Talk:Pikachu virus

Windows Live mail?

Does this virus affect Windows live mail? --77.98.248.81 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, it arrives as an executable attached to the e-mail, so it would have to be manually run. Most modern e-mail programs make the user jump through hoops to run an executable attachment, if they allow it at all. This worm uses an interface called MAPI to send mail once it's run, and as far as I know, Windows Live Mail doesn't enable it by default. However, it wouldn't be harmless; this worm also has a destructive payload(though in the well-known version, it's pretty lame), or a parasitic virus could hitch a ride. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; it wouldn't really affect that sort of program. I've only seen it on Windows '96, if that. The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Infected page?

Hello, Whenever I access this page, my AVG Free pops up and warns me that a threat has been detected. Is my antivirus misreading the file name, or is one of the links or images on this page infected? Thanks! --184.58.99.210 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added hidden comments inside the "delete everything" DOS commands. Maybe that will help? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just turned out to be yet another AVG false positive. Thanks anyway. --184.58.99.210 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible move

I'm not sure a virus can be named according to what the page it can be downloaded from looks like instead of what the virus does. If different page for downloading the exact same virus existed instead, would that have made the virus have a different name? According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Java update virus, there is no virus called the Java update virus, so maybe the same goes for the Pikachu virus. I don't see any of the sources calling it the Pikachu virus in the body of the article and one of them instead refers to it as a virus starring Pikachu. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia doesn't coin any words. How confusing would it be if this article mentioned nothing about an email discussing Pikachu and instead said it could be downloaded from a popup redirect to a page telling you to update Java and you were confused why it was called the Pikachu virus and without anyone knowing it, it turned out that it used to be downloadable from an email mentioning Pikachu and then later, the exact same virus became downloadable from a web page telling you to update Java but people didn't spread the information enough for it to be known about in this generation? Blackbombchu (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason this article is called the "Pikachu virus" is because that is what the virus is called. Obviously. Although it is more commonly known as the PokeVirus or Pokemon Virus, it apparently is also called the Pikachu Virus and how they arrived at that name is obviously irrelevant.                     ~Rayvn  11:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

E-mail subject line incorrect

"It arrived in the form of an e-mail titled "Pikachu Pokemon [sic]" with the subject "Pikachu is your friend." Well which is it? Can't be both. Either the subject line says "Pikachu Pokemon" or it says "Pikachu is your friend." Pick the correct one and edit.                     ~Rayvn  11:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pikachu virus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.accountingweb.com/topic/technology/pikachu-virus-begins-grow

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

Are we sure it's a good idea to have a way the virus might have worked in the article? 173.28.188.39 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

A few weeks ago, I changed the infobox image from an image on commons with Pikachu blurred out, to a fair use image containing the copyrighted content. This was reverted back only a few days ago, as @QU3ST4F1RE stated that the image change was not that necessary. I uploaded the fair use file because I thought the inclusion of the whole dialog would better represent the malware's payload (at the expense of it being fair use), so the blurring of part of it would make the image mostly text. Should either the fair use or blurred image be used, or would it be easier to represent the dialog's contents textually? Xeroctic (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assume that most people will correctly infer what the dialog would look like without looking at an external non-fair source, due to the subject's name, and the blur's resultant glob of colors. I deemed it not necessary due to this reasoning. QU3ST4F1RE (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Passing by as a non-expert in copyright, it strikes me as excessive caution not to use a fair use photo – what Pikachu looks like in the particular image seems relevant and not what I expected before looking it up off wiki. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. For reference, the good-rated article for the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic, a similar situation, does not blur out the Mooninite. Atubofsilverware (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Mooninite isn't blurred due to being an actual photo, maybe? I think the system behind fair-use imagery is a little chaotic/archaic depending on how its applied, but in Mooninite's case, it's a real photo taken by a real human and then used under the license for the article. The image for the Pikachu Virus is a screenshot from a computer, and usually a virtual machine. I don't think any of those protections tend to apply? Might have to pull someone with a little more knowledge on this QU3ST4F1RE (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Left a note at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a fairly poor example to use here; neither of the pictures of the Mooninite in 2007 Boston Mooninite panic fall under fair-use policies; they're both just legitimate pictures of it, free of the fair-use policy, and furthermore, one could probably argue that simple shapes like the Mooninite couldn't really be copyrighted.

As for the image being discussed, I find the blurred version to be a lot more legible. As QU3ST4F1RE pointed out, one could very easily infer what the blurred portion is supposed to be given both the name of the article and the appearance of the blur, and the fair-use image makes the text just about completely unreadable. I'd say being able to actually read the message is more important than including a copyrighted piece of artwork in the image that the reader will almost certainly be aware is what the blurred portion contains.

Per WP:NFCCP and WP:FREER, the standard of "No free equivalent" applies here. The blurred version is the free equivalent and should be used here. A guideline shouldn't really be negated just so the article can show a low-res piece of copyrighted art, especially given that the image that actually shows the art makes all of the text next to it illegible. 177.86.83.231 (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

rabbit

"rabbit-like creature" pikachu is a mouse lol. or at least, making it more generic like "rodent" might be more fitting? 47.185.246.46 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's what the ABC source said, so I wrote that in originally. After doing some research, surprisingly, this is of some debate. The Pokedex says he's a mouse, but the designer of Pikachu, Atsuko Nishida, says that is not so. I've changed it to mouse-like creature Atubofsilverware (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)