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


Species, characters or fursonas normally remain within their user' page, until it has gather enough notoriety to be separated on their own article - Spirou 03:01, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

---Then please, go through and do that for all the other pages on the fictional_species pages that you also deem "not notable enough" by your own standards.
FYI, there are multiple people roleplaying monoceri on various MU's. I've referred them to this page over the years for simple backdrop on the species, using WikiFur as a resource in good faith. Just because they don't have personal WikiFur pages doesn't mean I'm the only one and that it's a "vanity page" as a result.
Please clarify your system for determining what is 'notable', and then please apply it to all the other 'fictional species' category entries on WikiFur and apply it fairly. If you can't do this, please re-instate the Monoceros page so I can continue to refer to it on the various Furry roleplaying areas I frequent.
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tugrik (talkcontribs) .
Regardless of whether or not the topic should have its own article: If you're going to do that, you should actually put the information that you have replaced with a redirect on the page that you redirect to - preferably in a section of its own, which you could set the redirect to point to (e.g. #REDIRECT [[Tugrik#Monoceros]]). Otherwise the content is lost to readers, and users not experienced with wikis will have no idea how to get it back either. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:12, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm not very Wiki-savvy myself. I'm not even sure if I'm properly responding here, or if editing a talk page is the right thing to do.
Either way, all I know is that a page not touched for years was suddenly marked for deletion. When I undid that upon notification, it was fully deleted/redirected with no explanation. When I asked for an explanation, I'm simply told that it's "not notable", even though the fictional_species area is full of similar character instances.
As a very long standing member of the fandom whose character-species is decently well recognized (except, evidently, to wikifur editors), I find this to be an abuse of power by an editor who thinks he knows best. The "screw him, I'm deleting/redirecting" comes across as a punitive revenge piece instead of a proper justification.
Please apply this "notable'" policy to ALL appropriate character species here on WikiFur, or please restore my s"pecies" page. If neither can be done, please remove all my information from this Wiki. I'm glad to contribute and be a part, but not if I'm going to simply be deleted and nose-thumbed at by an editor on a "notableness" streak. Thank you.
(To Green) tried, was giving me a error message page,... tried 10 items for the redirect to stick - Spirou 03:31, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
"Then please, go through and do that for all the other pages on the fictional_species pages that you also deem "not notable enough" by your own standards".... Your species article has not been deleted, it's been merged with your user article,... and, yes we do the same to all species pages we come through. An example of an species page that earned it's own: Chakats. They are everywhere, knowledge, media, fursuiting, lore, etc,...
Monoceros is currently a very localized known species. Could that change, it would easily separate from your user article - Spirou 03:31, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Explanation posted. Post wasn't deleted just merged, We go over every article to see if it can be enhanced (Merge, unmerged, moved, trimmed, edit), Nothing to do with "Notability", but how that info has affect the whole of the fandom (see Chakats). All pages go thru the same process, this not directed towards you. Just trying to edit balanced,...

One more time. All articles go through this process. Nobody is singled out - Spirou 03:38, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

At this point the explanation does not matter.

I am the sole copyright holder on the species concept "monoceros" and on the monoceros character "Tugrik". I put these pages here against my better judgement as a favor to GreenReaper back when he was trying to convince those in his social circles to contribute to WikiFur.

Now that I find myself being judged by a self-appointed editor, I wish to remove all of my copyrighted content, text and images from this site. Please do so or I will pursue this matter further as provided for by US copyright law.

Once all my materials are removed I will delete my account, and you will no longer have to worry about categorizing the information that I contributed to this Wiki.

Thank you.

...All because of this little content dispute? You aren't being judged--this article's relevance is. Equivamptalk 03:45, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Please delete this page and all pages linked to "Tugrik" and "Monoceros". I am the sole copyright holder on the species concept "monoceros" and the monoceros character "Tugrik". As per my rights under US copyright law, I want all text, images and associated data related to the "tugrik" and "monoceros" pages removed from this site. This is my official notice.

Tugrik 03:46, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Firstly, if I may make a suggestion: it is late in the USA, and the people editing here (including myself) may be tired. It may be a good idea for everyone in this to take a few deep breaths and remember that everyone here is trying to act in good faith.
Please leave the legal threats at the door. When you contribute to WikiFur, you are licensing your material to others, permitting them to modify and redistribute the submitted words for any use, as long as they use the same license for their own modified version. This is the legal basis upon which the wiki rests. It does not permit "take backs" just because you do not like what we did with it. You are warned of this quite clearly by the text beneath this edit box. (This license does not apply to files, and I have deleted the ones which you attempted to remove.)
Being "the copyright holder" of a character or species (whatever you mean by that) would also not restrict documentation of that species by others, in the same way that the editors over at Memory Alpha can describe Klingons without gaining permission from their creators.
Now, if you do actually wish for personal exclusion, that can probably be arranged. You might also argue that information about your "personal species" should be removed along with it, although this is somewhat in contradiction your initial argument that it deserved its own article. Creations notable enough for their own articles are typically not covered under our exclusion policy - e.g. we wouldn't delete an article about a popular comic just because its creator requested exclusion.
Your account cannot be deleted as it is required to identify you as the creator of the revisions concerned. However, you can always modify or remove any personal details contained in Special:Preferences. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:14, 13 July 2011 (EDT)


Aah, the universal "we can do whatever we want to" page all Wikis pull out. I'm very familiar with this and have seen it in many WikiWars.

It is your sandbox, I must play by your rules. I will be submitting a Personal Exclusion in the next few minutes by your policies. If others wish to create a 'monoceros' page it appears they are welcome to by your rules system, and I will make no attempt to stop them. I understand about your account-deletion restrictions and will simply delete all the personal information attached to it that I am allowed to.

Please note that I am asking for my rights as a copyright holder regarding personally created content, nothing more, nothing less. Anything beyond that is your own assumption.

I personally do not subscribe to the 'assume in good faith' wiki article. My own personal experience with this and other wikis on the web have proven that there are far too many editors who act in anything *but* good faith. This is why I am choosing to not participate, and why I am now regretting my decision to follow your advice back in the mid-2000's and contribute data to this project. As much as it'd be nice to assume 'good faith' in the general online population, it is instead very rare. Tugrik 04:30, 13 July 2011 (EDT)