Talk:Kala McCloud

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

This article seems neutral enough to me. It states facts, not opinions, and--given the nature of the source material--there's no way said facts can be cited.

I have personally verified the accounts documented here with the creators/administrators of LylatRPG who have kindly provided me with logs of the events detailed here and elsewhere.

At the very least, it should be stated that Kala McCloud is not affiliated with LylatRPG, and that any claim she places on the intellectual property of others is absolutely false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

The problem I have with the article (and why I marked it as POV) is mainly the sentence -Removed for Privacy Reasons-. If that were removed or a citation were provided, I'd be a lot happier about the overall tone of the article. --Douglas Muth 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now that I think of it, one way to provide a citation would be if you placed the logs that you had on the web somewhere, perhaps with a page that summarizes their contents. We could add that page in as a reference, and I think that would be sufficient for the article. --Douglas Muth 21:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and meddled with the article to remove certain phrases that may bring its neutrality into dispute. If the LylatRPG administrators wish to make the logs public domain and cite them, I've told them that they are free to do so, though, after speaking with them, I doubt they're all that interested in airing dirty laundry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
This article does not state facts, it states POV of a group of people who were angry. They never got a different POV than theirs and it's inaccurate, and pointless. Why this can't be left alone, I don't know. I'd like to note they're also trying to 'copyright' something that isn't theirs to copyright in the first place. As for this page, it's my legal name and I request -nicely- that it gets removed before I start to find other laws to protect my privacy and force it to be removed. Please do so. -Kal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 02:33 and 03:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's not temporarily removed within the next 24 hours I'm going to contact a lawyer. I work for the federal government and it's not going to cost me a dime to fight this. If you want more details I can provide them, but this is inappropriate and unnecessary. Please, for the last time, remove it. -Kal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 3:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to be nasty about it. Please do not make legal threats to WikiFur. That too is inappropriate and unnecessary. If you feel that the POV was wrong, we certainly invite you to come and correct and share your side of the story and let the home audience judge for themselves.--Kendricks Redtail 03:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been taken care of, thanks. When I edited the page/removed content it kept getting put back, so I had to be sure that the admin knew I was serious. I'm satisfied and as long as it stays this way, I will be. -Kal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 03:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I work for the federal government
Oh really? Just which department do you work for, Kala? I'm unaware of any government benefit which provides legal counsel when the employee is the plaintiff in a civil case. Also, I would like to ask for the name and telephone number of your department head. I would like to speak to them. Thanks. --Douglas Muth 05:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
. . . and if you're not, you'll sue us? Or just threaten to do so again? Sorry, but legal threats do not work here. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It got the job done, didn't it? I don't normally bother with wiki's, and I found it rather obnoxious I couldn't delete false information about myself without someone putting it back up. Forgive me for not realizing there's 'procedures'. It's over with, no need to keep rubbing it in. The info is gone, and while I'd like the name itself deleted I can mess with that later. -K —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"and while I'd like the name itself deleted I can mess with that later. -K" That part (removal of a name, or an entry in its totality) is not quite possible, but you can ask to have your entry "Protected-Excluded", i.e., Left blank on request. Just ask an Admin for help on this matter ^-^ Spirou 05:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

...Aaaand looks like somebody "Protected-Excluded" your entry already,... Hate showing in the middle of an ongoing discussion =P Spirou 05:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware, and I've said thank you a couple times now. It -is- appreciated. It's just that now it comes up on google, but that's not so bad as opposed to the posting of some false information. Google I can deal with, lies, I cannot. ^.^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . 05:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
So . . . just state that they're not true; or, since opinions are involved, that you have differing opinons? I don't see the problem here. The best approach to dealing with an article that takes a point of view as fact is to give all points of view and attribute them ("X said this, but Y disagrees . . ."), not to remove everything and complain about it. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Is there any reason not to use {{Protected-Excluded}} on this? Angela talk 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -Kal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Angela, our policy is not to use protected-excluded until the person is excluded. You appear to have used it as a temporary measure. It is not intended to be used in that manner. Kal, please do not remove other people's words from talk pages.
That said, now, does anyone have objections to this personal exclusion? If not, I have no problem in letting it stand, as this person does not appear to be particularly notable, except possibly in the area of a specific RPG (which seems to be more suited to that RPG's documentation than our own). --GreenReaper(talk) 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is my 'real' legal name. I think you'd have a problem with people using yours, too. I don't know why -you- guys are now making such a big deal about it. "Please do not remove other people's words from talk pages." I edited out something that was quoted that sorta, you know, defeated the point of being 'excluded'. I have a right to protect my personal privacy. I apologize but it's important. I'll -fully- explain if you want, but not on here. -K —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 04:53, 17 January 2007
Well, no . . . actually, you don't have that right. Just because this is your name does not give you the right to tell us what we can, or cannot write here about you . . . as long as it is true. That's covered by the First Amendment (Wikia's servers are located in the US, so US law applies). You cannot find such privacy laws because they would have been in conflict with the Constitution, and thus invalid. Privacy is only protected when extremely invasive methods have been used to penetrate it, such as photographers trespassing on private property.
Now, if particular statements were not true - for example, if the article claimed you insulted people when you had not, or that you had burned down a building but you had not - then they could just have been removed or replaced with an accurate depiction of the situation. If they were a matter of opinion, or a matter of fact that was impossible to ascertain, then they should have been changed to represent that ("Person/Group X claimed that X insulted them and burned down their clubhouse, while Y stated that they got drunk and burnt it down themselves"). If they were technically true, but did not give the full story, then the appropriate solution would have been to add the other side of the story in - or to request complete exclusion, as Spirou mentioned.
The page that is subject to being excluded is not the one that discusses why you are being excluded, which is this one. Giza was actually supporting your cause there by highlighting a piece of information that he felt was potentially inaccurate, which makes it all the more odd that you would try to remove it. If it's not true, you can just say so and that will be recorded here as well. Removing it just makes it seem like you're trying to hide something, and implies that it is true, which was probably not your intent. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'll be happy to explain elsewhere, and not have this huge mess on here, if it's not such a bother. This is becoming rather absurd with how you feel like you have to explain all of this. I personally just want it gone (all of it), like I said, for reasons I'll explain off public view. It wasn't true, and even if I 'fought' that it would take way too long, and ends up being one person's word against another. Again, I'll fully explain myself, just not here. Thanks again for removing the information. Let me know and I'll leave contact information for a bit. I'd like it all to be just 'excluded' because now it's even bigger of a deal than it originally started. I apologize for not knowing the 'ways of the wiki' but I did what I felt I had to do. --Kal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 05:48 and 05:51, 17 January 2007
I've contacted you privately, though don't feel you have to explain if you don't want to. As above, if there is no more significant reason to have an article about you on WikiFur, then this exclusion is likely to stand. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I did respond, FYI. In case you were waiting on a notice here. *shrug* -K —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (comment signed, but edit from anon ip) 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I just type slow at 2:30AM. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 07:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename request[edit]

The subject of this article has requested that it be moved to the name Fox K McCloud, on the grounds that this is their character name, as opposed to their real name. Given that the intent would be to make their real name unsearchable, we would have to replace the instance of it in this page with the equivalent name as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Googling this name comes up with zero hits for this name, except for a mention by Sibe on his blog. Which means having a name present here is the least of her worries. I'd be more worried about being associated with Sibe. I can't even call up this name on this wiki's search bar. I say she's pretty safe from us. Changing this article name as well as ferreting out ever last mention of her on wikifur and its talk pages would be a pointless gesture.--Kendricks Redtail 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It comes up with two hits - this page and Sibe's, and the reason it's mentioned there is that it's mentioned here. The only mention on the entire wiki is the name of this page and the one instance of it in this page. Search works fine for me, brings up this page. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe my search engines are evil then ;) Well, then here's my issue. Rename the article, but I feel that renaming the talk page is a lot like purposely misfiling a file so that it's lost forever. The point of talk pages and our anal retentive preservation of them is so that we can refer back to them and to other pages if needed. We might as well just delete this article and the talk page it's under. But wait, if we do that, then someone can just recreate a new article and talk page. A funny question then, do redirects show up on search engines?--Kendricks Redtail
I propose we leave this article and talk page in their current locations, and create Fox K McCloud as a protected-excluded person thing. -- Sine 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How would that help the problem, which is that they do not want their real name (this current article name) to be associated with the furry fandom? --GreenReaper(talk) 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't at all clear to me that was the problem. Now that it is clear ... hmm. I don't know. I suppose that even this protected-excluded not-article, and the associated talk page, could be deleted, although I don't follow why the presence of either is so bothersome. -- Sine 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is that she doesn't want people googling her name and linking it to drama. Of course nothing here even remotely indicates that the Kala McCloud is the same Kala McCloud that the employer (or whoever) is looking for. Seriously, have you tried googling your name? There are at least 3 other people with my name and I don't think you think I'm a European football player, do you? It's an empty gesture and no one knows about it if we leave this talk page alone.--Kendricks Redtail 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not just move this page's information to the page mentioned above, the name of her alias. Then just protect this page? That seems the most logical resolution to me. That way only her alias is known, and nothing can be added about her under her legal name. --Banrai | talk (06/05/07) 01.38 (UTC)