Talk:List of Do Not Redistribute requests

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

I only got the first page so far from ... and that took me several hours. I didn't sort it alphabetically or anything, either. If anyone would care to take the next page, that would be fantastic! I think I'm going to contact the page's author to see if he/she would be interested in adding the rest of the database in. --Chibiabos 05:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is an appropriate item for WikiFur. -- Sine 05:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in Dog's name wouldn't it be? Its a useful list of furry artists and their official stances on redistribution of their artwork. Would you care to give a more detailed reason as to why you don't feel an article listing furry artists' public redistribution is appropriate for Wikifur? --Chibiabos 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Because we are a encyclopedia, were we would list what the site is about, were it is, when it came on line, and it's purpose. Right now you are ripping the site informational resources, and transplanting it inside Wikifur, were it becomes an extension of that page. We went from documenting it to become a mirror site for it.
We talk about it, not become it Spirou 06:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble deciphering that statement ... you're stating this page is just a mirror of another site? Not true. I wrote the article with the intention of developing a "Do Not Redistribute" artist request list and did a search and found a site that happened to list quite a few. I originally wrote it with Klaus Dobermann in mind. When I have completed citing the information on StarFire's site into the article, I will continue the hunt -- and I know much of the information I seek is widespread in newsgroup posts and artist galleries across the Internet.
I still see no case for why this information does not belong on wikifur. Its relevant to the fandom, and very useful information for some applications. That one website I discovered in research for the article happens to have an existing database of much of the data for the article does not alter that, nor the article's appropriateness on Wikifur.
Does the article have serious NPOV problems? Does it have nothing to do with the furry fandom? Is it a vandalism page? Sorry, but I still don't see it as being any of these things. --Chibiabos 06:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There, linked to the Furry Artist InFURmation Page inside the DNR page. It has a dedicate DNR/DNP listing that people can now track back from here, instead of mirroring the site's content Spirou 06:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no mirror. The information here does not mirror the information on that site, and will continue to diverge. Please don't vandalize pages. --Chibiabos 06:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Please don't vandalize pages..." (...) Hmm, I need a request for administration help on this matter at the most convenient, please (Sine or GreenReaper) Spirou 06:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm watching. However, the article does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mere lists of information are not copyrightable, so this is not a copyright violation. If you think that it should not be on WikiFur, then you should argue that here. I would note that we already have a List of LiveJournal communities (among other lists) and a Template:Timeline of conventions which is made up mostly of information from AFCIS, although there are some other sources. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WikiFur:Speedy_deletion and ensure at least one of the criterion is met ... marking pages for speedy deletion when they meet zero criteria may be construed as vandalism. --Chibiabos 06:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Quite correct, but it's not in relation to copyright infraction more than redundancy and the volatility(*) of the data and that the article just seem to mirror it's content not in a way to display historical information (i.e. Conventions happen every year, and we document future and past ones here, as you have stated, in that list, which is compiled from information gathered by editors.)
Right know it seems more like an actual resource (like just hosting the site here,) instead of an article (an advertisement.) That's why I linked the site's DNP/DNR page to the appropriate articles on Wikifur, so people would be able to view an example of an real DNP/DNR page from within said articles. Hence first the discussion, the the linking, then submitting the article for SpD 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spirou (talkcontribs) .
There's no established volatility, aside from more names being frequently added to DNR. You failed to differentiate Do Not Post and Do Not Redistribute for instance. As I've stated again and again, its not mirrored content. I simply incorporated part of the content, but that took hours and I needed to take a break so I posted it as it was. I've invited the site owner to help incorporate over more of the data so I can focus on additional sources of information that are far and wide.
I'm not sure what relevancy conventions have on this article, this is an article listing artists who have known "Do Not Redistribute" stipulations on their artwork. Of course a list is a resource -- there are several list articles on WikiFur.
And you continue to confuse DNP with DNR. They are very different, as established in the articles. Please read them. How does the list read like an advertisement? Maybe you could say that of individual artist pages, but I fail to see where the list promotes any one product or artist to qualify as reading like an advertisement. Spd has specific criteria that must be met, and you failed to show where the article met a single one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chibiabos (talkcontribs) . (07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
Chibiabos, please do me the great favor of stopping calling me a Vandal, would you, Thank you Spirou 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Trying to get my article deleted when it meets zero criteria is vandalism in my book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chibiabos (talkcontribs) . (07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
Point: It's not your article, it's Wikifur. None of the articles I have written are mine, and several have been merged+delete because it make sense to do so. I have offer a criteria, actually several, that may not be on the Speedy Delete rules, but we have added and tweaked those rules in the past when it may sense to do so Spirou 07:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism has a quite clear definition - attempting to compromise the integrity of the wiki. Spirou is trying to improve the integrity of the wiki by removing this article from it, because he feels it is a bad article to have. You can disagree with his opinion if you wish, but I think his motives are sound, and I would ask you to assume good faith. Spirou was not the only person to disagree with the creation of this article, after all.
Indeed, I would note that Template:SpeedyDelete says quite specifically that you should not remove it from an article that you created yourself, and such actions do come under the definition of "avoidant vandalism". I would like to think that you have a good faith reason for doing so, too. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
So a vandal deletes or blanks an article I wrote with no justification and its tough luck, all my work is for naught and Wikifur is banned from having the information it contained? --Chibiabos 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And if I may enter a final argument why the SpD, we would be providing incomplete information with this article. Were somebody use this article as is, they would miss the complete picture the site offers, which includes everything listed here, plus such data such as imagery of the artists signature. We are not doing the purpose of the site justice. And that's just my opinion on the matter Spirou 07:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. --Chibiabos 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(*Sigh*) Would you please state in what manner is it incorrect, and debate the reasoning behind it in a comprehensive manner,...

  • S: I came here for a good argument.
  • C: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
  • S: An argument isn't just contradiction.
  • C: It can be.
  • S: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
  • C: No it isn't.
  • S: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
  • C: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
  • S: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
  • C: Yes it is!
  • S: No it isn't!
  • C: Yes it is!
  • S: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
  • (short pause)
  • C: No it isn't.

Spirou 07:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Every article on wikifur is incomplete. That's why its electronic and not printed. Articles are never finished, there's always room to add more, always room for improvement. If an article being "incomplete" were valid for +spd, then every article on every wiki would qualify. Do you think every article on every wiki should be +spd'd? --Chibiabos 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
And for the last time, I did not copy the information on the other site. There is information in this article not contained in the presently cited primary reference, and the time I've spent trying to clean up your mess could have been better spent finishing incorporating the data and moving on to the numerous additional resources there are yet to find.
I am honestly tired of repeating myself over and over again. I could have spent this time working on the article instead of protecting against your efforts to delete an article I've invested a lot of time in already and still have a long way to go on. --Chibiabos 08:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression has been that the "delete because of" type of template (which I imagine is {{delete}} but I haven't actually checked that is hardly used here, and attaching the speedy delete template to a page is what's generally done, without detailed reference to the specific criteria. We could do with some more documentation and clarification in that area, most likely, so it's of note for the distinction to be coming up here.

At any rate, on the specific topic at hand, while certainly just about every article here could be added to, I think even stubs should be self-contained and have some use as stubs, and I think a list in the very early stages of being gathered and formated would be better not added as an item here until more complete. -- Sine

I withdraw the request for SpD Spirou 08:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the contents of this talk page from the last 12 hours, here's my take on it things.

  • The page currently appears to be little more than a mirror of Since WikiFur is not really intended to be a mirror of other websites, I do not think we should have the list here. A link to it would be sufficient.
  • On the subject of the actual discussion, Chibiabos, I think accusing Spirou of vandalism was uncalled for. A simple check of his editing history and user page shows that he has well over a year of involvement with this wiki and is in good standing here. You, on the other hand, have consistently been very emotional in both this and other articles on this wiki, and I for one am getting tired of it. If you want to behave like that, kindly do it someplace else, thanks. --Douglas Muth 13:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Its is false that the article is a mirror of a webpage. I've repeated this very much ad nauseum. A link does not suffice for the purposes of the article, the external site and all the other sources that I or other wikifurrians who are dedicated to improving wikifur and adding on relevant information will find. Wikifur is an information resource and unless you can establish grounds that the article violates NPOV, is not relevant to the furry fandom, or that it meets some criteria for deletion, there is no justification for attempting to or calling for it to be blanked.
I have not called for the article to be blanked/removed. I merely suggested that reproducing the list from is not needed for the article. I'm fine if the rest of the article stays. --Douglas Muth 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"I have not called for the article to be blanked/removed." ... you just want the data deleted and replaced with a list of links that don't even mention what artists to find where, what it is they said about their work, and what pieces they applied to. In short you feel all the actual data should be blanked and none should be added. --Chibiabos 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. As stated, I do not see the point in copying an already existing list onto this Wiki, when there an external webpage for it that the article can reference. --Douglas Muth 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of the list article is to provide one quick, central place to see what artists have established DNRs. Providing just a list of links without the relevant quotes would make the article all but useless, as someone reading the article would have to check each one individually and wouldn't even know which one to check for what artist.
I'm not sure I see the point in that. I imagine that such a list is likely to change/be updated frequently, and that would require considerable work on our part -- as an out of date list would be worse than no list at all. I really think this purpose would be best served by a seperate website set up for just that purpose. --Douglas Muth 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
That applies to every article on every wiki. Are you proposing to delete every article on every wiki? Zero validity for blanking or deletion. --Chibiabos 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Strongly seconded. An external link to the InFURmation site is of much more use than mirroring even a portion of its information here. As an additional point, I would be uncomfortable with such mirroring without documented permission by the InFURmation site's maintainer. -- Sine 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no mirroring. Every referenced bit of every information on every wiki is dupliated and incorporated into one article as a reference. That's, gee, what a wiki is. --Chibiabos 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The article and its information has a proven wikifur-appropriate scope, and the only reason to delete it is because it might be deemed unfair to Art piracy forums, since it takes away every last excuse they throw up for hosting art in violation of Do Not Redistribute requests.
I have seen zero, I repeat zero justification for this mob of calls to blank the article. Attempting to blank or delete an article without justification (meeting none of the criteria for deletion) is very much vandalism. --Chibiabos 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait... are you implying that myself or anyone else who disagrees with your position is somehow in support of art theft or a vandal? Exactly which part of no personal attacks is unclear? Making personal attacks only serves to entrench people in their positions instead of working toward consensus, and deters people from participating in the discussion for fear of being attacked themselves. Please stop doing that. --Douglas Muth 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice try trying to call the kettle black there. There is zero, zero, zero justification to delete or blank this article. The only motivation is that it makes places like fchan seem not so nice because of all the Art piracy they commit. There is no other reason to call for blanking/deleting the information to replace it with a nearly useless list of unreferenced, unquoted links that don't associate an artist with their given DNR which is what this list is about. How much more time do I need to waste here when I could work on the actual article? --Chibiabos 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you imply that by disagreeing with you that I am somehow in support of art theft and/or a vandal. Not only is this untrue, but I strongly object to you making personal attacks against me instead of making an argument for having this list. For the second time, I am going to ask you to please stop doing this. It is proving to be a serious impediment to this discussion. --Douglas Muth 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a list of do not redistibute requests is particularly useful in and of itself. While it could be useful in a particular context, such as as a reference for a specific project that would involve redistributing, I don't think it's useful in a general way, (or interesting reading!) as are our other lists on WikiFur, such as the List of LiveJournal communities or even List of contributors to Gallery.

As well, such a list could never be comprehensive, at least not under the assumption that the default should be to not distribute others' work without permission.

-- Sine 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Effects of researching and working on list[edit]

In addition to the resource itself being valuable to the fandom (obviously, judging by the volume of DNR type stamps/remarks used by artists), it also opens up avenues for adding more WikiFur articles on comics and artists. I've already created several, and found StarChaser's listing on her list and was able to put something of an article for her.

Anyone researching this article, even just the elements I've already found will be improving Wikifur, and I do not see how wiping or deleting the article would do anything except close off those avenues and eliminate from Wikifur what, obviously, I am not alone in considering a valuable resource.

I've yet to see a single valid argument that the LoDNRr fails NPOV or has no relevancy to the fandom. For that matter, none of the arguments carry weight ... because an article needs a lot of work is not a valid reason for wiping or deleting it (else every article would); the same goes for the probability that information may or will go out of date. Any argument that this article should be wiped or deleted this article that is not distinctive of all Wikifur articles is utter nonsense. The only real motivation I can see behind it are those who fear backlash when its realized they violate artists and even drive them from the fandom by committing art piracy. This article doesn't say art piracy is bad; even the Art piracy article doesn't; it merely notes and references as many artists as can be found who have expressed explicit Do Not Redistribute' instruction regarding their work. If you are unable to respect this and feel shame or fear of backlash, that is no reason to tear this article down. --Chibiabos 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that I never said the article failed NPOV or was irrelavent to the fandom. (In fact, looking through this talk page, the only person who has brought up POV is yourself.) I have specifically stated that I do not believe that WikiFur is the best place to have such a list. But instead of discussing the issue, you have consistently disparaged those who have disagreed with you, by outright dismissing our arguments, by calling us vandals, and implying that we somehow support art theft, even after I have specifically asked that you stop doing this. You have refused to budge on any of your points and have continued to add to this list, despite objections and concerns from others and no consensus having been reached on this article.
I would like to suggest that you voluntarily take some time off from editing here, give yourself a chance to "cool down", and come back when you feel more like engaging in discussion with us, and not insults. --Douglas Muth 23:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You've failed to establish a case as to why the article should be partially blanked or deleted, yet consistently you repeat that it should. You've repeated "I do not believe that WikiFur is the best place to have such a list" but it does not meet any of the +spd criteria. Its relevant to the furry fandom, there are clearly a lot of artists who use DNR type stamps and remarks and its useful as a list of artists, their DNR remarks and where those remarks can be found. That's immensely valuable for a number of appliations, especially for anyone concerned about Art piracy. Articles like fchan read like advertisements to make it sound as though all is well and they are great places to be and cause no harm, but by ignoring Berne conventions and even explicit DNR posts. This is why StarChaser created Furry Artist InFURmation Page and why its important to continue and expand upon the work, and WikiFur is the perfect place to maintain such a resource.
I've wanted a resource like this for years, but it felt daunting. When I created this list article, I had no idea FAIP existed and I fully expected to have to google and chase down individual DNR statements from artists far and wide.
You continue to call for tearing down my work and your only reason why is you don't think this article is "appropriate." I don't think tearing down valuable information is appropriate, nor +spd marking articles without cause.
Sorry, but if you want to vandalize my articles, you're going to have to try harder. I won't give up so easily. Art piracy has pissed me off for years, and clearly I'm not the only one. A list like this is very valuable to those concerned about it, it has a relevance to the fandom and is significant.
Trying to say it should be deleted because "it can't be kept perfectly up to date and it can't be complete" is a stamp that applies to every wiki article, yet this one is the only one singled out. The reason? Not hard to guess. --Chibiabos 23:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that is it. I am giving you a 48 hour "cooling off period" for the following reasons:
  • Misrepresenting my argument by insisting that I am trying to SpD the entire article when this is not the case.
  • Implying that by not agreeing with you, myself and others are somehow in support of art theft.
  • Accusing myself and other contributors of vandalizing/trying to vandalize "your article" for disagreeing with you.
  • All of the above after having been asked multiple to stop doing this and act calmly and civilly.
I'm a volunteer. I don't get paid to be here, and I certainly don't have to put up with abusive comments. Effectively immediately, you get a 48 hour "cooling off period". When the block expires, you may edit pages on this wiki again. Hopefully you will feel up to acting civil by then. --Douglas Muth 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Out of line.[edit]

Chibiados, I will get to the point:

  • You are way out of line.
  • You have no sense of neutrality, nor try to even take a position on it (the CYD/Railfoxen/FChan/Sibe, your CYD rant,...)
  • You have either provided inaccurate resource information, or not provide any whatsoever.
  • You have started articles that have being questioned by several people on the Wiki about,...
  • And insulted or insinuate ulterior motives for even questioning you on it:
    • You have accused Wikifur to be pro anti-artists/pro-pirate.
    • You have accused Wikifur to be on the side of anti-furs, going against you.
    • You have called longtime editors and users "vandals" for daring to even question "your" work.
  • You keep claiming articles as "your" property, and attacked anybody who has called you on it.
  • You are extremely biased on a lot of subjects, specially the ones you feel "harm" the fandom (zero neutrality)
  • You have used Wikifur as your own personal pulpit to spread your beliefs, and attack those who called you on it (CYD rant)
  • You have started fights and arguments that are not even to occur here, and disregard any calls to take it to personal email.
  • And on and on,...

In short, you have been more disruptive than most trolls and floods I have seen, for every good deed, you have created 10X the grief, and honestly, you are a detriment to the Wiki (the following was my own opinion, solely my own, and in no way it represents the views of Wikifur, Administrators and Users. My apologies to everybody.)

GreenReaper, I will accept any disciplinary actions on this post, as I am aware I'm on my last and final warning. Spirou 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this whole fuss but I've been reading the back-and-forth discussions. I don't particularly disagree with any of the statements you've made above, Spirou. It appears to me that WikiFur does not live up to Chibiabos' expectations, and as such, perhaps he should find another venue for his opinions. ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 11:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this appropriate as a WikiFur article?[edit]

How about returning to or summarizing whether this is appropriate to have as a WikiFur article. We could do one of those short-discussion / not quite vote things (I know Wikipedia refers to those in a specific manner, and we've had one at least over at Talk:Sibe.) -- Sine 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As my own, sole opinion, not appropriate (elaboration why has already been given on portions of this talk page.) Spirou 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason for deleting an article listing furry artists' redistribution constraints is to eliminate that knowledge. Furry artists -are- the fandom, abuse of their copyrights is rampant and you seek to keep it that way? You repeatedly made false accusations of both plagiarism and mirroring, but your dishonesty in such has been rewarded with unanimous agreement by the administrators who seem to share your view that this article should be deleted. It seems no one else on Wikifur publicly, as editors, will allow an article that represents artists over pirates to balance out the adverticles for pirate sites and their "Do Not Post" farce shield. Congratulations. --Chibiabos 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)