Out of curiosity, was there any specific reason given for the exclusion request on this article? Not that there needs to be a reason, but it seems odd that the subject of the article should (apparently) go to the trouble of creating it and then want it removed 48 hours later. --Higgs Raccoon 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Should we establish some basic rules about this once and for all?,... If you don't want to be represented on Wikifur, don't make one, or request an admin to create one, followed by a request of exclusion. We have now a long list of excluded articles that is now either having asking me "why?" or "and this person is?...".
- Seriously, at this current pace, the exclusion page will be bigger that most articles =/ Spirou 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The requester said there was "drama". I don't feel there's any need to ask for specifics. In general if the only major contributor is the subject, I don't have any problem with respecting their wishes; no one else has put any stake into the article. If they're knew they might not have realized all the implications of putting their information up. --Rat 00:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- "The requester said there was "drama"." (...) Uh, before this entry was created and locked, I had not heard, or seen, info regarding this individual. In a span of a few hours, just like Scooter McPhearson, we now have two locked entries, and enough information to make people curious about them, and start digging for more,... not precisely the best way to try distance from public/furry scrutiny, hence the "why?" of this type of articles.
- "If they're knew they might not have realized all the implications of putting their information up," exactly... =P Spirou 02:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)