Talk:Fucked Company

message: I don't believe 'spankygate' is of interest to encyclopedia readers. If former FC message board contributors want to reminisce  about past glories they should do it somewhere else. 
The Spinger 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spankygate

message: This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fucked Company. -- BD2412 talk 05:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:It appears to me from the VfD that there is a consensus that this article needs more content added to it and is currently in a sad state.  May I ask my peers what they consider acceptable to put here?  For example, talk of the board in general, references to Mr. Kaplan's past ventures, interviews with Mr. Kaplan in relation to the site, Mention of the Book F'd Companies, etc.  What do you consider permissible?  I do not wish to do a lot of work only to be told it needs to be erased due to technicalities.  People seem to want more here.  I am happy to help, but what is permissible.  Some input please. Nisanu 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD results 

message: Long-term reg here.  What a bunch of bullshit that main article is.  FC is a free-for-all, with a relatively high signal-to-noise ratio.  Reading is a lot like eating potato chips - you know it's not good for you but you can't stop eating.  Eat too much and you'll get sick. 
I've been on fc since ought-one.  I rarely post regged anymore because of the truly psychotic whackjobs that make fc their home these days.  What used to be a cross-section of geeks and dot-commers is now just a bunch of racists and assholes.  
The golden days of fc are over, if they were ever here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.241.66.107 (talk • contribs) .
I agree that the article is a little sparse.  But it is mostly correct.  I have been on FC since late 2000 and can say there is much that should be added.  Nisanu 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a bunch of crap 

message: He also released a book by the same title that described the history of about 200 companies (a page per company).  One of the reviews was "he swears too much".  probably should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.250.27 (talk • contribs) .
:Done. jareha 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The book "fucked company"

message: Many, many FC "spin off" boards have existed over the years and a number still exist.
If spin off boards are to be mentioned, they should all be mentioned. Or at least a number of them should be mentioned.
it could be said that 4chan /b and anonymous were both movements born from the culture of the dots "." before anonymous was anon there was FC and on FC's message board if you posted without a name it displayed a period.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasadot (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Forum Discussions 

message: WOW!  What the fuck happened????  First the BBS dies, the DNS is gone, all his other websites are dead or inoperative.
And now his Wikipedia entry has been nearly wiped clean.
Here is some of the latest about Phillip Kaplan, aka pud.  http://www.adotas.com/2006/06/controversial-philip-kaplan-out-at-adbrite/
He shut down the bbs.fuckedcompany.com forum suddenly the night of June 6, 2006 after being harassed over the Adbrite fiasco.  One of his last words were "Massive ownage coming", many suggest this was a hint of shutting down the board.  Since then no one has credible information on what is to become of FC, if the board will be back, or even what Mr. Kaplan is up to.  Nisanu 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest on Philip Kaplan 

message: Unless there is some reliable source for the history of FC users trolling on other message boards, this should not be mentioned in Wikipedia's article. A reliable source would be coverage on a large news web site, a newspaper article, etc. Not a forum post. This history is of little interest to anyone who isn't already an FC user, and it violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Thanks. Rhobite 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, contacting people would be a violation of the Wikipedia policy against original research. If there's a reputable article about FC users' activities then you should cite it. Even so, I can't imagine how these activities are of any interest to readers. Rhobite 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, so Rhobite, you are to be the judge of what may or may not be of interest to readers? --67.153.233.99 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: There is no more history to be had here.  Time to get the article cleaned up and lock it for good, unless Pud speaks publicly about what caused him to shut the place down.
:It's a good idea to clean up this article, but there's no reason to lock the article permanently. There's always room for improvement. Rhobite 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean it up, lock it down. 

message: For a number of reasons, but mainly because it's part of the site's history. 
Also the contention that the entry should be "locked up" because there is no new news is ridiculous. Until the entry is satisfactorily edited it should be kept open. 
Addendum by another reader:  The above statement is nonsensical.  The FC BBS is gone forever.  It boggles the imagination to see how, given that the board has been shut down for good, that there can be any "new news" about it.  Again, what we have here is an attempt at free advertising at Wikipedia's expense for other web boards.  Wikipedia is not the place for advertising.
Addendum by another reader:  Per the terms of Wikipedia use and posting, irrelevant items are not in keeping with the Wiki philosophy.  By the reasoning given above, one could add an entry relating to ANYTHING.  Thus, one could argue that extraneous and irrelevant items, if they were even mentioned once on the FC board, could qualify for inclusion here in this article.  That is nonsensical.  One could argue, given the above, that personal attacks that occurred should also be mentioned.  That too is nonsensical.
A Wiki article should include only information about the topic, and no personal attacks or attempts at advertising other web boards, which is in reality the whole idea behind including mention of these alleged spin-off boards.  One could argue that a blog created by a former FCer is legitiamtely a spin-off board.  And THAT makes NO sense.
If someone has created a separate board, etc., they can always create their own Wiki article.  That's the best way to address these alleged spin-off boards.
EDIT
The above poster is correct. If there are to be no free advertising links what are links to Kaplans for profit websites doing here while FCers non-profit websites are banned?
Seems like a double standard. Is Kaplan somehow influencing events here to avoid embarrassment?
Subsequent edit:  
Links to Kaplan's other sites are found in Kaplan's article.  That makes sense, if they are Kaplan's creation, etc..  Posting anything and everything about Pud's other activities HERE makes NO sense.  I think I and the above poster agree, in principle: no extraneous data within a Wiki article, and, definitely, NO SELF-SERVING ADVERTISING of other web boards.
=== A problem again? ===
Seems like we are back to fighting over this. See recent edit war. Links to "spin off" boards are not appropriate as they are just spam. If links to spin off boards are to be allowed then it would be logical that all links to all spin off boards would be allowed. If so, the list of links to spin off boards would be longer than the article itself. My suggestion is to not allow the links, or if they are allowed then someone should volunteer to create a comprehensive list. As it is, we have one spammer trying to generate traffic for his board by spamming this article and others with links to his BBS. 70.91.104.249 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff Web sites absolutely should be included 

message: Seems like we are back to fighting over this. See recent edit war. Links to "spin off" boards are not appropriate as they are just spam. If links to spin off boards are to be allowed then it would be logical that all links to all spin off boards would be allowed. If so, the list of links to spin off boards would be longer than the article itself. My suggestion is to not allow the links, or if they are allowed then someone should volunteer to create a comprehensive list. As it is, we have one spammer trying to generate traffic for his board by spamming this article and others with links to his BBS. 70.91.104.249 (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem again? 

message: Or "redboards" as they are called.   Brian Saville (of Bartlett IL, aka Spanky) who hacked the original FC and Leland E. Ray (of Sausalito, CA, aka Philip_McCavity/Original_Lonely_Guy) run the site called "CampIdiot".  Camp Idiot is basically a right wing hate site filled with pro-trump, anti-black, anti-liberal screeds.
F2BBS was full of repetitive trolling posts that seemed like severe mental illness.   F4BBS (Akins) was another right wing hate site.  F5BBS seems like a clone of F2BBS.
All garbage.   2606:9580:438:64:0:0:0:B02D (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's really not much to say about the spinoff websites  

message: This is said by the guy who was originally banned from FC for spamming and XSS attacks. He also spammed his other forum everywhere, until he shut it down. Now he is bitter and hates other boards. Look at http://www.f2bbs.com and tell me it's not FC related.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknoa (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are the problem 

message: Heh, this article is certainly getting more 'concise' daily. Would I be amiss if I just edit it down to, "FC is a website." ?
It really irks me that the Something Awful article talks about the SA forum being "Influential on the Internet" and having "helped to perpetuate several Internet phenomena."
FC easily had a greater impact on the web community, whatever you thought of it's patron's moral fiber. The "cleaning up" of this article is disgusting. Endaira 02:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The amazing shrinking article

message: *Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum?  Wickethewok 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what's ridiculous is that if you look at the other forum articles, i.e. something awful, gamefaqs, etc..., you'll notice that there are not any "reliable independent sources" for them. Wikipedia as it involves internet based memes or what not is not reliable in how it applies rules and regulations. 161.253.40.203 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: This edit, for example, cut out half the article because, apparently instead of seeing if the claims could be substantiated, an editor decided "Removal of unsubstantiated claims." was the easier way to go. Before the forum sprawled out of control, fuckedcompany.com was primarily used to rapidly disseminate news of tech layoffs to the public--remember, this was before blogging had even become mainstream enuf for authors to start to write 'how to blog' books. If the editor had chosen to investigate, there are plenty of sources that could have substantiated most if not all of the removed claims. This is just the barest tip of the iceberg. this goes even further back--plenty of info--many Wikipedia articles have unsubstantiated claims. Ususally they just get tags requesting citations--I don't understand why this article has been targeted as needing such a higher bar.  71.231.107.188 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability was clear before most of the info about the site was removed-Ususally they just get tags requesting cites-I don't understand why this article has been targeted as needing such a higher bar. 

message: it has been edited to remove any mention of the message board which was the component that drove most of the traffic... it also was a vibrant community, that was dispersed when the board was shut down. it's appalling to call this a legitimate accurate portrayal of the web site if this is not discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.222.183.75 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the editing of this page has been completely irresponsible 

message: I participated on several of the FuckedCompany message boards for years, and from looking at the current wiki page, it's like that never happened.  How did this propagandistic deletion of history occur?  What's the point of having a wiki on a topic if some biased interests are able to erase the history so easily?  Reversion to earlier, information-full versions of this page should happen IMMEDIATELY!  Once the information is suitably dense, then and only then should this topic be LOCKED, since Kaplan took the page down.
Peahippo 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   This is a travesty!  

message: Please stop reinserting it as it fails WP:ELNO points 4 and 13.  It is not the official "Fucked Company" website so it doesnt get the free pass for inclusion that the defunct site gets. Promotional linkage is not allowed on Wikipedia and off site canvassing (yes, I've seen it) is also not allowed. ThemFromSpace 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea who owns this site? Whois says it's hiding behind a "RespectMyPrivacy" service so it's hard to tell if it has any connection to the original FC or its owners. K7L (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The link