I agree with removing unsourced derogatory information. However, some of the this person's concrete actions might be worth mentioning (both the positive and the negative). --GreenReaper(talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the article about me here and found some innacuracies about the origin of Ontario Furries and things missing from the section describing my involvement in the fandom and decided to correct the inaccuracies and list things I was involved in.
A lot of the source information was removed in 2009 as I removed the Toronto Furry Convention forum from Ontario Furries when it fell into dissuse and hadn't yet created a system to archive deleted posts.
There are a number of people that can corroborate my claim of starting Furnal Equinox, but it will be difficult to present anything that will not be contested by Furnal Equinox. -- Dan Skunk
The fact that the people of FE, contest anything you say about the con, should be more tne enough for the admins of this site, considering we are the concom and founders. And in fact can find many many more people to collaberate these facts. You have done nothing since you were voted out, by ause trouble for the con and continue to bash it and try to tear it down and give it a bad name, even after the first year when we graciously gave you a small amount of credit for being a part of the convention at the start, like the other people who were there, but left, were removed or never showed up.
Then you came to the convention on the last day, then started to make problems again for the convention and continue to bother us, asking for reperations and banning the entire concom and founders from your forums.
Your name even being associated with the convention, brings negativitay and doubt to people who want to attend next year, we had a long battle for the first con to assure people you were not involved and we refuse to be constantly bothered by you and your delusions. Please stop this nonsense and let things be alone. - Shane Nicholson(Wolfmist)
I complied with Greenreaper's request that I, "either provide references for the contested statement, or convert it into an uncontested fact about your [my] own belief or statements." If you wish it known that you don't want me associated with Furnal Equinox, please add that to the article, but do not delete facts about my beliefs because you personally disagree with them.
Please do not make personal attacks here such as saying I'm delusional or that my actions are nonsense. This type of behaviour is why you were removed from Ontario Furries. I've offered to allow you to return if you assure me it will stop.
--Dan Skunk 01:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you think Dan, we know the truth about this matter, we being the entire founders and comittee of the con. Stop posting these false things about yourself, it's made clear why we don't want you even trying to associate yourself with FE, your a bad name in the local group and a bad name in the "convention" circuit. Having you associated in any way, is putting a bullet in a coventions head.
I don't care about your reasons to remove from OF, you did that cause we told you what we thought of you and the things you said about the con, including the constant harassment, insults and putting down of the con, even going so far as to make a troll account on your own forums to troll the convention, I do have proof that it was you and so don't bother denying it, leave your person crap and attacks and badness of the con, you removed us from OF, we want nothing to do with you or your name, so decist posting the fallacy you put here about you and FE. - Shane.
- Because the words "claimed" are used in the statements, they are thus shown to be the opinion of Dan Skunk and are thus allowed in the article about him. There is already a sentence that says that his claims are contested by founding members of the committee, so the information is already neutral in how it is treated. Please do not remove it. SilverserenC 04:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I posted a citation supporting my claim, why was it removed?
Dan Skunk 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe a listing of current events relating to the relationship between Ontario Furries, Furnal Equinox, and What the Fur are beyond the scope of this article.
They should be presented in their own article in a more detailed manner showing the reasons for the current situation and it's development to show a more balanced and neutral view. Presenting controversial events without context creates a misleading impression.
Dan Skunk 14:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- See also Talk:Dan Skunk and Furnal Equinox
Could we please keep the controversy on it's own page, and stop deleting my involvement in Furnal Equinox.
Dan Skunk 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Reason for edits acknowledged.
Dan Skunk 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Controversy is too controversial. Does not present a balanced view, should be left out at least until it is fixed--which will be a lengthy process.
18.104.22.168 05:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removal of such large amount of data does not help for an edit for a balanced view, as it leaves no info for any editor to work with - Spirou 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- added more references.
- unbalanced views should be corrected before added. More work is needed, which I intend to do. content can be discussed on the discussion page.
- Note that it was removed from the other pages it is relevent too, ie. Furnal Equinox
- Removing factual data supported with references is dishonest.
- Dan Skunk 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Information should be fairly shared in both places it's relevant too, and should be balanced and neutral
- Seperate page was made to facilite work on this lengthy subject relevant to both pages, but it was removed.
- Dan Skunk 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The section was in no way lengthy enough to warrant its own article. Revert - Spirou 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the article could use some cleanup. The section about Furnal Equinox, I believe, could be a seperate article due to the difference in subject matter as well as length.
Dan Skunk 07:52, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
- Hi, Dan Skunk. There is some cleanup needed, which is why I added the Cleanup template to the article. The Furnal Equinox section is somewhat lengthy, but is appropriate to have as a section in this article; we essentially don't make separate articles about controversies. -- Sine 12:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
I undid the section that gave mention of 5 committee members being present at the meeting where 3 concom members were dismissed and Sparrow was too young to be on the concom due to falsified information. No age limits were set and Sparrow was on the concom and a member of it's mailing list and forum. Scani has previously declared that 4 concom members were present and Dan Skunk confirmed this in the discussion of the page for Furnal Equinox. Dan Skunk 17:48, 19 August 2011 (EDT)