Talk:4chan

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Grammar woes[edit]

I'm troubled by this sentence: "If a moderator could identify a furry, they would ban him or her for a number of months."

It says "they" would ban the furry. Who exactly are they? Certainly not the moderator, because that's a singular noun. From the context of the paragraph, the two candidates are: 1. Something Awful goons 2. The majority of people on 4chan

The page is protected, so I can't make any changes; however, I recommend the replacement of the aforementioned sentence with something along these lines:

"Any furries identified by the moderators would be banned for a number of months." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glasnost (talkcontribs) .

I beg to differ. The use of the word "they" in the above sentence is a long established convention of the English language [1], so the sentence in question is perfectly alright as is. Anyone with English as their first language knows perfectly well that "they" in this case refers to "a moderator". Salmanazar 09:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh, okay. I'm satisfied. I still don't like it, but I guess that's just a stylistic hang-up. Glasnost
Just a note. The page is not protected for registered users (though it perhaps requires a certain length of time being registered). --GreenReaper(talk) 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

4chan and Wikifur[edit]

Its kinda obvious why. Its because somoene periodicly brings it up and orders and invasion

Desu[edit]

"Desu" is placed at the ending of sentences in Japanese...it doesn't really have a meaning in that sense, just a sort of "period" for a sentence [vs desu-yo, which adds emphasis (like a !), or desu-ne, which adds a questioning tone (like the Canadian 'eh' or ?)]. However, looking it up, it's also Engrish slang for "death", so maybe that's the meaning behind it. Dunno. Spaz Kitty 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A word commonly added to the end of sentences in Japan, means "it is/be/are/am" and so on; it's considered more formal than usual and is mainly used when talking to people you don't know or to a superior. Inspired by Suiseiseki from the anime Rozen Maiden, who says it extremely frequently as a kind of catchphrase; she is often simply called DESU because her name is difficult for some people to spell. DESU is often a spam reply when an unwitting newcomer asks for the definition; this was probably inspired by the Dan Kim webcomic where she is constantly repeats desu. It has recently waned in popularity after weeks of constant spamming of the forced meme. It is now banned on /b/. Used often as a spam word during /b/lockades on Habbo. See WikiWorld. ~ Downspin

Its not banned. And its just a meme. Granted one of the more popular and hated memes. -Anonymous

See also[edit]

I don't understand why the extensive See also is needed in various image board articles; doesn't the category they are in provide that information? -- Sine 15:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, what about a imageboard-template? It's just easier to navigate with the information directly in the article. --Conti| 15:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the question, though. Why clutter up the articles with a listing of every image board article when you can get the same thing clicking on the category link?----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's just a personal preference, I guess. A template could be quite small and wouldn't really clutter up articles that are as big as this one. But yeah, categories basically do the job, just not as nice/comfortable, IMHO. --Conti| 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
A couple things: A "See also"s related to an article are easier to see, read and click than clicking on a category, and, two, "Mature image boards" doesn't, read at first glance, as being 2ch related. "Image board", for somebody new and not familiar with the terms visiting the Wikifur, may mean just that, an image board, not a 2ch style board (unless the category were to read as "2ch image boards", then the "See also" would be redundant.) Spirou 17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't follow why the see also is necessary; we don't see also, say, mailing lists that run on the same software. -- Sine 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this? Doesn't take so much space, looks nicer, easy to use and modify as a template, easy navigation. --Conti| 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Boards
2ch | Fchan | WTFur | WTFux | ChanPlz | Onechan | F.A.P (Yiffstar) | Yiff Image Board
Okay, then I need to ask when do we add a "See also" to a related article?. (No being sarcastic or defensive, just trying to comply with the Wikifur formating standard, while trying to make it easier to access related information =] ) Spirou 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's nice, clean, and easily readable Spirou 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
How do we proceed? Spirou 18:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to know what those critical of the see also section think of the template-box. If there are no objections, I can create the template and replace the see also sections with it. --Conti| 18:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that it's been less than four hours since the beginning of this conversation, I would recommend waiting a day or two and see if anyone has else has any input on the subject. Remember, it's a wiki, it's not brain surgery - we're not in any real hurry here :-) While I see why something like this may be nice I'm still not 100% on board with it, if only from a consistency standpoint. If we have a template like this for Image Boards, why not one for MUCKs? Or Conventions? Or any other category with (for example) ten or fewer entries? ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind these templates at all, actually. I'm somewhat of a template fanboy. ;-) Waiting a day or two to get more opinions seems like a good idea. --Conti| 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
See my comment above. I don't understand why image boards need to be referncing each other to this extent (in a see also section or using a template) beyond being within the same category. -- Sine 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
People often don't read category pages - they're more used by experienced wiki users. I think it would be good to start these sorts of templates in cases where there are several related articles. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So, are there still any strong objections to the creation of the template? If not, I'm going to create and add it to the articles soon. :) --Conti| 17:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll defer to the more experienced Wikifolks. Since they don't appear to object, perhaps my concerns are misplaced.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's really just a matter of personal preference. These templates are common practice on Wikipedia, and I think they're quite useful. But this is not Wikipedia of course, so if the editors of WikiFur think the templates are unnecessary, so be it. IMHO, these templates are really neat for readers that aren't that familiar with wikis and they don't really disrupt anything when they're kept small. --Conti| 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think they're great for users who don't visit the wiki often and would like to know more about related topics. In my opinion this is a wikipedia thing we should definitely imitate. :) -- JaeSharp 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the template idea, too.
Before getting too far into that, we might want to implement some policies or guidelines for the "look and feel" of templates. Maybe even have a template for the templates that can be copied when creating a new template. :-) --Douglas Muth 17:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the template and added it to the articles. Feel free to edit, tweak and/or revert me as you please. :) --Conti| 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon's Request[edit]

I believe that I talk for the entire Anonymous Collective when I say that WE DO NOT WANT A 4CHAN ARTICLE ON YOUR SICK PERVERTED FETISHIST WIKIPEDIA CLONE.

Delete this article at once.

By definition, anonymous has no personal information, and so is not subject to our personal information policy. Request deined. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

This portrays /b/ as far too accepting of furfags. Anyone who has spent any time on /b/ can see that the furries on that board are in fact, trolls, and few in number. The vast majority of /b/ is strongly opposed to furries, and goes to great lengths to make their lives miserable, including raids on furry havens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.158.4.243 (talkcontribs) .

そですね?
Seriously, though, I think that GreenReaper would probably manage to come up with some point about all these raids being a minor amusement annoyance to be endured for all the great free publicity they generate. If we get a genuinely interested party to show up for each raid (and subsequent blocking of IP's), then I'd say we're doing fine. --DataBank 21:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
4chan has failed to be a persistent threat to the security of this website, despite multiple attempts. If we can manage it, I don't see why others can't. However, that wasn't what our anonymous visitor was suggesting. In fact, I don't think they are strongly opposed to furries. I think they are opposed to whatever suits their mood at that particular moment. Furries are just a favourite topic. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous IP 68.158.4.243, your statement about whether furries are large or small in number on /b/ is the same sort of question of whether /b/ or the whole of 4chan for that matter have a large percentage of pedophiles. Or are most of them trolls pretending to be pedos? We know pedos exist on 4chan and there's pedo-interest, macros like pedobear, and sometimes people even sneak child porn in there, but how many really. On /b/, people talk like 4chan, and /b/ especially, is mostly pedophiles. Tretonin 04:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To GreenReaper, i'm sure if they wanted to they could take down this website and the forums, there probably wasn't any serious invasions, but anonymous and /b/ of course -Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.194.90 (talkcontribs)

Caturday[edit]

Caturday is not a saturday version of furry friday. It is the mass posting of Cats. Not cat porn or furry cat art. LURK MOAR AND GTFO. DRRDRRDRR 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Truth, /b/ gets very pissed if you try doing furry in a caturday thread.

You dickshit furry fuckheads need to correct this[edit]

Hi furries, this passage: "On August 08, 2006, 4chan moderators started to strictly enforce its rarely enforced banning rules on posting illegal content (such as CP and JB imagery,) using /b/ to stage, or call for raids, invasions, or mass trolling of other internet communities, specially furry, and the posting of personal information." ...is incorrect. It should be amended to read: "On August 08, 2006, 4chan moderators started to strictly enforce its rarely enforced banning rules on using /b/ to stage, or call for raids, invasions, or mass trolling of other internet communities, the posting of JB ('Jailbait') imagery, and the posting of personal information."

Two changes: #1) Removed parts that made it seem as though posting child pornography was previously one of the 'rarely enforced banning rules' - Posting child pornography has ALWAYS resulted in an immediate and permanent global ban from 4chan. It was not one of the rules that suddenly started being enforced on /b/day.

  1. 2) Removed part that stated mods started enforcing rule banning people from "mass trolling of other internet communities, specially furry..." - I don't know where you got this 'especially furry' bit from, but there was no evidence that calls to invade furry sites have ever been treated differently from calls to invade other sites.

Yours etc, --Anonymovs 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, but thanks for playing ^-^ Spirou 06:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? I won't revert your edits until I here your reasoning, as long as it comes in a timely manner. --Anonymovs 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Statements updated, you were originally correct. Requests with terminology like 'dickshits' set off alarms and make twitchy furries cry, lie, and slap back. That's right, furries, slapping your tender mouth. --DS|go 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Downspin - I will amend the 7chan page which Spirou also reverted to reflect this too, as that page has a passage regarding /b/day as well. I understand the diction of the title of my request would set off alarm bells. --Anonymovs 00:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"twitchy furries cry, lie, and slap back. That's right, furries, slapping your tender mouth" that's uncivil, too. Tretonin 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"References and you: PA for /b/tards."[edit]

Isn't saved reference fun?:

"Anonymous 08/23/06 23:34 Thread #440 (edit) (quote) On 2006-08-23, the moderators of /b/ had started to strictly enforce its previously neglected rules on posting illegal content (such as child pornography), plans of raiding other internet communities, and posting personal information. While only the former was met with an undefined ban on the poster of such content, the new rules encompass all three catagories, resulting in bans on the original poster and on anyone posting in the thread, whether they supported the content or not. This caused unrest in the /b/ community; while many lingered to express dissent, deeming the rules to be too harsh, others left to find other image boards at which they could post such content without punishment. This event also coincided with a server crash, which may have been attributed to restructuring to make these rules more easily enforced, a regular server overload, an angered user performing a DDoS crash of the server, or just general technical difficulties."


"File :1156361805.jpg-(69 KB, 730x431) 08/23/06(Wed)14:36:45 No.12082253 [Reply] Anyone who is dissapointed by the fact that you can now be banned for raiding, or posting CP or JB is not a true /b/-tard. The no raids rule has ALWAYS been there, just badly enforced, and so little actual CP was posted that there might as well have been mods enforcing the rule. Because of the OMG RAIDS and CP loving, we have lost sight of what /b/ truly was: a bunch of people on the Internet making fun of themselves, the Internet, and real life via witty commentary and memes. Many /b/ users don't even know the First rule of the Internet: There are no women on the Internet. END OF STORY. There are traps, and there are camwhores, but there are no women on the Internets. Second, we have forotten our most treasured memes such as Longcat, Dio Brando, and Meximoot. Instead, we have shitty memes such as desu, which most /b/-tards don't even pronounce properly. We're so wrapped up in destroying the furfag threat and raiding websites that we've forgotten what it means to be a /b/-tard. Let's embrace the fact that this new rule enforcement will bring about the Second Golden Age of /b/. Memes will be posted and lol'd at. New memes will be created and will be lol'd at. I predict a slew of Legendary GETS the likes of which /b/ has never seen. Death to CP, JB, furries and raids. Long live Longcat, Cockmongler, and Happy Negro. Long live /b/. 214 posts and 40 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view."

A message from the Wikifur board of Education ^-^ Spirou 10:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's lovely, but you have provided no information as to where these came from. Where is the first passage from? Being post #440 shows that it's definitely not from /b/, so I will ignore this passage for the time being.
You claimed on your talk page that you are a long time /b/tard. Well, I am too. I know that Moot, a poster on ADTRW on SA started 4chan. I know about its various deaths, I've been present during most of the epic raids, I'm the one who discovered cthuljew's identity after the 4chon video. I was the one who posted 654321 GET. Notice how I haven't brought this up until you started mouthing off about being a /b/tard too, because all this doesn't actually matter. It doesn't matter who's a bigger /b/tard, this is not about whose epenis is bigger. This is about the article, and the precision with which it is written.
On your talk page you posted:
4chan's 2006 /b/ exodus didn't happen just because. No, just enough idiots trying to push the envelope to the breaking point, making the mods life hell until they just let it go,... And the idiots kept pushing, and then the POOL finally CLOSED, and they whined because of their own retarded actions,... And those were posting CP, JB, calling for /i/, and posting personal info.
This may be true, however this is irrelevant - it reveals nothing about the enforcement of the rule against posting CP before /b/day. You further post that:
Oh, I grant you they tried (the Mods,) but after a while of giving up after being piled on, CP, JB, calling for /i/, and posting personal info became part of the norm of /b/, not the exception like you're trying to rewrite in, so, that's the why/reasons of the reverts Spirou 11:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that JB, calling for invasions, and posting personal information became 'part of the norm' of /b/. However, and let me be clear about this, POSTING CP NEVER BECAME A NORM IN /b/. IT WAS NEVER TOLERATED. NO ONE EVER GOT AWAY WITH POSTING IT.
As for the second passage you posted above, which I happen to know is from /b/ (but as you have not posted any context, other people reading it may be completely lost), anyone who takes seriously the accusation that /b/tards generally LOVE, like, enjoy, or accept CP in any capacity clearly hasn't spent very much time at /b/ at all (as you claim you have done). I obviously have no direct proof of this, but in any case, this is not what I'm trying to argue, merely an ancilliary note.
More importantly, this second passage you have posted was probably not written by a mod or an admin of 4chan, but composed by an Anonymous poster and stickied as a good summary of what the mods intend the new rules to accomplish. Neither of us know whether it's actually written by a mod or not, and neither of us will ever know, so let's err on the side of caution and treat it as secondary evidence, an interpretation by a user. Thus the opening passage which you've bolded (without noting that the bold is your emphasis) isn't a trustworthy record of events leading up to /b/day.
In conclusion, allow me to just summarise what I'm arguing here. Prior to /b/day, CP was being posted on /b/. The mods and admin actively enforced their rules against CP, permabanned people who posted it, and removed it as soon as they found it. AFTER /b/day, the same things applied, but anyone who replied to a CP thread was also banned. Thus, it is incorrect for this article to say that on /b/day the mods STARTED enforcing their rules relating to CP.
Does wikifur have an arbitration system? If so, I will request arbitration if this debate remains mired for much longer. Thank you. --Anonymovs 12:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: I've just noticed that the first sentence reads '4chan is a 2ch style art community' - I believe this should read '4chan is a 2chan style art community' as 2ch has no imageboards, it is only a discussion board. 4chan arose as a clone of 2chan.

References[edit]

Basically 4chan has a lack of references. Its wikipedia article has great trouble with this. Types usable:

  1. 4chan's blog, which appears to only talk about the financial aspects and nothing to do with furries.
  2. News sources, which basically are able legal things and nothing to do with furries.
  3. Wikis that allow original research: ChanChan, Trendpedia, Wikichan. Basically people experienced or researched the information and put it up. Wikichan is usually down and I thought it had a mirror but I can't find it now and it may be down also. Wikichan original is etherchan.org. There's a different site wikichan.org with different content.
  4. LiveJournal postings. These would be good.
  5. Screenshots.
  6. Going there and researching yourself, asking questions and such.

Tretonin 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Sourcing is going to be a major issue for image board articles. We should probably try to find first hand accounts on multiple unrelated livejournals or blogs. However, a statement from an admin of said board or someone in an official representational capacity might just possibly be acceptable. It would probably be in our best interest to leave any judgmental assertive statements any out of the article until some source can be found. -- JaeSharp 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This is good. My little notes: the Wikichan at etherchan.org is the 'fake' wiki that tries to be funny and excessive, the Wikichan at wikichan.org is the wiki that tries to be correct, accurate, and responsible. This would be a good source. ED is another good source, but OMG *sigh* arg. Sceenshots are only good to capture one or two posts, they can be references when the administration makes a post regarding official behavior, but is no good to prove /b/ believes something or acts in a certain way, as the anonymous users are usually contradictory in each post. Going there and researching yourself - what if I live there already? Can I be a source? There's a policy of allowing administrators to be primary sources. --DS|go 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We should probably ask administrators who are uninvolved with this wiki to minimize accusations of bias. Having a member of the admin team on hand that knows this wiki could be very handy though, as they could point us to either the founder or to other admins for a statement. -- JaeSharp 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
So etherchan.org is like ED and uncyclopedia? I thought it was just sloppily written. Tretonin 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All things related to anti-furisms[edit]

These pages are too serious and do not approach with neutral point of view. All of them need to be rewritten. --66.230.103.94 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Serious should be neutral point of view. Also, your IP comes from Anchorage, Alaska. That's a Miltopia IP hotspot. Deafleas 06:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And that proves what? I'm Miltopia? If I wanted to screw up your page I would've done so already. Serious with weasel words should never be part of a point of view. Imformation pages are meant to let the reader decide whether or not they want associate themselves with a person, place, or thing. They should not be forced into liking and not liking it through carefully planned biased opinions.--209.112.213.133 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It didn't prove it until you showed the attitude of the guy of nastiness combined with a feigned innocence. Then you mysteriously hopped IPs to one matching his database on this site. Miltopia, what ever you're trying to do it's for the worserment of wikifur, like the **** you pulled against us offsite. Deafleas 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

statistics[edit]

At the time of posting, the current article claims that "30% of users enjoy furry artwork, and 15% identify themselves as furries." Considering how much furries are hated by 4chan, I find this to be quite false. In short, where the hell did you get those statistics from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.231.214 (talkcontribs) .

brb, compromised[edit]

The initial sentence:

4chan is a 2chan style art community founded by Something Awful goons, with English content.

should be changed to

4chan was a 2chan style art community founded by Something Awful goons, with English content.

since 4chan got their DNS servers compromised. 90.231.13.46 15:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS, NIGGERTITS IS BACK 90.231.13.46 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Help?[edit]

I made an edit to the page with info about the 200m GET, but it borked, and I had tested in the sandbox, where it worked no problem. Now I can't revert, because lolspamfilters for EVERYTHING, be it a link shortener of ANY kind, or the original source on the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on April Furs Day. 69.11.210.161 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Format problem[edit]

I just added the Template:Critic sites to all the sites mentioned, but it seems that something is screwing with the format of the page. It breaks at the 4Chan's 100,000,000th post section of the page. Any help?,... I tried almost every combo possible - Spirou 02:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

A <ref> tag was unterminated. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you - Spirou 05:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)