Talk:Duchess

Please stop messing with my character's pages. --Banrai

just a note

I just wanted to leave a note with this saying that I hope I managed to keep the neutrality that wikifur strives for in this article. I am aware that some would disagree with this article even existing, however since Duchess is now being used actively as a tool in the fandom to raise women's awareness, I felt it was fitting that she had a proper article about her. Banrai 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

GreenReaper's explanation for redirecting this page to a User space: "Talk:Duchess moved to User talk:Duchess: Article and person is a work of fiction, and while we have many on WikiFur, creating them for the purpose of misinformation is not encouraged."

It's been recreated by Banrai again; I thought this was already resolved? Spaz Kitty 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how this character is no longer being used for mis-information and instead for a legitimate purpose, I had asked KendricksRedtail about the possibility of recreating the article with proper information about the character, while including the controversy that was caused at her creation. Seeing as how she is now a mascot for a up-and-coming furry zine, as well as being used to raise women's rights, I hardly see that as mis-information. Banrai 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice that the character is being used in good faith now, but initially it was both an attempt to introduce a fake article about a non-existant user, plus a backhanded smear attempt at another user on the Wiki, which nobody involved was apologetic about it.

As it stands right now, the article does not reflect that at, its been whitewashed, and its heavily POV. Asking one Wiki Admin a general consensus does not make Spirou 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly was not speaking on behalf of any other admin or the rest of the wiki, I told Banrai that such a thing could be feasible if she acknowledged the satire right away, was open and forthcoming about it and demonstrated how this character had become its own entity in the fandom. If it continued to be nothing more than a satire of Otterland, then it wouldn't be acceptable. I told her this article would be scrutinized to every last word posted. But I feel that this character has evolved beyond its original bad taste and now any contributions to information about her would be in good faith.--Kendricks Redtail 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added in the attempt to produce a false article, the non-existant user thing was already stated, as was the attempt to provoke Duke. I've edited the controversy section to reflect and emphasize several points, and am removing the npov tag as it's not really necessary when just the facts are stated. If you think it needs something else, then feel free to add it. Banrai 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop messing with my character's pages. --Banrai

just a note

I just wanted to leave a note with this saying that I hope I managed to keep the neutrality that wikifur strives for in this article. I am aware that some would disagree with this article even existing, however since Duchess is now being used actively as a tool in the fandom to raise women's awareness, I felt it was fitting that she had a proper article about her. Banrai 16:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

GreenReaper's explanation for redirecting this page to a User space: "Talk:Duchess moved to User talk:Duchess: Article and person is a work of fiction, and while we have many on WikiFur, creating them for the purpose of misinformation is not encouraged."

It's been recreated by Banrai again; I thought this was already resolved? Spaz Kitty 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how this character is no longer being used for mis-information and instead for a legitimate purpose, I had asked KendricksRedtail about the possibility of recreating the article with proper information about the character, while including the controversy that was caused at her creation. Seeing as how she is now a mascot for a up-and-coming furry zine, as well as being used to raise women's rights, I hardly see that as mis-information. Banrai 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice that the character is being used in good faith now, but initially it was both an attempt to introduce a fake article about a non-existant user, plus a backhanded smear attempt at another user on the Wiki, which nobody involved was apologetic about it.

As it stands right now, the article does not reflect that at, its been whitewashed, and its heavily POV. Asking one Wiki Admin a general consensus does not make Spirou 17:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While I certainly was not speaking on behalf of any other admin or the rest of the wiki, I told Banrai that such a thing could be feasible if she acknowledged the satire right away, was open and forthcoming about it and demonstrated how this character had become its own entity in the fandom. If it continued to be nothing more than a satire of Otterland, then it wouldn't be acceptable. I told her this article would be scrutinized to every last word posted. But I feel that this character has evolved beyond its original bad taste and now any contributions to information about her would be in good faith.--Kendricks Redtail 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added in the attempt to produce a false article, the non-existant user thing was already stated, as was the attempt to provoke Duke. I've edited the controversy section to reflect and emphasize several points, and am removing the npov tag as it's not really necessary when just the facts are stated. If you think it needs something else, then feel free to add it. Banrai 18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Duchess of Otter Kind

It came from a (either friends only/delete) entry discussion between Evol, Lacrimas, Sistersunshine, and Foxxid(?) about naming her in this manner as a jab to the "Duke of Otterland."

But, Banrai, if that aka was more of a concept or joke name in discussion, instead of an intended proper name for the character, then I will (or you may) strike from the article) Spirou 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)