Talk:Tim the Dragon

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you for clearing that up! :)

Crude, forgot to log in when I made that change. Oh wells.

Thank gawd, I finally found the name for my fursona!

Okay, now my article is more furry-oriented! ^_^

The Preview Button[edit]

Just as a reminder, when making multiple edits, I recommend you use the "Show Preview" button below the edit window so you don't spam the heck out of the Recent Changes log. This makes life much easier for administrators who keep an eye out for vandalism. Thanks!----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! :)

Exclusion request[edit]

The subject of this article has requested exclusion. Given that they were close to the only author of this article in the first place, I have implemented this immediately. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well. That made no sense whatsoever.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Article edits[edit]

Please note that all too important disclaimer: Please note that all contributions to WikiFur are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Project:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. I don't see an issue with the edits made by other users. I myself am not a fan of the stat listing (except in user pages, because you do what you want in userpages) and I encourage all new editors to avoid that. I also agree with the omission of flowery words and such (alluring, etc). For an encyclopedic toned article, such things have no place here.--Kendricks Redtail 07:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ten days after creation of the article, the subject, who has been merrily editing away, requests exclusion? I don't get it either. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm disconcerted by people creating lengthy articles about themselves then requesting exclusion, and exclusion being granted right away makes me somewhere uncomfortable. The pattern is making me, for one, increasingly wary of putting time and energy into editing articles created by the subject, and I also feel it doesn't fit well with the idea that subjects do not own the articles about them. -- Sine 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Why create them to have them lock down?. Is like a brand new toy they got tired playing with anymore, and know are asking to locked away, never-mind, as Sine rightly points out, how much effort and time editors have put on them. There's two things I have notice about these kings how articles: They are self created, and two, the authors have hardly made an impact or contribute to anything related to the Fandom. Plus, there has been the nagging feeling about some of these rapid-excluded articles that have elicit the thought of "Uh, and who is this person again?,...".
My two cents on this type of articles?: If the article is about the author who created in the first place, and he/she requests it to be excluded within a short time period, said article should actually be deleted instead of excluded, as it seems the person is not yet ready to be part of the documented history of the fandom.
That's all (now back to convalescing, blah,)... Spirou 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused here. He writes a lengthy article, cleans it up nice and pretty, requests article exclusion and we merrily grant it and then he rewrites it under his userspace? Uhhhhh, pardon me, but WTF? --Kendricks Redtail 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Me article ish back! ^_^


I've really gotta stop editing this article... :( --Sirtim