Talk:Fark

message: I'm thinking there should be some mention of bannination.com, a site setup by fark.com users frustrated with its new moderation policies some years back. Users of fark.com cannot even hint that the site exists without their post and all posts quoteing it being removed. Surely Wikipedia can help keep fark.com users informed with more open information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.162.62 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bannination?

message: Just noticed this site: www.farkaustralia.com.au. It doesn't appear to have any connection to the US-based site, but the meaning of the term he's using appears similar. I'm not sure what his point is, though,. . . WTF? (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia?

message: Hello WTF. Saw that you reversed my small edit to Fark-TV, since it was not supported. Fair enough. In reading the WP:RS page, it seems that a reference to a piece of work itself is a source, and that a "lightweight source" may be deemed acceptable to support a "lightweight claim". Therefore, would references to videos of each mentioned "piece of work" and an additional reference to a "lightweight source" such as the Fark-TV imdb page be sufficient to support my one sentence "lightweight claim"? Gulbenk (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but IMDB is NOT an acceptable source in this case because that information was clearly added by a random user of IMDB and unverified. The "piece of work" verification does not apply in this case because the content in question is attributable only to what amounts now as an "Internet blog" and not a form of reputable media, due to the fact that Fark TV no longer exists. It is also completely out of the scope of this article to cover minor "programs" of a pseudo television "network" that no longer exists. WTF? (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Fark TV was really nothing more than a poorly conceived and produced blog, or "video blog". Specific episodes of it are about as notable as naval lint. Wikipedia doesn't cover blogs for that reason. WTF? (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fark-TV

message: Is the last sentence of the "Photoshop contest" subsection under the Features section relevant?  Or biased? Shrillpicc100 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence relevancy? 

message: The redirect Drew Curtis' FARK.com has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Drew Curtis' FARK.com]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Jailarity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Jailarity]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Modmin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 06:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Modmin]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]