User talk:Axle

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

Hi there, Axle, and welcome to WikiFur! Thanks for telling us a little bit about yourself. Let me know if you need any help not already provided. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:36, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Axle. A few words about why some of your edits have been reverted recently... Your Wikifur Article page Axle may contain similiar information to your personal User page User:Axle, but they should be kept separate, so redirecting from the Article to your User Page shouldn't really be done. --Higgs Raccoon 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed conventions[edit]

We weren't specifically picking on RWB there. :-) According to existing discussions, future instances of AC and EF should alreayd have been in there (as MFF was). However, I think we need to change how we're doing that to emphasize the difference between a convention that has never happened, and an instance of a convention that has not yet happened (something like "Upcoming convention instances"). I've re-opened discussion about this at Category talk:Conventions. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RBW 2007 cut Category:Conventions[edit]

This one on the other hand I really don't get, it was a convention, has been categorised as one till now, but no longer should be?

Correct. See again Category talk:Conventions (and, for that matter, Category:Conventions). --GreenReaper(talk) 23:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Having resolved the previous 2 issues, I've come across another which would be the table that's now in the main RBW article, that lists 2006-8 and the GoH and staff. Although there are now staff and GoH pages, the links in the table are still directing to the edit section of the categories and I can't figure why.

It takes a moment for the wiki software to fully update the links - to prevent locking, it does not do so immediately, but defers such actions to spread across page accesses. It is blue now. If in the future you see such problems, try adding ?action=purge to the URL (or &action=purge if a ? is already in the URL). --GreenReaper(talk) 23:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Promotional writing vs. encyclopedic coverage[edit]

While WikiFur welcomes contributions from those enthusiastic about topics, it is not intended to be used as a promotional tool. Please avoid the use of peacock terms and puff phrases when editing articles. Grandiose statements do not tend to make their subjects look good - instead, our readers are likely to come away with a negative impression of both the article's subject, its editors, and WikiFur itself. Let the fact speak for themselves without ornamentation. If they are impressive, people will be impressed. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have to play with one or two of your edits again, as some now actually read a little differently to the original intention, the BritFur FM article being the best example as rather than mentioning that it's gaining interest, it now just mentions that we were approached briefly by E4. As did the removal of the final phrase (even if worded badly) from the RBW 2007 charity section, which makes it sound like those were almost the only 2 items in my opinion, whereas there were a large number of other items, where the suit and head were just highlights. Axle 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, with BritFur FM, that gets to the root problem with what you intended - you're stating a conclusion, rather than stating facts that might lead readers to make that conclusion. The fact that BritFur FM was approached by a production company (and you didn't even name them! I was tempted to add [citation needed] :-) does not show that it is "generating plenty of interest" - just that the company was looking for furry stuff and found you. From what I can see they are doing a general furry documentary and contacting several folks. You provided no other basis for your assertion about the level of interest about the station, nor do you specify what kind of interest that is. Hard facts (e.g. the number of peak listeners increasing from X to Y over period Z) would enable readers to draw their own conclusions, rather than relying on yours - which, let's be honest, may not be the most impartial out there on that particular topic.
In terms of RWB 2007, I used the word "including", which does not mean "only these things". It does imply they were the most significant of the one-of-a-kind items - I figured if others were particularly important they would have been listed. Perhaps there is a full list or at least a number of items which were on offer? The amount that those particular items went for might also signal to readers just how significant they really were - if they totaled £1000 then clearly those two were the main event, but £500 would be a different story. Again, a more substantial statement comes from providing more facts. Some cons break it down item by item, though I admit they are the exception - most just post a final number.
Speaking more generally, one of the thing that I'm seeing a lot from the furs back home in the UK (not just you, not just organization X, not just on WikiFur) is that they're trying very aggressively to present their activities in the biggest and best possible light, hoping to be everything to everyone and to do everything that has been done before, with a cherry on top. And that's cool - it's good to think big - but there's a point where it becomes "trying too hard". That point is reached when hyperbole is used because the plain facts aren't good enough to compete with thing X that's been running for Y years and is Z times more popular. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's OK not to be the biggest thing since sliced bread; and if you aren't, pretending that you are won't change that. It'll just mean you miss out on enjoying what you have achieved (which is a lot!), because it'll never meet your expectations. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
With BritFur FM, it's kinda hard to show emails from people inquiring about the station, but I get your point. As to the auction part of RBW 07, the way it's worded now makes it sound like it was quite a small auction with those being the main bulk of it rather than those two items being highlights of a larger auction, as there were around 15 items if not more if memory serves me right. Axle 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, saying there were "around 15 items" might be a start. Foxberance also used the term "includes" (see post title) - unfortunately, the page linked is no longer around and there doesn't appear to be an archive copy. These two auction items might also be worth noting, as well as this forum post. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello Axle,

This is in regards to Image:Rbw-boat-2008-1.jpg. It has not been tagged with a copyright status. This can be a complicated area, so I can try to help if you need any. The Wikipedia Image use policy may give some background, but it isn't policy here.

To deal with this image, there are a few choices:

  • If you are the copyright holder, release it under a free license, for example:
  • If you are asserting that this image is usable under fair use, add an appropriate fair use tag. A very basic summary is that fair use is used for commentary, criticism and review on the image when no free image could be used instead. Some fair use tags are:
    • Logos: {{logo}}
    • Covers: {{Cover}}
    • Comic panels: {{Comic-panel}}
  • If the image is already under a free license, provide information on the license, and tag the image if you can.
  • If you would like the image to be deleted, ask any administrator

To see a list of current copyright tags available on WikiFur, see Category:Image copyright tags If the copyright status is not resolved, the image may be deleted.

Unless you have a question for me specifically, I'd prefer responses on the page for the image. --Rat 03:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved with PD copyright as it's a freely available image on the net. Thanks for pointing out the error. Axle 13:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)