oopps ^_^ Leam 03:04, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)
personal website category
"This article isn't *about* a personal website . . . maybe it _is_ one, but that isn't what the category is about (perhaps it should be?)" - GR
I see what you mean; the category is a bit ambiguous. The article isn't about Leam.com. Thanks. 188.8.131.52 20:52, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
If there's too many logical subheadings, a reader can always click the Hide button. I fail to see how forced hierarchy, even if slightly unpretty, is a problem. Leam 23:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the length or sub-headings that are the source of the cleanup template. Looking the article over, I'd say it's the informal layout of the content, such as the "Namedroppingz" section - these are often best left on a user page, where they're not held up to encyclopedia standards. Spaz Kitty 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that these pages were intended to be all that formal. Indeed, many of the ones I come across here are not. If all articles should be formal, the style guide should specify this. I can try to formalize it a bit, but in all honesty, this isn't Wikipedia, and I don't see anything really in conflict with the local style guide. Leam 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct, this is not Wikipedia. However, I would point you to What WikiFur is, specifically the policy on vanity pages:
- Vanity articles, that is, articles about a person or project which are written by the article subject or someone involved with a project, are acceptable on WikiFur, unlike Wikipedia. In order for WikiFur to remain a useful resource for information, though, these articles need to be factual and concise. Articles which are written for humor value or are lacking in reliable, documentable sources are likely to be edited for accuracy, or if the information is not documentable, deleted altogether.
- If you have humorous or non-factual information you would like to provide, provide a forum for commentary about yourself or your project, or wish to provide other non-encyclopedic information (within existing WikiFur policies and the boundaries of good taste), you are welcome to create a WikiFur account and post that in the User: namespace pages.
- Helpful. I think some of that info could be merged into the styleguide. While it is true those older versions were humorous, I didn't think they were inaccurate. However, I've cleaned up the article a good deal anyway (looking back, it needed it), and the only major bits of humor now present are in the Quotes section. I suppose this could go in the User page, but I think it's more relevant here. But then again, I think humor is very relevant, so I'm biased. Leam 19:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
In the name of professionalism, when slapping a "cleanup" tag on a vanity page, staff may want to consider posting a short summary of what needs to be cleaned up and why. If not in history, then talk.
The information on my article currently is factual, concise, documentable, relevant, and [the quotes are] humourous. Humor is a very important aspect to my involvement with the furry fandom, as anyone who is familiar with me will verify. By leaving out this information, I feel that it paints an incomplete picture, thus, the article becomes less useful and encyclopedic. Please consider how many elements of humor that other internet encyclopedias document, and then consider how inappropriate my quotes (and by extension, the policy) really are.
If such information does not have a place in articles, staff may want to consider clarifying up the following paragraph in What WikiFur is, because it is poorly-phrased and easy to miss:
"If you have humorous or non-factual information you would like to provide, provide a forum for commentary about yourself or your project, or wish to provide other non-encyclopedic information (within existing WikiFur policies and the boundaries of good taste), you are welcome to create a WikiFur account and post that in the User: namespace pages."
The humor bit deserves emphasis; at least as a standalone sentence. Leam 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just attempted what I thought was appropriate cleanup of the article. Your WikiFur page (Leam) is meant to be factual and formal. Your User page (User:Leam) is your actual personal page, where you can be as informal as you want. I have moved your quotes there. Even if you don't like my edit, you can see what I removed and thus what I considered needing the cleanup tag attached. Spaz Kitty 20:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well then, it would seem you have your work cut out for you. I won't bother listing all the articles I've come across that have detailed descriptions, sarcasm regarding politics, et cetera, that would require changes according to your logic... I'm just illustrating my opinion that said articles are better and more complete for being slightly informal. I hope the irony of basing mine on that of a featured WF admin article is not lost on you.
- Also, I'd like to know, in your opinion, what's not factual and formal about a detailed description, my political affiliation, and why I'm in the fandom? Finally, removing one of my fursonas (when the style guide says to just leave it blank if no [good] info is present) seems rather unencyclopedic, so I'll make the appropriate changes to both pages later this evening. Leam 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've already edited Reddie, and Banrai was subject to many edits when it was first created. Note the discussion about removing the comments from Verix's page as well. Also, I removed the libertarian comment because it said you were "kind of, except not". So I took that as saying you were not a Libertarian. Your Leam fursona was not removed - it was merged into sentences in the opening paragraph, rather than a list of characteristics. You asked for reasons why the cleanup tag was still there, and this is my opinion. You're certainly free to get a second one. Spaz Kitty 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just read Talk:Verix. So am I correct in my impression that such quotes are allowed if I'm a WikiFur administrator? That sounds rather like a double-standard. Removing the bit on my political stance was still unnecessary, in my opinion; the "kind of but not" was meant to illustrate that some of my stances seem Libertarian, and that was the most concise, if informal way of stating that fact. My DJ Kitty, Internet P.h.D fursona was removed, which is more important to the article than the obtuse triangle. Indeed, the icon as a badge is exactly how most furries recognise me in real life. A lot of the recent edits, frankly, come off as nitpicking. Leam 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's not a double-standard. Both Sine and myself think the quotes should be removed. How did you get the opposite impression from our responses? o.O As for the DJ Kitty, it was not stated as a fursona. All it said was: "People really only talk to Leam online because of his strangely-hypnotic DJ Kitty LiveJournal icons." This is opinion, not fact. Spaz Kitty 00:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's a double-standard if one user can have quotes but the another can't, even if both your opinions on the matter is consistent.
- The DJ Kitty was also a section and if I've read the style guide correctly, should have been blanked out in lieu of a revision. You're right that I had an opinion posted -- the whole thing was rather informal. This, I'll formalize, along with most other parts. Leam 01:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just reverted his revert. It'd probably be best if someone just cut out the offending text, moved it to the talk page for archival and/or discussion, and cleaned up what was left. :-P --Douglas Muth 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- You raise an excellent point, but if I did what you suggest, then this wouldn't be me voicing my displeasure of WikiFur's policy on forbidding informal tone in vanity articles. ^_^ Nothing personal. Leam 17:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- My bad; I meant regular articles about people. And yes, thanks, I plan to. Leam 18:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying remove the content, but is it appropriate to be a sub category of your involvement in the fandom? The only connections I see (the references to zoophilia) are at best stretched. Some furs get involved politically in the fandom by organizing political forums for furries. Maybe this should be a seperate section or removed if it really doesn't have any relevance. What do you think?--Kendricks Redtail 22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point; I'll see if I can merge. I have a lot of old merging to do anyway. Though I guess if I wanted to further stretch it, I could cite how I spearhead local furry voting initiatives. The last one was called "VOTE CRACKA." :3 Leam 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)