Talk:The Bunnyhaven

Hmm, I'm not sure where to go with the category for this entry. I see that we have categories for FurryMUCK Locations and Furcadia Locations - do we want to create a category for Furtoonia Locations? Or are we overly-specific in our categories and would we be better to just drop back to MUCK Locations in general? --Duncan da Husky 19:08, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A Furtoonia Locations would be fairly empty, unless we dig back through history to things long gone, like The Town Square or The Naughty Otter (which probably should have a page somewhere, given its reputation, but I digress). The Bunnyhaven is, at many times, the only populated room on the wa, period--everyone connected is there. --Jazzy

One of the purposes of WikiFur is to document not just the current state of furry fandom, but what has gone before, to provide context for the present. Entries for The Town Square and The Naughty Otter would both be welcomed, even if they are pretty much unused these days. (Incidentally, you can get a signature with the time/date stamp by typing --~~~~) --Duncan da Husky 20:48, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A note on my revert...

I went ahead and reverted the blanking, primarily because this is a (for the most part) publically accessable room, on a publically accessable MU*. If this were a private room, I could understand the owner not wanting it listed, but that does not appear to be the case here.

The owner can contact an administrator if they have questions or concerns on the entry. Carl Fox 02:38, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I own the room in question and due to friction with several parties need to keep as low a profile as possible. Please utterly delete all references. Jazzmospazz can provide my contact information if necessary. -said room's owner

Re: The Bunnyhaven

Originally from User talk:CarlFox --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:00, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with the delete, unless you've been in contact with the actual owner of the room and they requested it. It's a public location on a public MU*, and Jazzy isn't the owner. Carl Fox 02:58, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I've done--the owner, upon being notified that I'd created the wiki page, asked that it be immediately removed and de-indexed if at all possible. I don't necessarily know the reasons why, but that's where it stands.

If it's necessary, I'll put the owner in contact with whomever needs 'approval'. --Jazzy 03:39, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'll vouch for Jazzy on this one. I don't know the owner of the group, but if he says she made that request, that's good enough for me. --Duncan da Husky 12:34, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, I have to say that I do find the request for deletion regrettable, since it is antithetical to the goals of the wiki. I can see the political reasons for the request, but that doesn't make it any more palatable. --Duncan da Husky 12:39, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It is in no small part my own fault--I had not sought any permission to write the entry in the first place, so the indignation over its existance was rather justified. --216.159.243.205 15:41, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Nobody should feel they have to ask for permission to write an article, about a location or anything else. Whether or not the article remains is a matter for debate, but prior restraint is a bad thing. --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:56, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned about this. What kind of precedent are we setting? Should Secretmoon be removed because Ben Raccoon or Crassus disagree with it being on WikiFur? If a place is "often the most populated area of the entire MUCK", it suggests that it's quite important to some people.

I am not disagreeing with the right of a user to withdraw their own contributions in such situations, but removing references to the article page and stopping others from making the article constrains other members of the Wiki as well. I would prefer that there was a more specific restriction on the article that related only to specific items of personal information. For example, it might be appropritate to not list the names of certain individuals who regularly go there (on their request), or that of the owner. But blanket prohibition of an article about the location? That seems excessive. --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It boils down to this: the owner of the location felt that the room was far more private than I thought she would, and has made it very clear that she wishes that it not be referenced anywhere if at all possible. --Jazzy 18:34, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The usual compromise we make between privacy and freedom of speech in the case of personal articles is to grant the owner the right to blank the page, but not to prevent others "taking their name in vain" and mentioning it elsewhere. This situation wouldn't seem to merit any greater protection than that. --Sebkha^(talk) 23:53, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)