"Article" is absurdly opinionated exposition
I followed the link from the Fchan article and found this "article" about some administrator there. Well, I don't know how difficult or abrasive this Sage Nadia can be, but this article is self-evidently a putdown attempt rather than an encyclopedic article.
Mostly the paragraphs present an analysis of this person's actions, spinning them as some sort of sinister plan, providing no supporting evidence or citations. It just looks stupid. Grow up, people.--Farry 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- ha, they won't ever fix that article because sage nadia bribed greenrapist into keeping her article that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
Comments of mysterious context go here
- I was wondering when that would be removed. I would have myself, but it did not seem proper to do so.
- --Sage Nadia 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could somebody more acquainted with the situation re--Sage Nadia 03:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)-add any salvage data?. I'm not 100% privy with the admin dealings of this image board =( - Spirou 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- i can fill you all in on this after the recent conventions i am attending. that is further confusion and fwa.
- --Sage Nadia 09:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I see Nadia's taken the Cigarskunk route of fellating herself on here, removing everything she thought was negative from the article and replacing it with puffed-up arrogance and butthurt. She's also apparently psycho enough that she doesn't understand how it looks. Oh well, not like I expected anything different from this place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
- You should sign your work so we know who you are.
- If you are able to provide an objective viewpoint, please feel free to put it in. What I removed was non-objective not so cleverly concealed tripe which belonged on CYD, Vivi, Lulz, or other locations which exist for the sole reason of creating drama and allowing persons to feel better about themselves by trying to make other look worse, not on WikiFur.
- So, tell us what you think needs to be added in, and give us references, or take a trip on down to #fchan in irc and we can chat. Usually you can find me available if I am on.
- --Sage Nadia 21:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yuh-huh. And you're obviously so objective, since you're, y'know... the subject of the article. How many yiff-yiff-yiffs did you give the admins here to make sure they'd make sure of it? Not that it seems to take much, you prolly just wagged your fat ass at 'em.
- Sign my comments. Whatever. I'm anonymous, my IP shows in the history anyway. You're just looking for excuses to justify yourself, which seems odd since you seem arrogant and psychotic enough to not think you need justification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) .
- You seem to have something personal against me. Did I ban you or something? Whatever, just keep it off of WikiFur. They do a remarkable job of trying to run an excelent ship here and do not need petty behavior like this.
- Come over to #fchan and we can talk. I like solutions, not problems.
- --Sage Nadia 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure it seems an excellent job when it goes your way. Funny, they didn't seem to have problems with the last version, which pointed out what you'd done without all the prevaricating and excuses.
- And no, sorry. You love problems, you've created so many. I'm not gonna give you the satisfaction of playing by your rules. You may have tried to get yourself made an unofficial mod here, but as long as it lasts I'm going to remind you that you actually have no power to order anyone to do anything anywhere outside of failchan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
I'm Sage Freehaven, and I'm sorry I ever let you touch the admin controls for fChan. You should be ashamed of yourself for this shit -- at least when I wrote MY WikiFur article, I didn't watch over it like a hawk for edits -or- make myself out to be some sort of godly patron saint of furry imageboards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sage Freehaven. I'd prefer it if you didn't post my IP, thanks.
- I forgot my password. Sue me. Run the IP; it should be located in Roanoke Rapids, NC, and I guaran-Goddamnit, Freehaven-tee you that I'm the only furry in that whole town. And while you're at it, why don't you make Nadia explain how she became fChan mod -- I GAVE HER THE DAMN POSITION? Or are you going to let her keep writing her own article?
- Yes, you gave the system over to me. That was a long time ago. Xenofur and I built it into something completely outside of the model you had originally intended. You took too long to come back. Not only that, but you never asked for the system back, and you never even tried to rejoin us. I kept your place as staff open until the moment you decided you did not want it.
- I still have all of the correspondence between us. From the beginning. Even when I asked you if you liked the sound of Sage Nadia, or EVE better. We both agreed we liked Nadia better. And the term Sage is not a title, it is a verb. I thought you knew that.
- --Sage Nadia 03:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, shouldn't there at least be some banner you could apply to a page when it's vastly been written by the subject of the actual article? "Self-Authored" or something, so that someone doesn't make the mistake of thinking the article was actually objective? -126.96.36.199 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No need, I found my old one. So, my question stands -- are you going to let Nadia's self-written article stand, or will you bow to common sense and let people who know what the hell they're talking about write the article WITHOUT Nadia changing every little thing she didn't write? Sage Freehaven 03:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would mean that it would be written/approved by Xenofur. He is the only other one who was with me from the beginning, and has been with the system the entire time. The rest of you know nothing really. You may think you do, but you have not been part of the actual circumstances. Just on the outside looking in.
- --Sage Nadia 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- So now you're abandoning your previous claims of wanting the article to be objective? Or do you honestly think an article written by you or your loyal servant is actually objective? Because... I mean, it's obviously NOT. -188.8.131.52 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Herr Xenofur ist the only one who knows near as much about this as I do. I mean, come on here. According to your people, Xenofur and I kept the entire staff oblivious to the alleged fact that I was running everything. And, none of this, including myself, was an issue because everyone thought I had faded away.
- Kinda sorta means you all really have no clue either.
- --Sage Nadia 03:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just means that you're very good at lying and deception, by your own admission in the article. That you wrote. Even more reason that you shouldn't be allowed to write your own article. -184.108.40.206 03:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it means that I never knew I was still in charge until shortly before I took back over. It means that the staff knew I was around, and that I was someone Xenofur consulted, but we never made the public aware of such. It means we had a good staff who knew how to keep internal matters internal.
- I never intended to ever run the system again. It happened, that is all there is too it. Events went the way they went, and someone had to take control or we would have all watched the system, and those trusted to run it, tear apart over internal conflict. I did what I did because I did not want the system to die and be replaced by 15 clones each behaving like lulz.
- Fchan is meant to be a place for art appreciation. Drama belongs elsewhere.
- --Sage Nadia 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a furry artist more stressful than ER worker
You know, Nadia, considering that I pointed out that you hadn't bothered to explain your comment yourself about ten times during the edit war, you think maybe that counts as ASKING YOU TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF?! See, the thing is, you can't. You meant exactly what you said, and you're going to hide behind the vague support of "many others". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) .
- Two years later, and someone asks. Finally.
- First off, it was "Full Time Artist" not "Furry Artist".
- Second, I said "More Work" not "More Stressful".
- Being I have spent a great deal of time dealing with peoples of both professions, I have somewhat of an insight into this.
- Being an intern means you are still learning. You may hold a life in your hands, but you are still being watched over by and coached by full doctors and surgeons. They are there to help you learn. They will step in and take over if you make a mistake, or even if they see you are about to make a mistake. That is the key difference. You draw a paycheck and have people to help you. People who know what they are doing and have a vested interest in seeing you succeed.
- The art field is similar, but in many ways different. Some artists, professionals, go to college and universities to learn. Just as those who wish to be doctors, they learn a series of basics. Color theory, composition, life drawing, and such which are all required to have a fully rounded artist. These are taught by people who are often artists themselves as well.
- Unlike the doctor path in life, being an artist means that when you leave college, if you even went, you are dumped out on the streets with a BFA, which the world is flooded with, and you have nobody to help you, shelter you, give you a paycheck, correct your mistakes, or stop you before you make them. You are, in effect, on your own.
- You have a choice. Get a job, which means you are no longer a full time artist, or make it on your own. Something which few out there ever manage to do. They instead often end up living in their mother or grandmothers basement, trying to figure out why the latest work they did is drawing praise from all of their friends, but no gallery or even private buyer wants it. No one around them can help them. Because, most of them are not artists and have no clue. And if they are, they do not want to give away their secrets. Every sale to another artist means one less for them, which means the difference between steak, Hamburger Helper, or ramen for a month.
- Even if you have good friendly help and other artists willing to work with you, the higher up you go, the more skilled you get, the less you have in people with the same skill who can be of assistance. But you now get the added stress of working to stay ahead, to not get stale, and keep people interested in works which are growing steadily more expensive every day. Not forgetting to mention, of course, that there are thousands, if not more, people just like you who would love nothing more than to see them finally fail and have to go work at a burger joint, and who make it their life work to do it for the lulz.
- Finally, my favorite point.
- People need medical care. It is a secure job, and you will always have someone sick, hurt, or dying.
- Art is a luxury. They do not need it.
- Bit of a ramble, but should help you assimilate.
- --Sage Nadia 03:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet, I still find it to show a total lack of perspective and you to be full of BS. -18.104.22.168 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not. That would mean they would not be able to use it as my defining comment. I do not mind if they continue to use it that way. It really is a good way of trying to make me look like my perspective is skewed and off base. Absolutely brilliant, if not completely predictable tactics.
- --Sage Nadia 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Dear, don't pretend the world is out to get you. This is a wiki, not a battleground. It is a place for information, not a place where you combat your supposed enemies. That was never your defining comment until you told the world it was and begged them to ridicule you for it; it doesn't belong here, it's better suited for your own journal or site. And let me know if I'm "very mean being" to you. DS|go 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Paranoia Much?
- The world is not out to get me. As with all individuals, a few are trying to have fun, make a point, and intend to make my life a bit more complex than previously experienced. But, hey, we all have those types of people to challenge us and push us to new heights.
- You must be new to this, or have been reading the abridged book of Nadia. That statement has been used more times and on more sites than anything else I have ever said. If you count my pointing out it was never defined as begging, you must have led a very simple and plush life. Begging is something one does when they have nothing and must resort to the pity of others in order to survive. Pointing out facts, as I have, is what people do when there is a definite lack of understanding going on.
- --Sage Nadia 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- You must be new to the whole wiki thing. If you demand that the uneditable block which persists the viewpoint of a single editor (you) remains in the article, then you should give a reason and evidence for it here on the talk page and not revert the entire article as "vandalism". My change has been reviewed and accepted by the administration as not vandalism. Further you reverted a number of positive changes along with the one change you disagreed with. You have more tools available than simple reversion.
- I don't care about the 'book of Nadia'. I don't read furry fiction. If you think the fiction is appropriate, then explain why. WikiFur is not a place for you to make rebuttals to arguments, I'd write that little essay in your private space or in a journal somewhere and leave it off this page. DS|go 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Opinions on this edit? It seems to have removed massive swathes of information that the author has deemed controversial. I'm likely to revert if no one objects and justifies the removal of so much information. — Kimberly Grey (talk, contribs) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted having checked that users edit history, they appear to have some "issues" with the way WikiFur is run and has previously made non-serious edits to the site. — Kimberly Grey (talk, contribs) 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Nadia Adminning Again
Xenofur seems to want to remove the fact that Nadia is actively administrating Fchan again, despite it being presented in a factual, non-insulting way. Perhaps someone with an account would care to upload an image of the plain-as-day evidence that anyone could presumably see if they went to the site anyway?
It is rather odd that Xenofur and Nadia seem to be dedicated to denying the truth almost just to do it. I mean, Nadia's being an administrator again, she's doing it right there, on fchan... why do they feel that it's important to lie and say she's not on here? It's mindboggling. -22.214.171.124 17:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not clear exactly where i am lieing. I noted that things have changed since the 4 month old quote and also noted that i just can't be arsed to change the frontpage. Please elucidate me on exactly where my lie is, so i can clear it up. --Xenofur 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Citation regarding Sage Nadia to Nadia
There are a number of reasons why I use only Nadia now.
- Nobody seems to be able to pronounce it properly.
- I find typing Sage every time to be five keystrokes I do not wish to type.
- The original, actual, name was ナディア・ラ・アルウォール [Nadia Rah Alwar], which is even more characters, and impossible for most in the English world to read.
- I was asked by Xenofur to consider shortening it for use in IRC to just Nadia. He cited a fear that since many did not understand the term Sage was a term meant to humble, not elevate, it would cause long term problems.
- I like the term Etoile more. [エトワール]
I mostly use Nadia#Etoile now. --Sage Nadia 19:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)