Can we get a citation on the allegation about her copying other artists? (I think maybe a "citation needed" template would be cool to have, too.) --Giza 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
wikifur is a place for factual non bias information, which is why so many people were agaisnt putting individuals in here in the first place becasue one person with a bias view and alot of friends could ramrod a persons reputation into the ground. keep the personal stuff off wikifur, noone wants to hear it. - Roo
- On the contrary, anything that is obviously not grounded in some sort of factual basis is quickly removed by contributors. Personal attacks are not welcome here - but as several links had been produced to support the controversy section, we'd rather add the disputed tag than just remove it outright. If Starfinder wants her article excluded from Wikifur, she should address it with GreenReaper. Otherwise, since there is support on both sides for the controversy section, it will remain with the disputed tag attached. Spaz Kitty 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Request for exclusion
- Factors for removal
- Drama awesome, started by a disgruntled commissioner - the article dosen't contain much more than this controversy
- Starfinder asserts that it is affecting both her personal life and business activities, and I can see why this might well be the case
- There are several accusations that could be better referenced, particularly the "tracing" and "art style" passages
- Factors against removal
- The commissioner was apparently disgruntled for a valid reason, as were many others - this does not appear to be an isolated incident
- Starfinder is an active member of the furry fandom and (assumably) intends to remain one
- Part of what some would consider to be WikiFur's goals appears to be the recording of such problems, in part to ensure that they do not crop up again (see also Banrai)
- The article as it stands seems to present a neutral point of view - or at least asserts her side of the story
- I'm neutral as to whether to keep this. The format of the article would need some tweaking; the controversy section at least should have specific references done with the ref tag, rather than everything being under External links as is currently the case. -- Sine 22:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to assume she wanted to be excluded from WikiFur in order to have the controversy section wiped, rather than a concern over the real life information in the beginning, since none of that was removed during her edits. As such, I do not agree with exclusion. Controversy should remain in an article /if it is factual/ - this seemed to be the case with Banrai and Endless Round MUCK, both of which had similar issues with removing and re-adding in parts of the article before a consensus was finally reached by all parties involved. To implement the same here, we should consider asking StarFinder what disclaimers or edits would satisfy her (such as the disclaimer at the end of the ERMuck controversy section) that would both provide information about past events (which are historical fact and should remain) and allow the artist to leave her past reputation behind (if she has indeed improved her client relations), but not wiping the article completely. NorthWolf added some disclaimer bits at the end of the controversy section that seem to be leading towards a solution (as StarFinder has not removed anything since the implementation of these last edits). Spaz Kitty 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think Spaz Kitty hit the nail on the head. If the controversy is factual, then it should stay, but we should ask her for wording that would satisfy her. --Douglas Muth 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. ^^ But I also think it's important that we somehow make sure that this /has/ stopped before we say so. Reading over the petition shows several incidences of bad seller qualities, and I don't want to say that these poor habits are all over and done with if they aren't. Spaz Kitty 00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I feel that personal exclusion should be available to anyone. However, that does not prevent someone from being mentioned in an article where they are relevant. In particular, if she operates under a business name, an article under the business name, describing its dealings as a business, should not be excluded. --Rat 00:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I should say something here. I'm not going to make huge mess/fuss, simply I will clear some things up, mainly regarding those 'external links'
The Cuprohastes thing? Refund issued, problem solved. I told him I would give him a refund, and did so promptly.
The petition thing was also solved a LONG time ago (last year). A previous client's fiance was responsible for that, and openly admitted to me after the fact that he did it mostly out of spite. He and his fiance recieved the commissioned art though, were happy with it, and the problem was solved. They went on to commission LJ icons which they recieved promptly and were also very pleased with.
The Lilymud post..wow. Look at the date of that. 2002. That's 4 years ago folks. Yes, I was off to a rocky start around that age (12-13) and I DID 'reference' others' art a bit too heavily. I think, however, if one takes a look at where my art is currently, they will see that I have long since grown out of that 'phase' of idolizing my favorite artists to the point of sheer copying. I have developed my own style now, mainly influenced and driven by my desire to achieve photorealism in regards to my art. And as for those accusations of 'tracing over' photos, those are entirely false. I do use reference photos (usually photos which I myself have taken) when I draw, and sometimes yes, I do follow the photos VERY closely in regards to color/lighting/texture/etc, however never once have I 'traced' over said photos. Those who have seen me draw in real life (be it friends/furs who have come to my house, or those who have seen me make art at cons) have all seen how I work, and tracing never occurs.
As for client relations, my current clients are kept updated as far as the progress of thier commissions is concerned, and they are all currently pleased with me. I provide them with WIP (work in progress) shots and updates, so all is well there.
I'm no where near as 'bad' as I'm made out to be, folks. Past issues (which I have either solved or am working on solving) shouldn't be hung over my head or smeared in my face constantly, especially when I AM working on said issues. That's all I have to say on this matter, take it as you wish.
EDIT: I can not figure out how to do the comment thing like the folks above, so sorry if this edit/post looks odd and/or doesn't follow thier format. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StarFinder (talk • contribs) .
- Thank you for your response, StarFinder. After reading it, I will take your word for it, and I reiterate my statement above that we add some sort of disclaimer at the end of the controversy section. And for future reference, you use ~~~~ to sign your comments. ^^ Spaz Kitty 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
NPOV: Concern about the tone
First a caveat: I know nothing about this situation; I don't know the person involved and have no dog in this fight.
However, the way this is written is not a straightforward NPOV write-up of a controversy. The use of loaded terms, weasel words, and passive voice make this sound much more slanted and thus biased, and therefore unreliable. With your permission, I will take what's here and do some simple copy edits, plus research the links listed, to produce something which is a better assessment of the controversy. Fair? --Lynn Onyx 05:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Exclusion part 2
Well, I've gotten an IM and e-mail asking for exclusion. My basic position hasn't changed from my position in the previous post back in 2006. Any more thoughts on how to handle this? I noticed that someone quietly removed the real name a little while ago. --Rat 07:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- I received a similar IM and had an in-detail discussion with her about the nature of the situation. Her primary concern is solely her real name's association with the article due to her gallery career, that's all. She's really quite indifferent about her fandom history at this particular time. I thereby recommend that we have her real name removed and also clear her edit history (we've done this before) and do what we can to ensure that googling her real name does not result in this website if that's possible. -Kendricks Redtail 08:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is a more recent post (May 2008) on Artists Beware which might be worth reading. Unfortunately "Starfinder" is the name that people are going to be looking for information, so I'm unclear as to how we would exclude while keeping the information about her business dealings at the appropriate place.
- I'm not entirely happy about letting someone shield their reputation on commercial activities in one area from those in another. However, if there is no other reason provided to have the real name on the article, and others are OK with it removed, I can live with that. After all, we don't have a good idea of how many happy customers she has in the fandom.
- I've submitted a Google request for deindexing of that term, since it is no longer present on the page. Sufficient resolution? The edit history is not indexed, so its removal does not seem necessary. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this article... it makes me very sad indeed. Equivamp 18:22, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
Move to name Kannos at some point?
From what I can see, this artist has been posting artwork under the name Kannos on Inkbunny for at least a year, now has a Tumblr using that name, and has a Kannos signature on her art. At some point, then, this article should maybe move to that name rather than Starfinder. -- Sine 16:29, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
- Now seems as good a time as any. It is clearly the name she uses in commerce within furry fandom. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:27, 16 August 2012 (EDT)
Redirects from real name
There are still a couple of redirects of this person's real name (I presume alternate spellings). Presumably if the decision to not include the real name in the article, those redirects should be deleted. -- Sine 13:50, 29 October 2012 (EDT)
- If we don't link to the redirects, and the name is not in the article, they shouldn't show up on web search. However, they will be found if people are actually looking for this person on WikiFur (perhaps because they are trying to track down their commission). This seems like a win-win. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (EST)
- But all you have to do is hit What Links Here on the toolbox on the left on the article page. So anyone here can find her real name without knowing it beforehand because of that. Shouldn't personal information like that be removed if they have requested it? 126.96.36.199 04:09, 25 February 2013 (EST)