market for this show because for years this character has been subject of photoshop manipulations on the web. The article makes an explicit reference to this image of the kitten (I'll include the whole paragraph here):
"In fact, any major exhibition on the history of clowning around on the Internet would have to include a particularly infamous image: a stock-photography kitten appears, via digital manipulation, to be fleeing two angry monsters -- Domo dolls, of course. Resembling a public-service ad, with text that is sophomoric, funny and not worth printing here, it has been referenced and forwarded so many times that a Wired column suggesting a fanciful course on Photoshop for the Web included this homework assignment: Convince someone that you made that one picture with the kitten running from Domo-kun."
As New York Times and Wired articles seem to help make things notable, this seems like relevant information. The interesting thing is that I remembered the photo but forgot the "sophomoric" phrase. The number one search result on google for my search for "kitten domo" was the wikipedia article. I'm glad the article hadn't been deleted.
That being said, I don't know if it's really info. for the article as the author is creating a narrative that places this image into a much bigger, and perhaps more socially significant, story. DPerkel 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Is "photoshopped" a word? I saw it in the article and was quite surprised but then looked at the comments here and it seems people use it a lot in here. So maybe it is a proper word, like "googled" - there's lots of argument around " googling" but I can agree that not to be an error. "Photoshopping", however, makes an obvious reference to a closed-source program (taking away your freedoms, and all that stuff), and I don't hear it often in my environment. Balrog-kun ( talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Googling "everytime" do find the grammatical difference between "everytime" and "every time," I found this as the third search result. Maybe my fault for thinking "everytime" was a word, but still, this is absurd.-- Ellissound ( talk) 09:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a new meme every other week on the Internet. I don't see a wikipedia page for Bad Luck Brian or Scumbag Steve. Gtwy ( talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D-- Coin945 ( talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)