Talk:Betty Roget

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

Miss Frizell, if you wish not to have your RL displayed, you may request this from a WikiFur Admin. Such requests are honored. As for the other information, it was checked out with prior information, such as goggle's "'" posts, old Burned Fur message board entries, and logs from Kobus' old "members only" MUCK.

As for the Book creation entry, it comes from one of your entries on usenet:

...Unless that information was not "correct" to begin with. Sorry to say, but the Net remembers many things. And please, if it was this personal, you could have just said it in the first edit, instead of me correcting what it looked like a rogue IP. Communicating helps eveybody. Spirou 05:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

May I request Admin assistance on this matter?. I do not want to over-bound my steps on this matter, specially if it involves personal information. Thanks. Spirou 05:39, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

From Rackety: My name is Betty Roget. I have edited the Betty Roget entry and if you can not accept the entry as I have edited it (all information given =IS= correct), then please remove all references to me. Just because something was posted somewhere on the 'net doesn't make it correct. And logs do not count as "evidence" of anything since logs can be edited and falsified. I never participated in Burned Fur, so give it a rest. This matter has already been discussed with GreenReaper anyway, so please stop editing my entry. THANK YOU. 9/14/05 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:58, 14 September 2005 (comment signed, but edit from anon ip)

I will wait for GreenReaper, or any of the Admins, decision on this. IF you inform us of such information on the first edit, we may not have gone around cleaning up what it looked looked like a rogue IP. does NOT say the same as "Hello, I'm such and such, I don't want my real name displayed."
We cannot read minds, Miss. Spirou 06:06, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, YOU don't even have a user page, nor are you on FurryMUCK, or I could have left you a personal message. I have edited two other entries ("Ruiner" and Blumrich) as well, so please stop changing them. --Rackety —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:09, 14 September 2005 (comment signed, but edit from anon ip)
For future reference, You may leave a note in the "Discussion" page of the article disputed, or you may click on the name of the user to leave a message, and Yes, I do have a user page, and, No, Miss, FurryMUCK would not be the first place I would be looking for somebody who had, as you pointed out in the "Ruiner" page, "dropped out by 2000". Spirou 06:16, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Um, let's all chill out until GreenReaper or one of the other admins can get to securing the entry. There's no need for hostility; I'm sure we can get this cleaned up in short order. Carl Fox 06:34, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
No hostility here. Just wishing for more open communication on the matter. =/ Spirou 06:54, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Yes, chilling is good. :-) Let's have a look . . . --GreenReaper(talk) 07:05, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

GreenReaper's take[edit]


  1. I cannot see any particular evidence given for the inclusion of the disputed alternate names (if I search for Liz Friz[z]el I get directed to topics concerning The Magic School Bus, including some rather odd pornography, but nothing specifically furry), and so I cannot recommend its reinstatement at this time. If such evidence is posted it should of course be considered, although if it is (eg) a private log, that should be mentioned in the source so that the reader can fully judge its level of reliability. Although, really, it'd be nice if people didn't make a habit of posting private logs. :-)
  2. The talk about a book appears to be a reference to this post, which seems to be a joke. However, the fact that newsgroup postings were made is certainly an interesting point (especially as some of the longer ones relate directly to the furry fandom and the subject's relation to it).

As such I've made some edits. Let's go from there, shall we? :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 07:41, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further, a good way to proceed would have been to look at what information was disputed, move it to the talk page, and attempt to start discussion on it here by directing the user to it. If it's removed without comment, then it's possibly vandalism (and might justify one revert), but if in doubt you should ask the user who made the edit. IPs have talk pages too, and few people will actually ignore messages. New users will probably not read edit summaries, or know that they should go onto discussion when their edits are reverted - it's up to the people who know the software to use it so that the issue gets resolved. And remember, assume good faith! *grin* --GreenReaper(talk) 08:12, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
My bad. I just saw what looked like a runaway vandal IP, and tried to correct it myself, instead of leave it to the Admins. I have left messages on prior, valid vandal IPs, but normally they just continue with the defacement. I should have asked first. Spirou 08:25, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
You did the right thing to take action where you thought there was a problem. The only thing was that there was no communication between yourself and the person making the changes, and so the problem didn't go away. It's true that there are often vandals running around, but it's still worth a try. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 19:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)