Regarding the blurb about Nexxus "being asked not to attend Anthrocon", that is simply untrue. Looking through the entire thread, it was about Christopher Bair, who runs Planet Furry and a few other websites. The Chairman's comments on the thread further indicate this. --Douglas Muth 04:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from the article:
- In the early days of FurNation, he scooped functionality innovations from other peoples' furry websites to control it all at one central location-- his.
...since there was no reference cited for that and the sentence seemed rather inflamatory. --Douglas Muth 04:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The first accusation of theft is actually is actually just that, an accusation,... Nexxus replies later on on it that he is behind the deliveries. The phrasing on the entry sounds more like insinuation than a fact, and 2003?, is there anything else more recent to corroborate this?. Spirou 04:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Including Nexxus's rebuttals?
Looking at this thread, there are a couple of rebuttals from Nexxus, which seem perfectly reasonable to me. Any suggestions from more experienced editors on how we can include them in the references without the list of references getting unweildly? --Douglas Muth 04:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the whole "controversy" section should just be removed. If you look at the 4 things being cited.
- 1. 1 disgruntled cusstomer on Second Life. Are there any Second Life communities that have not had complaints made about them or the people running them? Is Second Life drama enough of a reason to discredit someone's reputation like this? I don't think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuzzWolf (talk • contribs) .
- Just because other communities may have complaints about them, does that make any of the complaints less valid? If Nexxus cares to respond to the allegation in a blog, UseNet, website, etc., I would have no problem with referencing/citing said reply in the article as it would be the fair thing to do. Speaking of which, I have noticed one additional complaint which lends support to Triggur's claim: . --Douglas Muth 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- 2. Reference 2 is a newsgroup post from nearly 3 years ago. Its also pretty clear in the post that the person writing it is advocating Sibe's illegal download. This information is neither recent nor from a reliable source of information. They're using Nexxus as an excuse to support their furry bittorrent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuzzWolf (talk • contribs) .
- Looking over that post again, the poster does not seem to have any specific complaint about having lost money, so I think it doesn't belong on this article. I've removed it. --Douglas Muth 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- 3. An uphappy customer. As has been stated here, Nexxus replies to these issues farther down in the thread. It would be really one-sided to only cite the views of one person whose order didn't come out quite right. I don't see any slandering on the entries for Rabbit Valley or Shanda so why is the founder of FurNation targeted like this? I don't believe for a second that there's a single company out there, furry or otherwise, that has not had a customer that they couldn't make happy no matter what they did. Some people just like to keep complaining long after the fact. If Wikifur is going to include negative information from one customer of one furry provider, it should do the same for everyone. Can you imagine what a can of worms that would open up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FuzzWolf (talk • contribs) .
- I'm all for citing Nexxus's reply, too. Is there one that someone can link me to?
- I don't know of any issues regarding Rabbit Valley or Shanda (or any other vendor offhand), but if there were public complaints made from people who had business with them, I would have no problem with a similar "controversy" section being added to their articles, too.
- Also, I'm going to have to disagree with with characterizing the section as "slander". First, slander is spoken (oral) defamation. I believe what you're referring to is libel, which is written defamation. That being said, I'm not sure how having a controversy section would be considered libellous on our part. The section is cited and, AFAIK, there has been no "actual malice" on the part of WikiFur. I'll concede that it's possible that trade libel may have been committed by any of the parties that have had complaints about Nexxus, but that would be an issue between Nexxus and those parties. In the event that he would prevail against any of those people in court, we could certainly cite the judgements here. --Douglas Muth 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- 4. So Nexxus has people who help him out from time to time. I'm not seeing the problem here. Also the post that is referenced shows Dragoneer offering to get the comics to the person complaining, not to pay any money. It doesn't show he's helping Nexxus financially so the reference is incorrect.--FuzzWolf 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good point, I've removed that reference. --Douglas Muth 01:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This has to be a joke.
- Am I seriously to understand--this can't be intentional, but are people accusing Nexxus of trying to--of trying to run a Rackett? 22.214.171.124 21:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- If by "racket", you mean "illegal enterprise", I don't think so. It looks to me like some people are merely complaining that they haven't received what they paid for, nor have received refunds. There can be plenty of explanations (both legal and extra-legal) for that. I think it would be a stretch at this point to call it a racket. --Douglas Muth 21:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Why I reverted Selkit's edits
I fail to see how anything in the article is considered defamation. Furthermore, I find it questionable that Selkit is trying to remove a reference to a comment that he posted himself in Triggur's LJ, specifically that he stepped in financially to help Nexxus out. I think that, as a money issue, it is relavent to some of the issues in the article.
That being said, the text of the article does look a little POVish, so I'll try to make it less so.
Going forward, if you have an issue with the article, I think it would be best for all concerned to leave comments on this talk page instead of arbitrarily removing a link to something you wrote. --Douglas Muth 21:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)