Talk:Furluminati

I have never heard this term in use, and a Google search shows that the only mention of it is the Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Unless we're documenting their fictions now, I don't see a need for this article.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 12:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd delete this article outright.. a google search does turn up a few references on other sites than encyclopedia dramatica. However this article should have more information regarding it's orgin on encyclopedia dramatica. -- DeVandalizer 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They're only there because people have chosen it as a name for their user or LJ group, presumably because they are also members of ED. I don't see any actual use of the term ouside that. A LiveJournal for the purpose of drama does not seem like it should count. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

While I still think that we should add some mention of its singular useage on encyclopedia dramatica I do have to agree with you on your points... If you feel that it should be deleted then I won't oppose. -- DeVandalizer 14:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this one. If we keep it, it could go in Fictional organizations. Not that I have pet categories or anything. ;) -- Sine 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's largely a wikipedia terming. I don't see things like sexuality removal of furry content on wikifur or other places. Wikipedia's furry fandom talk page has some people using the term "furspiracy". Daniel Brandt and others claim wikipedia has a lot of cabals (hiveminds, too). On ED, Ashe, who started the article was a furry (evidence) so that counts for something. SleepAtWork 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Barely holding on as a clique term, it could be left as an example of "invented/forced" words that certain anti-furries/non-furs wish to "attribute" to the fandom. Discussed enough on separate services to almost warrant its inclusion. "Furspiracy" is just somebody's mental hiccup, and brings nothing to the purpose of this entry. Spirou 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the fandom. It's only about a small percentage of furries that are against sexuality. It's a made-up term, yes, but it relates to something real. Similar viewpoints are: Burned Furs and Furs Against Furs. SleepAtWork 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just revised it and I think it's much better than any previous edition. SleepAtWork 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am curious why Burned Furs is categorized as anti-furry and Furs Against Furs is not. SleepAtWork 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fluffing up the entry

The addition of the assumption of burned furs being anti-sexual in regard to furry media is actually wrong, as this notion itself was refuted by members of the movement itself.

Also, rewrites should be consistent, not a new, different one every-time, as it would put forth the image that the reviewer is not quite sure of his final thought on the mater. unsigned by Mr. Reverts Without Reason Many Times to His Own Version Riddled with Spelling Errors

Burned Furs says, "Burned Furs were intolerant of those people who walked up to television cameras and press microphones to declare that Furry Fandom essentially revolved around their own personal kinks." I've gone off what the article claims. SleepAtWork 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On your defense, they were a few people inside the group that held such views, but the were the exception to the rule Spirou 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Spirou stop vandalizing the article by reverting it no matter what I put. Your version even has spelling errors. Your editing is akin to page blanking, moving things to "on wheels," etc. SleepAtWork 00:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after people expressed the validity of the term being on the Wiki, and a compromised rewrite was wrote down, you seem eager to bulldoze your POV of a term that its just a FICTIONAL word for a group that does NOT exist. Not every word in the fandom containing the word "fur" is a candidate for its inclusion on this wiki.

The word is fictional, there's no cabal, it doesn't matter who entered the term on ED, and the Burned Fur movement was NOT an anti-furry porn group, as you keep re-entering on over and over. Research, then present your facts Spirou 02:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's YOUR version, not other people's. You can't even correct the spelling errors. I have tried many different forms of the article to please you but all you do is vandalize the article. There's one thing called fixing it, another called just reverting it like you have done. If there's POV it can be corrected. Reverting outright no matter what I try is vandalism. SleepAtWork 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Furluminati

Concerning "Furluminati":

A Google search reveals the following -Entries on Livejournal on the following journals:

• Furiluminati
• Furlluminati
• Furluminatus
• Furluminato

Non, or criptic entries such as:

• hmm. This drama, it is way too small. It is not fit for us. We require larger things.
• Dance my Monkeys Dance

-An entry on the Encyclopedia Dramatica: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Furluminati Written by Killhamster.

-An entry to Killhamster's LJ account about the ED article: http://killhamster.livejournal.com/324346.html

Wikipedia's "Furry_Fandom" entry brings forth the following about "Furluminati":

"Attention Members of the Furspiracy Adding one (1) anti-fur link is not against wikipedia policy. There are no rules against showing a different perspective (furspective? Yuk Yuk!) on a topic."

That's all its found about Furluminati anywhere. Two days later, new entries are added to the wikipedia's discussion:

"Furspiracy? The "monolithic anti-furry conspiracy" http://softwarredownload.net/?rid=1000059or the "furluminati"? DyslexicEditor 00:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)"

"I find it confusing who anon editors are. There's this "fursecution vandal" that has a lot of IPs. I'm assuming that's not 85.210.107.2. Then there's a bunch of other ones. As for the whole POV stuff of the article, well Wikifur mentions some conspiracies both anti-furry and those based on furries. One is the furlumanti, a group that hides sexual stuff about furries. It then links to another site and the accussation resembles the one of a wikipedia cabal (stuff started by Daniel Brandt), but saying there's a smaller, furry version. DyslexicEditor 23:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)"

Data is written down as gospel, even with the article totally defining these groups as "Fictional." So, "Furluminati" is somebody "idea" of a "Fictional Cabal" of Furries. Article has been rewritten to bring to point out that such group does not exist. Research, then publish. My two cents on the matter Spirou 03:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Furry_fandom The "Furry Fandom" discussion page on Wikipedia, for reference Spirou 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with recent editing

The editing of this article and collaboration on this talk page over the last 24 hours has been poor.

SleepAtWork

• Signed Spirou's talk contribution with a signature which was clearly intended to incite ill-will
• Failed to reference actual instances of the use of the term "furry illuminati" to back up his additions when they were challenced on this talk page (a link to ED is not what I would consider a valid reference, especially when it was already there)

Spirou

• Reverted to one revision five times in a period of twenty four hours
  • Reversions were not to remove simple vandalism; they were to preserve a particular version of the document with a particular point of view
  • Reversions failed to incorporate any relevant information provided by SleepAtWork, even including their non-opinion-based corrections to Spirou's preferred version of the work, until after SleepAtWork requested arbitration
  • Reversions also failed to preserve the fact that others had a different opinion of what the word meant. If you think others would agree with your actions, you should encourage them to to take action in supporting your view.

There were problems on both side, however blocking attempts to make constructive edits by another contributor is, in my view, worse than adding information that may be unreferenced (especially as WikiFur has no specific rule requiring such). Spirou was personally warned of the use of similar editing practices before. While I sympathize with the reasoning, I feel his actions were an inappropriate response to SleepAtWork's attempts to edit the page.

I am not going to block anyone over this now, as edit war blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. However, if I start seeing this pattern of editing again, articles will be locked sooner and people will start seeing blocks.

• SleepAtWork: Please back up your claims with appropriate references when they are challenged in the future. A good reference will help you where any number of unreferenced edits will not.
• Spirou: Please consider this a second warning over your exclusion of others from the editing process. I do not want to have cause to give a third one in the future.

I intend to delete this article within a day unless given a convincing reason for not doing so. The term is not commonly used among members of the furry fandom. It appears to be used - and only occasionally - by a small group of "LULZ"-seeking individuals (who may or may not profess to be members of the furry fandom), centered around the site where it was created. It has wasted enough of our time and generated enough ill will.

I would note that the article about "killhamster", whose article was used as a reference, was deleted, twice, for being totally full of nonsense added by himself and his friends. I do not believe this term to be much better. At best, if it is recorded on WikiFur at all, it should have a short summary in a list of similar terms used by groups opposed to the furry fandom to refer disparagingly to members of the fandom or their actions. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, upon further research it appears to be specific to ED and is causing much greif among contributors. I now fully support its deletion where once I was hesitant. -- DeVandalizer 05:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Please be advised I tried to contact Admin help by email and IM regarding this matter, requesting a proper way to handle the situation. I didn't "continuously" revert, A) Because it's bad form, B) I was waiting for proper handling of this situation by an Admin between reverts. Spirou 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Remember, there is always more time on a Wiki (unless there really isn't, which is usually clear :-). There are very few situations where an edit needs to be made right now. If you have a question about something, it's important enough to take time over it. *grins* --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Spirou, I just got your e-mail this morning. After looking over the article and the edits, I do not disagree one bit with what GreenReaper has said here, especially with the deletion of this article, which in my opinion never should have been here in the first place. There is a place to document things that exist at ED and only at ED, and that's on ED itself. A suggestion on future edits, particularly ones you feel strongly about: let it sit for (at least) 24 hours. Think about it, and see what input other editors might have. I freely admit there are times when I can get worked up over some things written here, and I have saved myself several hotheaded exchanges by just letting things sit for a bit and thinking them over.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 12:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't to me about the term or the ED article, but about a philosophy a small number of furs practice that generally centers on wikipedia. I think maybe this philosophy should be mentioned in a different article. I also missed the article about killhamster here--I put something from his livejournal but didn't know one was here (he's actually not noticable on ED, either). I'm not protesting any deletion but I am against:

Me: a bunch of editing
Other editor: revert with no reason given
Me: Ask on talk page
Me: Received no answer after a long time.
Me: Tries editing again.
Other editor: revert with no reason given
Me: Tries editing again. Is this better?
Other editor: revert
Me: Huh?
Other editor: revert
Me: fixes spelling error
Other editor: revert
Me: Tries editing again. Is this better?
Other editor: revert
Me: What do you want?
Other editor: revert
Me: AAAAaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
Other editor: revert
Me: Stop it
Other editor: revert
Me: Why
Other editor: revert
Me: Do
Other editor: revert
Me: You
Other editor: revert
Me: Keep
Other editor: revert
Me: Doing
Other editor: revert
Me: This
Other editor: revert
Me: ?!?!?
Other editor: revert

Also I want to ask on Furs Against Furs and Burned Furs one was anti-furry and the other not, I asked and Spirou just labelled the other anti-fur. I'm not criticizing him for this (just for ludicrous reverting). Well in anti-furry it's vague on if it's a furry group that doesn't like furries or not. The two groups are there now recently because he added them, but I'm wondering about the term anti-furry. Maybe this, "furries that practice regularly include the removal of furry media references (MTV, CSI, Drew Carey, Vanity Fair, and ER), the discrediting of relations of sexuality to the fandom, and/or the practicing the philosophies of Burned Furs and Furs Against Furs. Like terms have been used to cite prevalence of these types of furries on places--most commonly wikipedia's furry categories, whereas they are not as common elsewhere. For example, such editors on wikipedia never would allow mention of Taurin and the Yiffing Machine." kind of thing is a type of anti-furry? Maybe not?

SleepAtWork 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Killhamster did not start the furluminati article on ED, Ashe did. There's some story here. Also, this article Furlumanti may not be notable here, just, in my opinion the behavior associated with the concept is. SleepAtWork 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And you faggots fail at keeping up with history, as the furluminati is alive - http://www.lolfurries.org/forum- how you could miss this is beyond me, except for the fact you don't tend to keep up with history,thus making it easy for furry history to be re-written. Sounds like a bunch of highly-ignorant republican furries like CigarSkunk run this place, to me. Prove otherwise. Start enforcing sources, besides he-said she-said, fags.