User talk:GreenReaper/Policy

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

This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk) This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from the foundation of WikiFur to 10 September 2005. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)


NPOV / Vanity Pages[edit]

You know, if you're aiming for NPOV, you might want to consider instituting a rule about, uh, not making articles about yourself. They tend to be one-sided at best, and blatant advertisments at worst. And the authors tend to react rather badly to other people editing 'their' writeup.

But then again, E2 is not NPOV and is also quite awesome. --Xax 19:02, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

We're not, exactly. I accept that most articles about users are going to be positive. I encourage that, actually, as it's the negative ones that seem to cause trouble. See this discussion for more on my views about vanity pages, and less important pages in general. Basically, what's appropriate for Wikipedia may not be appropriate for us. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:12, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, it was just a joke. I wouldn't actually go along with something like that, since I'd be banned pretty quickly, I'm sure. :>

Redirect policy and anonymous editing[edit]

Is it possible to have both me redirect page "Alex Vance" and my full entry "Osfer" listd under People and Writers, or is this bad form? Considering how many furs alternately use their full name or their handle on-line, I suspect such a construction may be of use to more people.

replied elsewhere - the answer was that yes, you can do that

Also, have you considered disallowing anonymous edits? The extra effort of registering might be a slight deterrent to casual vandals. --Osfer

It can be done, but wither it is or not depends on how much longer the trolls persist in causing trouble and grief in their malicious edits. --Markus 13:16, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

kekeke goon rush[edit]

At this point I would just suggest forbidding anon edits and new account creation for a few hours (if you can do that) --Xax 18:14, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This was in relation to an invasion of Something Awful goons (we found this out a few hours later). In the end we did not forbid account creation and anonymous edits, but instead rode it out with the aid of a few good admins. The right choice, I think. --GreenReaper(talk)

OMG whut admin?[edit]

No, I certainly don't mind keeping an eye on the RC for vandalism for the time being. The whole "goon rush" issue is what helped me find out about this wiki :) MelSkunk 19:21, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Article naming convention proposal[edit]

When I saw Serval come up as an article, I knew we were going to have an issue. As I'm sure you're aware, some of the older fur fans have gone by animal names as fan names. I propose that we have a [[Category:Species]] with names of things that are animals, as opposed to characters, appended with Serval (species) or Panther (species) or Fox (species), sort of like how WP is has (film) and such. What do you think? MelSkunk 05:14, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Go for it! --GreenReaper(talk) 05:31, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

About "admin" status.[edit]

I feel kind of weird for now noticing this, and even weirder for bringing it up, but I'll throw this out there anyway:

WikiFur:Administrators lists me as an admin, and you've also done it on the community LiveJournal which proves that it wasn't just a misclick or anything like that, but after looking up what I'd be able to do with this status, I notice that... well, none of it's there. :) I confirmed this by looking at the literal special page and notice that, while Osfer's name is on there, mine isn't.

Not harping on you to get right on this so I can go willy nilly on this here Internet Wikipedia machine, because that would be stupid, but can you double-check to see if you did add me to the actual admin database? Thanks. -- Verix 06:17, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

*scratches head* - I certainly thought I put you in there . . . I was on wireless, though, so maybe it didn't take . I was in a bit of a rush adding new admins at the time, so I didn't check. Sorry! Should work now. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:21, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
And there it is in the log. Thank you for trusting me enough to give me this ability. :) -- Verix 06:22, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Abuh? Well, that was unexpected! Thanks - I'll try to help out as best I can. --Duncan da Husky 17:18, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

You came recommended - besides, you already have been helping, this just lets you help more. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 17:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)


I agree we need to set up some policies - deletion, featuring and the like. Right now we are trying to be as inclusive as possible becuase there's really no harm in having articles that are only mildly related to furry topics, but it's something we'll probably have to look at going forward. For now, don't be too worried if you see something that doesn't seem to fit with the wiki's purpose - we can always do a cleanup later. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:54, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest creating a 'dubious' template then to help us flag articles that need writers to find more proof of their 'furryness' and at a later date, give us a handyway of tracking down things to go on deletion lists. ;> The closest wikipedia tag I'd say would be Wikipedia:Template:Unencyclopedic, to us of course, anything not furry related is Unencyclopedic.
That is a big "of course". I would be wary about limiting the scope of the wiki in that respect. Topics that are only tangentially furry may still be of interest to WikiFur readers and it might well be that there is stuff that can be said about the topic that relates to the furry fandom, and which would not be accepted in the "right" place. Obviously there are cases where links should be converted into links to Wikipedia and the like, but that is not always the case.
Likewise, we could do with getting Wikipedia:Template:Advert for pages which are clearly adverts for furry sites and need turning in to articles. Infact.. I was about to list a few more but realised we could do with importing quite a few of the templates. Would you mind if I did so and made changes where needed? I'll also make some wikifur: namespace pages if needed with info and so on about them and how to use. -Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 16:04, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead - be bold! But also, be somewhat wary that you do not bite newcommers by telling them that their contributions are not wanted. If you can see a way to expand the from (say) a stub about an unrelated technology to an article about how the technology is used in the furry community, with links to articles in more depth over on (say) Wikipedia, then that would be more appropriate.
Note that you can theoretically use wikicities templates with this method: {{Wikicities:Advert}}. However, if you have time I would import the template as there have been problems with this - most notably it is case-sensitive!
I disagree with the use of the Unencyclpediaic template because I think it imposes strong an opinion on something that is a matter of opinion - there's been a lot of discussion about it. The Advert one sounds fine, because it is a more obvious statement about the quality of an article. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:22, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Very well, I'll get going and take on what you've said. :) More fun than staring at Recent Changes. o.O I'll send some links your way when I've made a few up. -Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 16:34, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Blanking personal pages policy[edit]

Is there a set policy on deleting a person's entry? I noticed you removed someone's entry upon his request. I figure if there isn't one, it might be a good idea to set one up now and make it fairly publically known. Maybe make a template where it would appear rather standard and lock the entry down so it couldn't be changed....something that says "the person in question has asked us not to be included in this project". Rama 01:09, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:21, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Person pages vs. Personal pages[edit]

Since this is going unanswered in the Category talk:People section, I'm going to take this here. :>

I'd like to take initiative to start removing information that's too personal-- such as the likes and dislikes of a person, who they're friends with-- in order to make the people pages sound more informational and less like the person is advertising themselves to other possible friends or love interests. Not saying that these are bad, but inapropriate for something like this wiki, which is supposed to be an online encyclopedia.

Thoughts? --Verix 19:35, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Answered on Category talk:People. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:46, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

On pre-emptive protection:[edit]

It wasn't pre-emptive. Yesterday there was perpetual vandalism going on on the front page from, spamming "GNAA™" and editing various other parts of the template where they'd just add something stupid. Just wanted to clarify that. :) --Verix 14:20, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

OK. :-) Just make sure you unprotect them when they go away again! *grin* --GreenReaper(talk) 14:30, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Regarding pre-emptively protecting things, I'd like to propose that we really should be protecting certain "high-visibility" pages, such as the main page and the templates for menus and such. If any one of those gets vandalized, it could affect the entire site instead of a single page. Also, I'm not sure that we want random users modifying them without checking with us in the first place, even if their intentions are good. Thoughts? --Dmuth 19:35, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
We did end up protecting the main page, and a few things, but fortunately not too much, as by then we had enough admins and few enough trolls to handle things.

Featured Articles[edit]

Well, we don't have to have a new one every day, but I personally recommend the Caitians one for "next up". It actually had so many images, I had to leave one of mine out. Plus, M'ress is a notable early furry character. -- MelSkunk 23:51, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Could do with some links to Memory Alpha for the added material, especially since it's a Wikia project too. If it was spaced out a bit more somehow, you could fit more pictures in. Perhaps an external links section?
As for the Featured Articles, we do have to have one every day, because otherwise the script will go on and there'll just be an ugly red link. Admittedly you coulc copy the last one, but that would be cheating. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 00:28, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Articles of the day[edit]

How do you choose articles of the day? Will you be starting a vote system (something like this or anything like that once Wikifur's engine's running?

(Also, you don't need to move this discussion to my talk page when you answer... I check everyone's talk page that I've left a comment on for a day or two out of habit.) Almafeta 20:16, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I'm choosing them by looking at the length and technical quality of the article, its subject matter, and whether or not it's got a good picture to illustrate it. See WikiFur:Featured articles, which will be going up on the next one as a link below the box (didn't want to put it there until it had some entries).
I fully intend to instigate a "Featured candidate" system closely following the system at Wikipedia at some point, if only because it's a real hassle to have to do this myself every day. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 20:35, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Coders category[edit]

Think a coders category would be useful? We have at least one with a wiki entry already - Shippa, and Toast, when done, could also fall under that category. -- Sslaxx

That's a good idea, although I'd say [[Category:Programmers]] would be better than coders. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:19, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Shall it be added, then? Sslaxx
You don't have to ask, do it yourself - Be bold! Just add [[Category:Programmers]] at the bottom of the pages to be in the category, and then click one of the resulting red links and fill in some blurb about what programmers are, and put [[Category:People]] of the bottom of that, and you're done. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 22:28, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Another question (are we Wikipedia?)[edit]

Is Wikifur limited to Wikipedia-style pages, or are other things possible? For example, if I had written up a how-to guide on (say) how to build a ventilation system into a fursuit without being obvious, such as would normally go into Wikibooks, could I put it here? Almafeta 04:34, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Most certainly! We're not subject to those sorts of content divisions - if you have something of use to the furry community that could benefit from being on a wiki, this is the place to put it. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 04:50, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)


Enjoy your new tabs! Try to use them sparingly. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:39, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Squee!!! :D :D :D *cough* Yes sir. :> --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 03:53, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Mark page as policy[edit]

Heya :) Was wondering if you could review WikiFur:Speedy Deletion and if its all ok mark it as official site policy? I've noticed a few pages being marked for Speedy Delete when they do actually contain content but its not fur related, so I'm going to make a new Warning type template to stop people doing that and instead place a request for making the article in to something fur related. If you check out Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion at the moment, all the entries it has (not including the Template pages of course) are articles over which the reason for it being here is debated, not that it is SpD material.

Done. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:59, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Also as a side note, I'd recommend archiving some of your talk page as its displaying the too big edit warning right now. o.O -Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 16:41, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for the SpD review. That's the most appropriate template we have right now, but I think it would be good to have something more along the lines of "This isn't furry-related enough." -- 17:57, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Yes. There are a few things that have been removed because of that already, although preferably we develop articles to have furry content, if possible. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:59, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Two (three) comments (D&D, trolling, archives)[edit]

First: From your comments re D&D characters on another page: is gnoll okay? I included it because it was a notable anthropomorphic race, and you occasionally see gnolls on places like FurryMUCK

I think there should be some reason for it to be on here rather than for links to it to go to Wikipedia's gnoll article instead. It should at least link to that article, too. Perhaps there are some notable gnoll characters that could be listed here? If not, what would a page here add that a link to Wikipedia would not?

Second: I'm kind of worried about the future of this site, since you're taking such a soft line on vandalism and trolling. Why work towards goals like 1000 articles, 2000 articles, etc., if we're going to make those goals because every day another five people whose only connection to the furry fandom is of accusing it of something or other have made vanity pages about themselves and the vandalism groups they belong to?

As mentioned elsewhere, I (and I think most other admins) disagree with your definition of "vandalism and trolling", which is probably why I seem to be taking a soft line on it in your eyes. We seem to simply have different ideas of what constitutes it. I restrict vandalism to damage to existing articles, to spamming links, to calling people names and the like. Trolling is more subjective, but I would tend to associate it with more subtle actions that are trying to get a response or "stir up trouble". Some of this can be from the creation of spurious articles, but, in general, people who spend a long time writing articles about anti-furry groups are not vandals or trolls. They are contributors. I have no problem with people who poke fun at the fandom, as long as they don't get personal about it. They are part of it, and a part of our history.
Please understand that I would rather integrate people into our community than have them as our enemies. If you've read ED's page on WikiFur (http://www.encyclopediadramatica .com/index.php/WikiFur), you will see that they expected drama. The fact that they did not get what they expected is a direct result of the fact that we got some of the key people who could have caused it (the ones with more sense) actually involved in editing on WikiFur.
Part of why people do things that you would consider vandalism and trolling is because they get a response. The reason they do it is because people go nuts about it. Don't go nuts, and they tend to lose interest in causing trouble, and the ones with any worth might actually stick around and do something useful, as has happened.
If you want another reason, I'd rather they stayed on their pages than were out causing trouble on those made by other people. Extra pages are cheap, and they're even funny, sometimes. :-)
Despite possible appearances, I'm not so concerned about page count as I am as making a healthy community here. I would suggest that it's more important to focus on all the articles that people are creating that you agree with than worry about the ones other people are creating that you don't agree with, unless they impinge directly on your own.

Third (yes, third of two comments, it's an afterthought): You really need to start making an archive of old conversations on this page.  ;) -- Almafeta 04:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I've been too busy trying to formulate policy and deal with trouble, though! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:15, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


Hi! I noticed on the recent changes page that you deleted the Blacksad article as vandalism of some kind. I am not sure of the original content of the page (I didn't see it before it was deleted), but Blacksad is a French comic book featuring exclusively humanoid animal characters, so I would guess it is of interest to the furry fandom based on its content alone. Would you be opposed to the recreation of this article? Also, is mentioning Sibe in an article against the rules of the site? That seemed to be your implication in your deletion comment, and I hope you can clarify that for me. Thanks! --Krishva 05:32, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Blacksad is indeed a french comic book. What had happened was that the creator of the article here had copied the entire text of the Wikipedia article and moved it here, and then added a comment about Sibe. The problem was not that the comment was about Sibe per se, but it was that the objective was purely to make a note about Sibe's activities (which they didn't back up with any kind of evidence). They had not fixed up any of the redlinks that were previously to Wikipedia articles, which indicated to me that they were creating the page to try to make a point rather than make a good article page (the edit line I don't see how pointing out Sibe's activities is irrelevant, I thought he was furry also suggested that they had an axe to grind).
I also considered the context - the creator of the article had previously been copying unrelated articles over with no addition of information, and they had also been making edits that could be viewed as "troublesome" - I encourage you to review the list yourself and make your own decision.
There is certainly room for an article on the book here, quite possibly based off that article. I certainly didn't think that was a good start for it, though, so I deleted it. If you wish for the article to exist again, it should be easy enough to copy it again. Please make sure it has fewer red links when you do it! :-)
I should probably change the footer of the front page. It's good for people to know that they can copy from Wikipedia, but some of them tend to be doing so indiscriminately. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

1000 Articles[edit]

Heya :) Sorry about any cock-ups this morning on the front page, I had four hours sleep and got woken up by my PC complaining cause it couldn't get online due to our router crashing and I had forgotten to turn the speakers off. ;) Got it fixed, checked the site and it said 995 articles and well.. "Aii!! Gotta do something for the 1000!!" so made the little graphic and made that special template which we can use when we want to put an extra picture on the front page like for holidays and such. :) I then sat there with the counter on 999, an image upload, the new template page and the edit to the front page all sitting on ready to save as I didn't want anyone to see it early. And then.. the counter stuck and no one updated for a good hour. @_@ I even tried pushing it over myself with an article on Dragon Tails but it was clearly lacking a few characters and didn't budge. c_c Finally I fell asleep and got woken up about an hour later by a house mate. "Wha? Argh.." *refresh main page* '1000' "Yay!" *click-click-click* "Woo!" :D *collapses dead asleep again* x.z

Lets prepare a little more next time for 2000. ^^; I'll do some work tonight anyway on a possible new front page, give it a look maybe akin to WP with that nice little category bar and use expanding space where ever I can for size issues. :) --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 17:17, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It's OK, I was just as annoyed at myself for missing out the link on the featured article to the actual featured article! The reason the counter didn't update is because the main page didn't update, and nor did any of the templates that use it - if you change the main page by a space or something and then preview it, you can see what it'll look like if you safe. Or, you can add &action=purge at the end of the URL for it.
And yes, we probably should be more prepared for 2000. Right now most of my time has been spent formulating policy, and I still have to write that article about WikiFur . . . it never ends! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 17:28, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
One day it might. But then.. that would be boring. XD --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 17:37, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)



Because people thought it should be. See Talk:Ashi_Moto. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I think all of their pages should be deleted. If I get a bunch of my friends to agree with me, then do I have permission to delete their pages, too? --ashi_moto
I will join this noble campaign. --NotoriousRAE
I knew I could count on you. --ashi_moto
Blanking other people's pages like that is against policy, not to mention an offense which could result in a ban if it persists. The page in question was blanked specifically because the general consensus agreed about the matter and it's content was considered "inappropriate and offensive" presumably by multiple people. --Markus 08:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)
"Inappropriate and offensive" is subjective. Like I said, would I have permission to delete all of their pages if I managed to get five other people in here who agreed that all of their pages were offensive? Because that's basically what happened. --ashi_moto
If they were five admins and nobody disagreed with you, maybe. If you don't like it, don't write stupid pages in the main namespace. This isn't ED. :-) If you really must, use your User page for non-factual stuff. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:44, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Mock Up complete! ^_^[edit]

Hey :) Phoning in to say I've completed my redesign. You can find the new pages at WikiFur:WikiFur Central Version 2 and WikiFur:WikiFur Central Version 2 (Simple). Following the instruction to have a 800x600 nice version. I found that while my new layout does 'work' on 800x600, that is it doesn't force horizontal scrollbars. It does look ugly as sin and hard to read, so I've provided a Simple design as well, much like Wikipedia's table free main page. The two pages will share templates so it won't be double work to update them. The new version features moving about of content, more links to useful information, extra sections to give a home for information and announcements about the wiki, though placed at the bottom to not detract from the purpose of wiki to read and write information. There are a few more Notes on the talk page. I look forward to your comments and thoughts. :) --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 01:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Where do they come from?[edit]

I'm wondering if it would be ok and within wikicity policy if we were to place a tracker of sorts on the front page. The only reason is cause I'm kind of curious about which pages on the net some of our trolls are coming from and where we are being talked about. ;) Aware there might be a few issues regarding this though. o.o; --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 02:46, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we already have that - the Webalizer stats include referrer stats, which I've used on several occasions. They're actually better than a tracker on the front page, as sites often deep-link to particular pages (most of those at the top of the popular pages were linked from elsewhere). --GreenReaper(talk) 03:34, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
*returns from reading and grins* You need an award of some sort for the amusing panic you caused PA and the retorts on a certain someone's LiveJournal. ^_^ --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 04:20, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Problem with ArtPlz page[edit]

You might want to have a look at the ArtPlz page. It rather blatantly violates the "neutral stance" guidelines.

Indeed? I'm afraid I don't know much about the topic, and therefore I'm not sure exactly what the problem is, although things like "purported immaturity" could do with attribution (who's purporting it?). You're welcome to edit the page yourself to fix this! If people disagree with you, then you can work together on the discussion page to find a way to make an article which you're both satisfied with. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:53, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

WikiFur:Today's featured article/September 9, 2005[edit]

Please change this to an appropriate topic. Almafeta 01:21, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd made this clear after Verix? I know your feelings, but as mentioned on WikiFur:Featured articles, the main critera for featured status is the quality of the article. Something Awful is an article that has had many contributors and recieved a lot of attention already, having more editors than most pages. It's not perfect, but most of the other articles I consider candidates have already been featured - indeed, the only one I'd have chosen before it, Furcadia, hasn't been chosen yet becuase I don't yet have permission for the picture I was hoping to use for it, and I want to save it for when there's a big promotion and we need a really good article on the front page. Other articles are either too short or just huge blocks of text, and they rarely have pictures.
Really, though - saying we should be filtering featured articles on topic is like saying Wikipedia shouldn't have had menstruation on the front page because you don't think it's something that should be talked about . . . or that we shouldn't have featured babyfur because it's something that people make fun of the fandom for.
Ultimately, the featured article is just another page, and you can change it yourself, but please do so based on quality of the article rather than personal preference. I would suggest the best way to ensure that the topics featured are those you would prefer is to write good articles on them (as you have been doing with such topics as Werewolf: the Apocalypse and Brutal: Paws of Fury, both of which I was glad to feature), or to encourage others to do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:39, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit, I'd side with Almafeta on this one. If the function of the Featured Article is to act as an example of what the wiki's community would like to see more of, then quality is certainly a preeminent criterion, but shouldn't be the sole one. Relevance to the wiki's theme is another criterion that the example should be encouraging. I'd personally prefer to see a wiki with more articles about creators than critics. Lots of creator material will attract critics anyway. Lots of critic material might even drive creator material away. --Sebkha 04:21, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I said it was the main one, not the only one. However, I think it is covered by the others as well. Let me explain at excessive length:
Specifically, I'd challenge your assertion that the Something Awful article is not relevant. Have you read it? It's not a general article about the website - almost all of it is about the furry fandom's involvment with Something Awful and their users. It contains much interesting information about the history of the fandom, including such interesting tidbits as the fact that Sibe did not do some things that others claimed he did. Such information is useful.
WikiFur is for furries, by furries, and about furries - and the furry fandom . . . but critics exist both outside and inside the fandom. Many so-called goons are critics, but that does not necessarily disqualify them from being fans, or topics about them and their sites being relevant to the fandom. Surely Burned Furs is relevant? Or If we fail to give their point of view, or to cover their stories, then we're excluding a part of our culture, and only giving people half the story. And, yes, that includes featuring those articles when they are the best around. I also want WikiFur to end up as a source of good information even by those who think poorly of the furry fandom in general. If they see that only positive articles get featured, they're going to think that we're just another blinkered fan-site - and they'll be right.
Frankly I would like to see more articles like Something Awful - not necessarily as prime candidates for featuring, but because they are of significant historical interest. The interaction of their users with the fandom has had an important part to play in shaping our views of "outsiders", and has doubtless helped to form many people's concepts of the fandom (indeed, I just realised it should really be in Category:Media coverage, as SA is used by many as a quasi-news site).
If I am trying to make a point (and if I am, it's not been consciously), it's that it can serve as a lesson to the fandom that spazzing out against people in search of drama is not the best way to deal with it - history, as shown in the featured articles, suggests the vitriol that's a common response just fuels the flames. And I think this is an example of that - the moment anything critical of the fandom comes up, I get notes on my user page saying how this is an inappropriate topic, and that we shouldn't be promoting this sort of thing. Well, that's all well and good, but a featured article is just that - about the article, not the topic. Heck, it's not even a particularly positive article, so I don't see that it's exactly promoting critics. :-)
If you think that something like "furry-of-the-day" that promotes worthy people (or topics) would be useful, by all means, go for it. I think that might actually be a nice idea, although it might be tricky deciding who goes first. But that's not what the featured article is about. It is about good articles about aspects of or topics related to the furry fandom, especially if they still have relevance today.
Finally, of the 24 featured articles already posted, maybe three or four are about those critical of the fandom, and the main reason for that is that there were several experienced wiki users among the SA crowd who knew how to write a good article. I don't see that as a particularly significant quantity, certainly not "lots". I fully expect to see more "creators" showing up there as the articles about them mature, but right now a lot of the best articles (including those about critical groups and websites) have been group efforts, while most articles about people (of which we have hundreds already) have only had one or two editors and are frankly too short to be worth featuring. Again, we come back to quality rather than quantity.
This is getting too long, so I'll stop now. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:33, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Another irony is that SA supporters think the article's biased *against* them. %-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:41, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded images of link buttons for several Articles today, mostly comics. I'm assuming here that link buttons qualify as "fair use" images. It makes the articles look a little nicer than when they were just plain text, and hopefully is a step in the right direction toward making them future candidates for featured articles. Many websites, comics, and artist's webpages have link buttons that could be added to their entries. --mwalimu 18:50, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
That's useful, thanks! :-) And yes, we generally assume that it's fine to use buttons or logos to represent the associated article - we have {{button|[[link text]]}} and {{logo}} templates that can be used indicate that on the image descriptions. Ideally everyone who writes an article should include an image if one's available, but often they don't (especially for new users who don't know how to link/upload images), so adding one can make a difference. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:31, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from 11 September to 3 November 2005. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)

Go ahead for Community Portal rename[edit]

Heya, hope you are having fun at the PDC. ;) Just wanted to ask really when you next check up on us if I can ask permission (yes, I know, be bold, but this is kinda very bold so..) to make a page requesting people to suggest names for the Community Portal, following my notes here over the redesign of the two major site pages. Then remove the Wikimedia fundraiser link (since the drive is over now) and replace the site notice with a notice asking for name suggestions, and linking to that page. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 13:25, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I'm sure people can come up with a few good ideas ofer the next week or so. Try and keep MediaWiki:Sitenotice to one line on 1024 width, or 800 if you can. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:01, 13 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Random Access[edit]

'Lo there. This is the person formerly known as Random. I've left the furry thing entirely a few years ago, but I still know some people who have contacts there. One those people let me know about this and the page about Random. I would deeply appreciate if you'd leave the Random page as it is now. Thanks.


Hi there! Judging by your edits I would assume you are referring particularly to the inclusion of your name on the article. I can understand your concern. Although we try to keep pages as freely-editable as possible, and so I do not intend to lock your page entirely, the WikiFur community also tries not to be vindicative, especially with regard to people who may have moved on.
Without being given an overriding reason for it being present, I shall ensure that your name is not present on the article. I have posted on the talk page and left a note to this effect. The neutrality of the article should also be maintained - if you or others notice text that apears to contradict this, you are welcome to modify it, as long as the facts reain. I hope this is satisfactory! --GreenReaper(talk) 03:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Blanking Mix[edit]

See also Talk:Mix

Mix has requested his page be blanked, and that all influence of him be removed from this wiki. It seems the administration here has a problem with that. The policies state that he is allowed to do this. So why are some people allowed to do this when others are not? In the long run, the only real policy that has been broached here is the inability to reach a consensus and the absolutly incredible vindictiveness of actual administrators to purposefully and repeatedly smear a guy.

I disagree with your use of the word "smear". People - and yes, this includes some administrators - are trying to work towards a situation where non-personal information that is relevant to an article is preserved while providing a fair coverage of facts. The simple truth is that some people find those actions that were actually taken distasteful.
The policies state that he is allowed to request the removal of personal information, or to blank his page. By the end of the day, if the situation is not resolved, it will be blanked. But the personal information that we have on him is positive so I would kinda like to avoid that. Otherwise, we just make him look like less of a person and more of a stereotypical goon.
He already looks like a goon! All the edits on him that make him look like a complete ass are coming from administrators here. They aren't NPOV, they're vindictive and cold. He's saying he's willing to sacrifice the good because it will also eliminate the bad. Making him look good on his article page does not mean its fair to make him look bad on every other page he can fit on.
Why not submit your own NPOV edit then? So long as the facts are included, I don't see any problems. --Dmuth 16:54, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

SA and Burned Fur have a huge history of sending people to convnetions and doing things. Yet, he's the only one mentioned. I saw that something awful hand gernade on a lot of things at AC, a lot of shirts, yet Mix is the only one getting publically ridiculed. I saw people harassing the hell out of him at AC. And it continues here. The guy has been asked to be left alone. Can he please be left alone?Redcard 16:26, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's up to the people maintining the article. Maybe out of fairness, those other people should be mentioned too, so it's not only Mix there. I don't know about the situation so I can't do that myself.
THe people maintaining the article are mostly administrators who revert every time Mix tries to say something and who apparently are refusing to communicate with him.
People ridicule Sibe as well. Is that justified? Is it better to state the things that people have done in the hope that it stops them doing more, or not to, in the hopes that they will stop on their own? Posts on tevildo's livejournal seem to suggest that doing nothing has led to no change. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:36, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Er - I assume you mean Taren, not me - the link Mix posted on the discussion page? I have no more personal involvement with Mix other than having had his behaviour at AC described to me by other friends. Unless you're referring to something else? Anyway. What I would suggest is that Mix's entry is put to "exclude", but we keep references to the incident on the SA page itself, and possibly the AC05 page when that goes up. The facts are - the incident happened, it caused controversy at the time. It should be mentioned _somewhere_, I think. Tevildo 17:15, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, Taren. And yes, that's my view. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:35, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
This should NOT be a court room. It should be an encyclopedia. The policies themselves say that Wikifur is not to be a battle ground. Mix wishes to not be a part of Wikifur. The mostly administrators who are editing that article are making him a part of Wikifur and are creating an antagonistic setting. He has requested per the policy to be blanked. What's so hard to understand about that? The administrators and others have latched onto his SA involvement, have made an effort to hurt him, and he is trying to disengage completely. What's so bad about letting this fight stop? Redcard 16:46, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
We (or certainly I, and it seems others too) don't agree that he should not be mentioned at all just because he doesn't want to be. We're willing to remove information that would be considered personal (although he doesn't have much of that, and what there is seems positive), but the general opinion appears to be that he should not be allowed to just remove mentions of actions that people thought significant, perhaps especially because people saw them in a bad light. Ultimately, the policy is there to reflect the general opinion of the community, not to enforce strictures on a majority disagreement with it. As far as I can see nobody is making inaccurate assertions about him. Plenty of people saw him there. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:35, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
He is not being ridiculed. Ridicule implies that he is being mocked or made fun of, and that is not what is happening. His actions have been documented, which includes his side of the story, and people who have disputed his side of the story.
Regarding the claim of "people harassing the hell out of him at AC", this is the first I have heard of it. I run the Convention Operations office at Anthrocon, and I find it strange that no reports were made either to the office or to security. I also find the timing of this complaint a little suspicious, seeing that it's only being mentioned just now, a good 2 months after the convention ended. --Dmuth 16:40, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Oh please. I trust con security about as far as I can throw them when it comes to things regarding safety of con-attendees. A lot of people feel the same way. You're surprised nobody told you that people were picking on a fur who was wearing a shirt of an unpopular group? Duh. Most people know better than to swim upstream. Redcard 16:46, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Please stop with the FUD and rhetoric. I've personally worked with The Dorsai for the last 4 Anthrocons, and they are about the most trustworthy and professional people I've dealt with. I do not believe that "not trusting" security is a valid reason for not bringing a harassment complaint to the our attention. Furthermore, had there been a bona fide cast of harassment taking place at the con, word would have spread very quickly after the con via LiveJournal, Usenet, etc. and it would have made its way back to us. Since this is literally the first we have heard of it, I question whether it really happened. It also does not changes the facts of what he did and wore while at the convention. --Dmuth 16:54, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
There is no FUD here. I don't report things to con-security anymore unless its directly life threatening since I reported people for selling and showing pornographic artwork to minors and I was mocked and ridiculed. Admittingly, this did not happen at AC, but at another convention. After further security lapses at various other conventions and the feeling of being made into a tattletale , I decided that I no longer cared what I saw. As for the Dorsais, yes, they are a reputable group and are a great team. However, the animosity that furs feel reporting things to security staff extends to conventions beyond Dorsai's involvement. Meaning, I developed the rule that I don't report things at other conventions, and that ingrained behavior stayed with me through AC. I only truthfully found out about the DI's after AC (as that weekend was a blur). Had I known they were there, I would have reported what I saw. Redcard 16:58, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Well, I must say that I'm somewhat shocked about your experiences with other con security teams. That just blows my mind. I guess I can understand your reasons for not wanting to report any problems. --Dmuth 17:05, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Remember that most cons cannot afford a professional security team and don't have access to the Dorsai. Most of the people you see on cons security at these cons have very little training in man management, personality, security, or control. They're just average furs who've volunteered. Very few of them even seem to have any reporting process in play. They're just furs with very little professional security experience other than these conventions.Redcard 17:16, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Dorsai work for free or pretty close to it. We just provide them with rooms to sleep in and they handle their own schedules and pretty much run themselves. I'm actually confused as to why other furry cons haven't made use of their services. --Dmuth 17:22, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I don't know. I just know that from the sci-fi cons I've been to that they've been at that they are a good group of people who seem to have their stuff together. And that they are the exception, and not the rule, for typical furry con security. Most people view con-security as overbearing control freaks, and they just avoid them like the plague. Everyone seems to have horror stories too. Redcard 17:28, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)


I think User: is adding misinformation (all the edits about North Star Kung Fu). -- Rat 09:51, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem to have been a little odd. Someone trying to perpetuate an in-joke, I believe. Thanks for taking action. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:10, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Normal animal info[edit]

People seem to be copying lots of articles on animals from Wikipedia... I'm not sure this is appropriate, do we NEED normal articles on what an animal is? These things are not necessarily furry, as they have no connection with anthropomorphism. I think maybe some of these articles should be deleted. I mean, check the recent stuff that Tengu and Rat did... :(

Well, if you have disagreements with a person's edits you should really take it up with them first rather than me. :-)
In general, we do try to discourage copying just for the sake of increasing article count. If it is a particularly furry topic, then yes, copying is appropriate. Sometimes it's more appropriate to put a short summary including the link to the wikipedia article, followed by the furry content for the topic. Sometimes it's appropriate just to convert all links to the topic on WikiFur to links to the Wikipedia article. It depends on just how related something is to the furry fandom.

btw, how do I make an article flagged for a mod to look at it, or put in a vote for speedy deletion? I mean, look at half of the articles under species... many of them are just normal species articles. --Gavinfox 17:11, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

You can tag it by adding {{SpeedyDelete}} at the top. We really need a non-speedy-delete, too! Bear in mind that there is no particular cost for having pages around - they should really only be deleted if doing so would result in a better experience for the user. If you feel there are inappropriate amounts of copied text, you could always convert the name of the article to a link to the Wikipedia article and leave a short summary, plust the furry-speicfic info. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:24, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Thanksgiving target[edit]

Considering the rate at which new articles are currently being added, it's pretty clear that the wiki will reach 200 articles around the beginning of November rather than by Thanksgiving. The "2000 articles by Thanksgiving" blurb begins to look like something of a straw man at this point, set up to guarantee success.

Also, considering that disambiguation is insisted upon in articles like "Northern Furs" to prevent them from having an assumed American PoV, should a date like "Thanksgiving" really be used? It falls on the second Monday of October in Canada, and isn't celebrated at all in Europe or Australia.

--Ostrich(talk) 13:51, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Adjusted to "by November". --GreenReaper(talk) 06:25, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, you never know, we could reach that target by the Canuck Thanksgiving. ;) --Scani 15:55, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I remember being confused at first when I read Summon the Keeper (by Tanya Huff), which is set in Canada, when Thanksgiving was being celebrated before Halloween. I learned soon enough that Canadian Thanksgiving is in early October (this year it's the 10th according to my calendar). --mwalimu 17:18, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to mark Central with Limitedgeographicscope. X-) --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 17:29, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Rule of thumb for stubs. (Gee, that sounds wrong... :)[edit] long does an article have to be before it's not a stub anymore? I usually drop the stub templates on articles I create that I feel need more information...even if I've gotten a couple of paragraphs worth already.

Any general guideline, or just go with what sounds right? Carl Fox 05:36, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you've pretty much got it there - if there's obviously a lotn more that "needs" to be said, but you can't say it, or don't have time to right now, it's a stub. Maybe a section stub, although we don't exactly have those yet. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:24, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Article of the Day?[edit]

Just to comment: I run the interlingua wikipedia, which has roughly as many articles as WikiFur does right now, and we do an article of the week, not article of the day. Until WikiFur gets to about 10'000 articles, that might be a better choice. Almafeta 12:21, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think it's certainly something that needs changing. Have opened it to general discussion at WikiFur talk:Featured articles. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:09, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

First-person articles[edit]

To the extent that this wiki can be considered a history, it's an unusual one, in that the people writing it are in many cases the people about whose deeds it is being written.

In particular point of fact, there's been a debate in the article Burned_Furs about whether and to what extent BF's behaviour resulted in the Vanity_Fair article. I'm quite able to give an authoritative answer to this question, but it would require that I abandon the neutral, third-person PoV which seems to be the wiki standard. I'm sure I'm not the only person in such a position.

Is there a standard in place to allow first-person information to be added, when relevant to the topic? --Ostrich(talk) 07:57, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for replying to this late - I didn't see it as it got put at the end of another section. I would suggest that you write it on a subpage of your user space (like User:Ostrich/Burned Furs and Vanity Fair, then link to it appropriately in the main article. You should also put {{personal-article|Ostrich}} at the bottom to make it clear to anyone who's reading that it's a personal opinion article. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:04, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Eyes of the Night[edit]

I would just like to congratulate you on your recent posting on a certain issue. It encapsulates both the spirit of the Wiki movement as a whole, and your excellent (and, I'm sure, often tested) skills in finding a consensus between the disparate elements of a notoriously combatitive fandom. We _are_ all behind you. :) Tevildo 20:57, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That means a lot to me. Thank you. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:09, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Thank _you_. I know, as a moderator of a furry site myself, that it involves taking a great deal of sh*t from lots of people, with little in the way of tangible rewards; I felt that it was right for me to express my praise for all you've done to make WikiFur the success it is, and will continue to be. Tevildo

Is this allowed or ok?[edit]

Is this sort of behavior really allowed. I just ran across it today and I am unclear if it violates any terms of use :P --Ultraviolet

I personally don't mind if people start writing pages about themselves as long as they do contain valid information. Others may have other views. I've made a few changes to try to reduce the implication that his opinion is WikiFur's opinion, but other than that I don't know about the topic (him), so I'm not about to make huge changes. And, to be honest, I'd rather people who view themselves as goons were editing pages about themselves rather than pages about other people. :-)
Feel free to make some of your own if you know something relevant about him that's not mentioned! --GreenReaper(talk) 19:58, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

General page template[edit]

IS there a general page template anywhere? One I can just cut and paste into a page I'm writing, and then fill in the areas so the format is the same as all the others?

It'd make things easier for lazy people like me :-) --Banner

I don't think there is, though you could try this:
[[Image:Something.png|right|200px|Title of image]]
'''Something''' is/are . . .

== External links ==

Frankly, the best way would probably to find a page close to the one you want to edit and copy the style from there. Different pages with different topics and content require different approaches. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:28, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Also, StarrBucks has two 'r's in it. Could you edit the refering link and title page? I don't know where that gets done. --Banner

mwalimu beat me to the move (click the tab at the top of the page, select the new name). The linking pages to a page can be found by clicking "What links here" at the left of the page. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:36, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yo GreenReaper ¡[edit]

Hello, I'm Alek Fuchs, furmaster of, thanks for you comments in the front page of the FurryPedia.

responding to your question:

Yes, I Want to Know More. X3

Cya ¡¡¡

(Sorry, my english sucks.)

OK. Here is how it is. I am saying this in English because I do not want a translation program to make my words mean something else. :-)
Wikicities provides hosting for community-based wikis, including WikiFur. They manage the servers, the MediaWiki software, the networking, and are also there to offer advice if you need it. It is like a free web hosting company. You and your community manage your wiki - you have control over the layout, and of course the content.
There are various requirements - these are the most important:
  • The wiki would be licensed under the GFDL
  • The wiki would be run by the community, not by you personally
  • It would have adverts at the side, like WikiFur does, to help pay for the server. The ads might change, but they will never be popup ads.
It should be possible to keep your old name as the "name of the wiki", so you would still be "FurryPedia", not "WikiFur Español" - unless, of course, you wanted to be! The DNS name of the site would probably be Similarly you could change it to look how you liked through the MediaWiki CSS system; you would not have to stick to our style, use our logos or rules, or be under our administrators.
It is important to emphasise that it would still be your community's wiki - the promotion and success of it would be up to you and the Spanish-speaking furry fans you recruited. I would of course be pleased to mention in our news that you had joined us, and could help if you have wiki-related questions, but I couldn't guarantee any significant personal involvement - I have my own wiki to run! Besides, I have no knowledge of Spanish so would be useless. ;-)
The main benefit apart from the hosting would be the ease of linking to and from WikiFur articles. You could just put a tag like this: [[en:Fursuit]] - and it would make a link to the WikiFur page, in an "other languages" box. You can see this on most Wikipedia pages, or at WikiMac, another wikicity. You would be very welcome to take our pages and just translate them, even if you decide not to actually join us at Wikicities.
I will say I have been very happy with Wikicities, and have always found the people in charge easy to work with (they are mostly the same people who run Wikipedia), but I understand that it is not for everyone. I recommend you read more about Wikicities and see for yourself why you might (or might not) want to join us. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:38, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, GR... I might want to do the Interlingua wikifur still. My biggest problem was requiring the 'en.' prefix to '', but if that's still going to happen anyhow... nn;

(Also, I attempted to translate your statement to Mr. Fuchs into Spanish for you and him, but there was so many technical terms that I had to give up, not ever having needed to describe CSS or webhosting in spanish before.) Almafeta 16:08, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That's good news. I would say that your fear is unfounded - the english WikiFur could still be the default, without the prefix. Note that is the same as - could be, and nobody would know the difference. We could have links to other languages somewhere on the main page. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:34, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Hi :) Thanks for the warm greeting. Just one question. One person, an especially dramatic fur called korrok, has already began to make insulting and false modifications to the information I've posted. Edits were made anonymously, but traced to her IP, Is there any way to 'lock' entries once written to ensure that no false edits are made? --Marsten

delt with over ICQ --GreenReaper(talk) 01:29, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from 4 November 2005 to 18 February 2006. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)


Thanks for moving my article! I saw that my name had been linked from the SPR article, so that was really what set me off on the long story about the goings-on there. It really does belong on a page of its own, and I will try to fill in the general article with more neutral (i.e. less anecdotal) information. I'm also glad to see a lot of information about Furscape MUCK has been filled in.

If you are not comfortable with being linked from SPR, remove the link. I put myself into that story as my traces still appear to be omnipresent there six years after I left. As for Furscape, we already have one new player who found us thanks to the entry here on the first day of its presence - feel free to add anything that you like! Unci 19:20, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Explicit or not??!![edit]

Reaper?!: I am in a pissed off mood, that like it or not I am on the verge of hating and officially quitting Wikifur once and for all. And you had better beware of that! >:( Upon finding EXPLICIT images (whose warnings come rather too little too damn late) of rabbit character Sasha, by that porn bastard Jeremy Bernal. In that article, the attempt to protect those who'd be offended is a bullshit loophole. Why the hell could the images not be HIDDEN via links only, with fair warning notes too?! Please consider that option.

I am warning you because I will only give you ONE LAST CHANCE to hide ANY explicit images, especially that Sasha character. Because if you do not, then I will want all info about yours truly DELETED AND GONE, because it is a privilege Wikifur will otherwise NEVER AGAIN deserve, and you will LOSE future additions of opportunities. Think about that, because I do not tolerate any unacceptable loopholes. Thank you for understanding, because my trusting you is in extreme jeopardy.

If we can make a deal here, please let me know and E-mail me at Thank you

Yours truly, Jamie Malecki.

Because we are an encyclopedia, WikiFur is not censored for the protection of minors and may contain some content which some people may consider offensive. I'll leave GR, to answer this further but I believe the short answer is that we don't hide such images any more than Wikipedia do. Also, as far as I'm aware, the article about yourself has already been locked. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 22:03, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that way, Jamie, but I personally feel your edits as of late have shown that your beliefs do not align with those of this community. These are outlined - fairly clearly, I hope - in WikiFur:What WikiFur is and WikiFur:What WikiFur is not.
One of the things that WikiFur is not is a place that is censored for minors (or for any other group). Specifically, protecting people from being offended is not a particular concern of WikiFur. This has been pointed out several times on your talk page. The simple reason that I would present for this is that the furry fandom is, ultimately, mostly composed of adults, and some topics cannot avoid covering adult material without being the lesser for it. The grounds for inclusion of images is as for any other content - its appropriateness to the topic concerned, not the morals of the individuals that might read it.
It has become clear that you do not agree with this, and it seems from your ultimatim that you are not interested in convincing us that this is a bad policy through debate. That being the case, it may well be best if you do discontinue editing here, at least for now, as I would not wish to have a fellow contributor who does not agree with the ideals of this site.
As to trying to "make a deal" with me, I think you misunderstand WikiFur. This is a community site - and is ultimately run by the consensus of the community, not by me. If you wished to "deal", you should have engaged the community on the discussion pages for the articles concerned and tried to convince them that your edits were the right thing to do. Instead, you made edits like this. Surely you can see how such actions only weaken your standing here, where respect is due to the quality of contributions to the site? The use of terms like "porn bastard" don't help your case, either. :-)
Regarding your statements about information about you - freedom of speech is a right, not a privilege, as others have found out. You do not legally have the right to force the removal of true information about yourself. Moreover, when you submit information to WikiFur, you are licensing your work for free use and editing by all - even if at a later date you wish otherwise. The notice under the edit box is fairly clear about this.
Nevertheless, out of respect for your wishes and according to existing WikiFur policies, I have blanked the page with personal information about you. If at a later date you change your mind and wish it unblanked, you are free to contact me or any other administrator to do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:40, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Email required[edit]

I am writing on behalf of a small number of parties who wish to have information deleted from the "WikiFur" in it's entirety. We wish to be provided with a direct email address, as we do not wish to:

1) Post requests on a public-viewable board 2) create a "login" for the site.

Please send an email address for any administrator who can remove entries in their entirety and make modifications to others to:

Hi there! Welcome to WikiFur. :-)
You probably want to talk to me. The link to my email is in the toolbox at the left, but to make it simple I've copied this message to the address given.
Before you email, you should know a few things:
  • I will treat your emails with a measure of confidence, if that is what you desire. I may share some details with the fellow administrators who I trust not to spread said details beyond that group, depending on the circumstances.
  • I will do things that are provided for by our policies, and particularly our personal information policy (which is the main generally accepted grounds for removing information) unless I have a really good reason for not doing so, in which case I will explain why that is. Note that this pertains both to information that we will remove and information that we will not remove.
  • Please understand that things may take a certain amount of time, and trying to rush it (especially with legal threats, which we've had before) will not help you achieve your goals more quickly. I, personally, intend to attend Midwest FurFest this Friday and weekend, but that's not the main reason, which is . . .
  • This is a community wiki. Not mine, nor that of any other contributor. My decisions are not final. Consensus is the byword here. It may take some time - and, yes, discussion - to reach it.
  • If your requests pertain to personal details, I will want to have some reasonable assurance that the person actually requested such actions, or other evidence that the person's wishes are as you say they are. It was fairly simple to confirm that the most recent request was "likely in intent", but others might not be. This is one reason why concerned persons might wish to contact me directly.
Honestly, I think you are misguided in not posting publicly, as ultimately all actions on WikiFur are public and contentious ones will require explanation, or they will be reverted - if not by myself, then by others. I'm willing to lay your case for removal of material on your behalf, but by choosing to forgo a personal request from named people, you lose the basic respect that goes with asking for yourself. Given that most information is removed due to such respect, that is an important thing to consider. I am not willing to make quick and silent removals on behalf of people that I do not know, or for reasons that I do not agree with. You will have to convince the community that it is the right thing to do.
That said, I await your email. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:23, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for protecting/excluding a personal page[edit]

Is the text found in this article enough to make conclusions as for the action of protecting and excluding? Or would the person need to contact an admin by e-mail or IM? Just wondering, as I'm kinda new to situations like this. :) --MKerris 19:18, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going to delete that for now. It looks like someone out to cause trouble. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:33, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)

WikiFur "Shoutbox"?[edit]

What if we were to create a general purpose talk page, where users could simply ask questions that could be answered by any other visiting user without having to think of who or where in particular to ask? A link to creating a new thread on this page would be given out in the welcome messages, for immediate access by new users.

However, I'm not really sure how good this would work out in practice, though - it could be overused/vandalized to no end for all I know. But still, it would be great to have a clearly defined way to reach the most possible users on this Wiki at any given time. --MKerris 03:34, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There's already such areas on Wikipedia, so there is precedent for how to do it: Wikipedia:Help_desk for questions on using Wikis and Wikipedia:Reference_desk for asking factual questions. --Rat 01:38, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting ideas. I'll have to take a look at those. Sorry for not responding earlier, MKerris - I missed this! :-/ --GreenReaper(talk) 02:03, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
No worries, GR... to keep track on everything at all times can be quite taxing at best. Thanks to both of you for looking into this; it would be a nice and helpful feature to have, imo. :) --MKerris 02:43, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This thing suddenly came up on my mind again, and I decided that I could just as well try my hand at it - after all, it doesn't have to be nearly as complex as the forum system at Wikipedia. Perhaps only one such page would be enough, where any type of question could be asked, regardless of matter? Makes it as newbie-friendly as possible, which tends to be a good thing most of the time.
In any case; what do you (or anyone) think would be a suitable name for such a page? I was thinking of maybe the Oracle, or perhaps something as cheesy as the Refurence Desk, but there are bound to be way better names out there..! :) --MKerris 20:38, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Sphinx's Lair? Or some other creature known for wisdom/puzzles/gregariousness... -- Siege 21:15, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that's definitely worth considering... Not that I have anything against sphinxes, but I'll try pondering about with some other creatures to see what the alternatives could be. --MKerris 08:03, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll just be calling it the Help Desk for now, and put the name ideas on its talk page to relieve GR's page from any future additions. It's not meant as an official poll or anything (rather merely a list), but feel free to comment on them as you like. We could still turn this into a full-fledged poll later, if needed. --MKerris 09:01, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Might want to put that page on WikiFur:Community_Central somewhere, so people can learn that it's about and start to use it instead of this page. -- Siege 19:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Novels / Stories / Fiction[edit]

I'm question whether the division between Category:Novels and Category:Stories is the best approach to take. Currently, the convention is that if it's commercialy published, it goes in Novels, and if it's web published only, it goes in Stories. A third category, Category:Fiction, seems to be mostly redundant with the other two (and has had a merge template for over a month). More than once, contributors have put stories in the wrong category. Some of the entries in Stories are short stories, and at least one current article in Novels is for an anthology. Maybe we should have categories for short stories, or for multi-book series.

Is there a better way to organize/subcategorize stories and such? I think we can figure out a workable system while it would still require recategorizing no more than a couple dozen articles. --mwalimu 16:29, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm going to delete Category:Fiction in a couple of days (after checking and if necessary recategorizing all the articles in it). --mwalimu 18:51, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Yipe, I missed this - sorry! Umm. Not sure I have a better answer, though. It's always hard to categorize this sort of gradual change from one to another. Perhaps Category:Fiction should be a super-category of both? --GreenReaper(talk) 03:08, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Okay, a question then. Should we maintain the category distinction between web fiction and published fiction?
If the answer is no, then I propose we make Fiction the primary category. Subcategories of it would include Novels, Short fiction, Story series, and Anthologies. Most works of fiction should fall into one of these four. No category distinction between commercially vs. web published. How does that sound? --mwalimu 18:38, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I agree - fiction is fiction, and it really shouldn't matter for categorization purposes whether it was published in paper or not, commercially or not (though it should of course be noted in the article). --GreenReaper(talk) 19:00, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reorg done. Category:Stories is now basically obsolete, with most of the articles spread among Category:Novels, Category:Short stories, and Category:Story series. Category:Fiction is now used as a higher-level category for these and other fiction-related subcategories. I'm not familiar with some of the stories I had to recat (both the ones with articles and the "To add" lists), so anyone who reads this, please look them over and if you see something in the wrong category, please feel free to move it to the correct one. --mwalimu 21:44, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Link to the wiki?[edit]

Hey GR, I was just quoting WikiFur in a post on LJ and I tried to link to, however as you can see that 404's unless you include the trailling /! Could you speak to those at Wikicities to see if they could fix this little bug for us? ^_^; --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 10:56, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a bug . . . you just pointed at the wrong page. I don't think automatic redirection works with /wiki, which is special to start with and not really a "real" directory, but I'll ask. For now I would recommend you edit the post or repost if it's a comment. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:44, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Body Parts[edit]

I agree with having a category for body parts, but may I suggest calling it Category:Anatomy terms instead? --mwalimu 06:29, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I just figured I'd put something there as a reminder. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 06:42, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Say... (Furpile)[edit]

...perhaps we should implement the Improvement Drive soon, as you previously mentioned something about here? As we're getting fewer and fewer new articles lately, it's probably about time to start refurbishing the older ones a bit. Maybe we could use this feature to let the long-time "wanted" pages into the highlight as well? Just a thought, anyways. ;)

In my opinion about its placement, though: I don't think we could really call it a "drive" if we were to put it on the community central, as it sadly doesn't get as many hits as one should hope (although things could probably be done to improve on this). How about leaving some space above the Did you know? section on the front page for this purpose? You would have to scroll down a bit more to be able to read the full Upcoming events list, but that would be a rather small sacrifice in my eyes.

Any thoughts/ideas? --MKerris 22:31, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. For the purpose of evenness at the top, I think it would be better to put it beneath the Did you know? section, though. I have just the colour to make sure it gets read . . . and just the name, too! *evil grin* --GreenReaper(talk) 04:14, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Nice choice of name, if I dare say - another step towards making WikiFur a little more visibly genuine (if we could just figure out a fitting name for the Community Central already! *Edit: Oops, I recently found out that the voting had been concluded over two months ago, and that Community Central was actually the name that won. Never mind this, then*) :)
Hopefully, this feature will help with increasing the overall quality of the Wiki in the not-so-long run. --MKerris 13:02, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

question on posting fur meet info on community pages[edit]

GR, got a quick community-ish question regarding the page on Sacfurs. Since we have weekly (or so) meets, and our website is occasionally down, would it be okay to mirror the latest event listings (say a paragraph or so for the most recent) on the Sacfurs page, so in case of server trouble, people won't miss out?

Also, thanks for the wiki formatting changes on my user page -- i'm still getting used to it. it's quite different from html.

Obviously, I'm not GR, so I can't speak for him. But, we do have a upcoming events page on this Wiki, as well as informational pages for several conventions, so I don't see how it would be a major problem to list a schedule for the Sacfurs meets. --Dmuth 22:10, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Go right ahead! We're not exactly going to run out of space anytime soon, especially with the new servers on the way. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:29, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes oddity[edit]

May I ask why all the recent edits have red exclamation points beside them? -- Siege 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Not GR, but...) I'm guessing it's an artifact of the upgrading process. Not sure if they're done with us or not - let me check around and see what I can find. --Duncan da Husky 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It's because we're now on MediaWiki 1.5.5. They're edits that haven't been "marked as patrolled". --GreenReaper(talk) 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Question about defacing?[edit]

Hello, How are you? (: I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm running into a little problem with two forum trolls who seem to have a "thing" for stalking me online. Several times so far they defaced my user page (although the effects weren't up for very long -- Great job moderators! (: ) and there seems to be no end to it.

I find it funny that they spent OVER an hour writing stupid 6th grade crap like "OMG, U GAY FURRY!!1" (although I'm not gay -- lol), yet the moderators can revert my page with two clicks. While it's fun to point and laugh at these people who pollute our gene pool, I fear that it's going to become a hassle for the moderators after a while.

Is there anything I can do to "lock" the page so that only I can edit it? I'm guessing not, since that somewhat defeats the purpose of a Wiki.

The problem is that these users have eather floating IPs or use a program to make random IP address, so banning their IPs is almost pointless.

Thank you for your time. (:


Hi there - I'm good, thanks!
As you might expect, our administrators (and regular users) are used to trolls - they typically get bored and move on or forget about it after a few days once they realise nothing they do will have a lasting impact. All the IPs have now been warned on their talk pages; judging by a few previous edits, they are not all proxy IPs.
It is possible (through an evil hack) to make it so that pages are only editable by one user and by administrators - see WikiFur:Personal information for more info, and Crassus for an example. We prefer to avoid that where possible, for the reason you described, but it is an option. Let me know if you feel that it is one you wish to take. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Wikifur home page[edit]

Er, hi. I was browsing the index page, and clicked on the Popular Pages link, and that led me to an error page which said 'You have requested an invalid special page, a list of valid special pages may be found at Special:Specialpages.' I'm unsure of why this happens; there is no mention of a Popular Page in the Special Pages list. Is this a Wikicities bug? Thanks! Kitsune Sniper 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. The page Special:Popularpages seems to be 404. --Dmuth 21:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
That's an odd one. It shows up as blue so you'd think it would work. Probably something to do with the upgrade, or the miser mode enabled beforehand. I'll ask. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It turned out that this was due to items being disabled while in Miser Mode

SAfurs topic vs Furnet IRC[edit]

This article isn't objective. It looks like pure furry drama more than good information. I call for your opinion please. --Ozone Griffox

WikiFur is not intended for the continuation of incidents of furry drama, but when it is relevant to a topic, I do think it is appropriate to record such incidents. It is my understanding that the foundation of an entire IRC network was due to actions related to this. Drama can be very notable when it changes the course of history. Of course, doing so objectively is the tricky part, especially when everyone involved has strong opinions, as is usually the case with drama.
I'll take a closer look at these articles when I get back online later tonight - I'm not a member of either server, so hopefully I can rewrite things without inadvertently favouring one side or another. If you have any references that you know about that you think might be relevant to the articles, they'd be welcome. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 01:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Exemples of what *I* consider non-objective:

  • They organized an attack on a channel on FurNet called #dragon_yiff.

This happens everyday on big IRC networks. And I know they organized attacks on more than just this channel. why not change this to "They organized various attacks on FurNet channels"

  • The users, however, when everything calmed down, blamed it on Sibe.

I translate this to "The users are stupid and, ahah, blamed the wrong person". I would remove this sentence completly.

  • Much to the disturbance of SA forum regulars, Sibe under an alias on an account purchased by JJcoolJ and several other furries began to post their collections of furry porn there.

I would remove this sentence. Sibe is a regular and really, who care about the actions of him specifically. Is he special? (you can answer yes, but no)

  • Sibe and several of the furries participating in the furry concentration camp were later banned for being a nuisance.

"Several of the furries participating in the furry concentration camp were later banned for being a nuisance."

The whole #safurs heading

  • In late 2003/early 2004, Snowpony, an administrator of FurNet deemed Jazzy unstable and therefore unable to keep administrating his channel. Forcibly, ownership was passed on to Bobby (aka Squnq). After getting bored, Bobby passed the channel on to Verix.

This is not the truth, or it is at least overly exagerated. Snowpony was just doing her job as part of the Furnet Administrator group. You can't name her specifically, and you can't claim she deemed Jazzy unstable. This whole sentence is wrong.

  • Snowpony began monitoring the channel by idling and logging.

Again, this is her work as part of the administrator group. You can't name her specifically: "FurNet Administration began monitoring the channel".

  • Believing that Snowpony was out of line with her actions, in a rather infamous display of quitting her administrative job of FurNet, turned the tables and akilled Snowpony.

Actually, Simba tried to remove Snowpony by showing evidence of a few abuse. The result of this action was two weeks of proofs and argumentation by the goons. Two weeks ignored by FurNet's administration. After those two weeks, The FurNet administration published the new FurNet code of conduct. The goons, seeing their action to havoc FurNet failed, and under the new code of conduct left the place forever.

The whole #safurs heading looks like a fight to justify some goon actions against FurNet. Snowpony was the administrator who took the problem in care, it doesn't mean she is responsible. Her actions was to be considered as an administrator. FurNet's administration solved the problem, by writing the Furnet code of conduct.

This whole heading is highly non-objective. --Ozone Griffox 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. I'm sorry I didn't get around to this earlier, but I'm not sure it would have done much good - it seems to be a rather convoluted situation, and it's getting awfully late, here. Fortunately, on a wiki there is always more time. :-)

I am not sure that I agree that Snowpony's actions were entirely under the heading of "FurNet administration actions". I've been looking over this page and related documents, as well as a few other sources covering the views of both "sides" (and none, just people disappointed that the split occurred). Yes, I'm aware that the first in particular is biased towards making a point. However, they do show direct quotes from Snowpony herself describing actions that she took on her own initiative and which had not previously been discussed with the rest of the admin team.

My own view is that at the server operator level, administrators are personally responsible for their actions. If someone does something that I thought was wrong here, I would call them on it, probably publicly, and I would expect others to do so (as I expect it to be done for my own edits - fortunately I tend to have a good idea of what's acceptable to others so I don't get called on stuff too often). Apparently this is Snowpony's as well:

I do accept the responsibility of my actions
and will endeavor in future to fully address
the administration before undertaking unique
action such as has been listed here.

This is in direct reference to her actions in #safurs. The section should certainly be rephrased, at least - for example, "forcibly passed to Bobby" makes him look like someone she selected personally, when in fact she took a vote. Still, it was "unique", and it was her call, not a group call. She took the credit from those who thought it was a good idea, and the blame from those who did not.

Of course, several members of #safurs did do incredibly stupid things that I would have been tempted to ban for myself. But then I control a corporate IRC server, not a public IRC network, and I am expected to take an active hand in channel disputes (except for one channel set for a separate websites, which has its own administration that asks me for help occasionally).

I also agree that topics are public and reflect upon a network. The people creating #AryanFurs were looking for trouble. I wouldn't want to encourage that. Nor do I think that Simba was blameless when he was key in creating that channel. I think he should have recognized that when you are on a network, you should not get personally involved in such things. On the other hand, they were his friends, and I think the #VCL thing was silly, too - again, was an IRCOp looking for things to do. To me, this sort of action suggests a GodKing situation (or Queen, I guess).

I (like quite a few of the newsgroup posters) think that ultimately the main problem here was that there were few written policies, nobody on the admin team appears to have had much of an interest in getting any together (which resulted in things festering and turning it into a direct personal conflict between Simba and Snowpony), and as a result there appears to have been (in general) a lack of agreement on policy, perhaps because nobody felt they were in a position to create it - or didn't feel it was necessary, until it was too late. It may be that Snowpony herself took action because she felt that the admin system was non-responsive to problems - but was that because nobody cared/had enough time to do anything, or because nobody felt it was a good idea, but didn't care enough to comment? It seems there was about a 50/50 split at the end, but who really knows if nobody talked about it beforehand?

Even on a wiki there are a need for written policies that are understood to be the consensus of the group, which is why I took the time to write a few early on (once we'd figured out what that consensus was). I guess the irony is that the policies did get written for FurNet after all . . . it's just a shame that it took a permanent netsplit before it happened.

This is a key piece of furry IRC history, but it relates to several articles and so putting it in any one of them seems inappropriate. I therefore propose a separate article is created to describe the situations leading up to and following the server split - in fact, as that is the important thing, it might be the right title, something like 2004 FurNet/Anthrochat split. This will (hopefully) reduce bias from people who feel they have to edit it towards the point of view of the current pages, or that it is overly biasing those pages, as well as reduce redundancy of information.

I intend to move this discussion from these user talk pages to the appropriate article talk page at the point that it is created (leaving a link), so people can see where we came from. --GreenReaper(talk) 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please exclude my profile.[edit]

Please delete and exclude my entery, Taren from the Wikifur. It has nothing to do with any past events. It's based totally on my personal reasons. Thank you very much!


Done. The previous revisions have been deleted (or at least deleted as much as is possible on a wiki - they're only available to administrators). Let me know if you decide you want it back at a later date, either publicly editable or with user editing restricted to your control. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Hello! I recently transwikied from wikipedia, and am an active image patroler (for copyright/sources) and would like to impliment something similar. I have seen very little use of the copyright tags, or sources, and soem new tags need to be created, such as some of your "wikifur" only images... ideas? --RBoltz (T | C) 07:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to WikiFur! It's good to see more people coming over to visit - and great when they decide to stick around. You're welcome to try imposing some order on image uploading - as with elsewhere, be bold! :-)
That said, we have a few differences with the kinds of images (and their uses) that are normally uploaded here which I should probably outline:
Many images uploaded are what I'd call "standard" fair use cases, such as comic covers or panels, and logos or (in a few cases) mascots that are intended to represent the group or site concerned. Typically these are only used on the appropriate pages, and have tags asserting the fair use.
Another popular image type is character portraits, either of popular fictional characters or fursonas. These are generally uploaded with the permission of someone (or should be :-). Often people upload artwork of their characters that they have commissioned from other people. Generally accepted practice in the furry fandom is to allow the non-profit display of such images on the web in association with a character at the commissioner's discretion, as long as no further copyright permissions are involved (such as the right to sell prints). It's nice to link to the actual creator, and many people do give the name of the person they commissioned it from as part of the description.
WikiFur does not currently require images to be uploaded under any particular license. The default that I would assume for images that are not marked specifically is "you can use it on this site but not elsewhere," and personally I'm fine with that. There have been suggestions of publishing some portion of WikiFur in paper form, and that might require more detailed information on sources (and perhaps permissions or licenses), but that is very much a secondary consideration. Of course, a lot of the images concerned are associated with articles about people, which would be less likely to make the cut anyway.
Clear violations of copyright are generally rare (most often, they occur during vandalism). We do get the occasional question of whether someone has the right to upload an image. Typically I ask them, and if they can't be contacted quickly, the creator (if apparent). I can't remember anyone saying "no" yet once they were told what the site was, although it's only come up a few times. We have had one recent case of the author of an image claiming copyright infringement. It was pretty clear that this was the case, and so I removed it myself.
So, where is this leading? We should probably have something like "this is the character of Y, drawn by X, uploaded with Y's permission". We could probably do with importing a few more of Wikipedia's tags - I've only done the ones I use. And whatever we do, we need to make sure that it doesn't discourage people who just found WikiFur and want to upload a picture of their character (or any other work) to make their first wiki page look nice. We're a relatively small site looking to expand, and so we have to try to accomodate users more than they accommodate us.
In a nutshell - tagging and sourcing is good, but the objective is to find and document reasons why we should keep images where possible, not why we should be deleting them. "With permission" images are welcome. It's a little different from Wikipedia, but then we're not really trying to be the same - at least not in all ways. :-)
I'm sorry if the above is a little incoherent, but it's 6 AM here and I'm about to go to bed. Let me know if you have any more questions or if I didn't answer you properly! --GreenReaper(talk) 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Its OK :) -- Non commerical / permission seems to fit cc-by-nc or cc-by-nc-nd to me... thoughts? --RBoltz (T | C) 17:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for unprotection[edit]

You may remove me from the list of users requested to be exempted from the site. (currently the page under "Canuss")

I have unprotected it. You may edit it how you like. --Rat 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Regular updates[edit]

I haven't seen the "Did you know?" block change in several weeks, and the "new pages" listing is slow as well. Have we hit a plateau in new, interesting facts and pages? -- Siege 04:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this is entirely my fault. I've been slacking on WikiFur (partially due to my work on Galactic Civilizations 2 - but now that's over, so it's no excuse :-). I will try to update Did you know? more regularly, as well as the Featured article, which hasn't actually changed in weeks.
Of course, if any of you notice any small collection of interesting tidbits, you are welcome to update it yourself. This is a wiki, after all. Some input over at WikiFur:Featured article candidates might be useful too.
As for Template:Newbar, I have spent a few hours knocking together something to keep that updated automatically. I've run into a few problems actually getting the site to accept the input, but the theory is sound. I hope to get that running at some point "soon". --GreenReaper(talk) 04:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Article removal[edit]

Please remove the articles including my real name.


The article with your real name has been deleted. I see that you removed your real name from your pseudonymous article, so that should take care of things.--Duncan da Husky 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from 19 February to 5 April 2006. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)

Replies to GreenReaper[edit]

Hey, I don't know if the "feep" images can be used here (from the Fuzzball TinyMUCK pages). The only permission I got from Revar was to put all fuzzball documentation on any wiki I felt was useful. The Feeps aren't part of the documentation (they're more the "mascot" of Belfry Software) so I can't give any permission one way or the other. The best way to contact Revar is Revar@FurryMUCK. --Aerowolf(talk) 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I'll see about asking Revar about it when I'm not falling over from sleep-deprivation. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Remaking history[edit]

I have a real issue, with people being able to edit history, his wishes aside, no one, should be able to hide their past, espcially when it is such a well known name, I think wiping his userpage is fine, if he wish it to be that, then so be it, however, he should not be able to remove links from within the wiki.. im on IRC and AIM Right now, IRC as AlohaWolf, and AIM as AlohaWulf, please shoot me a message

I did this and we had a chat about it. It's still not an entirely resolved question, and people have differeing opinions about it. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Entry deletion[edit]

I would appreciate it if you would please delete any mention of myself from your wiki site. I've hoped that non-involvement with that particular fandom would perhaps allow my mention of involvement with it, to evaporate over time. Yet I checked this morning and there is a detailed bio of said interaction, covering me from 1993 to the present.

-Tom Narey

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Part of furry fandom's history is the fact that people have decided to leave it, after all, and we like to record that so that people know the full story and don't wonder what happened to people. However, I can understand your view, and I shall exclude your entry in accordance with our relevant policy. Unless there are any objections from other contributors (which are unlikely given your current non-involvement), this should be all that is required. Should you change your mind at any point (or if you would prefer that the entry be there, but with details of your choosing), let me know. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Entry deletion/edit[edit]

Please remove references to Silent Red's real name from the wiki. If this requires the entry to be removed entirely that is fine. This person has not been involved in the fandom for several years and will not return.

I have moved the entry to Silent Red, where it should probably have been anyway (we have a policy of preferring to listing under nicknames) and removed the redirect from the person's real name. I have added a note to the page specifying that it should not be re-added. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The [real name] Entry[edit]

The section was edited by me to remove the real name of the person concerned. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply ambarrassed to have to ask you to remove the [real name] entry from WikiFur. Though personally honored to have an entry and grateful to Ken Pick for originally placing it, certain individuals who sign my paycheck have taken great umbrage over my presence on the Internet.

Please contact me as to what steps I need to take in order to verify who I am and that I have the authority to make this request.

By the time you read this, I will have verified my Hotmail address.

Thank you for you patience and understanding about this situation I reluctantly find myself in.


[real name]

Hi there! I'm sorry to hear that, but I can understand the situation given your class of your work. As you have previously made contributions to WikiFur I feel reasonably assured of your identity - no further verification will be reqired unless someone claims otherwise.
If you wish we can probably exclude your entry completely. It would be a shame to remove the details of your work in the community, though. Would it be acceptable to preserve the entry if all mentions of your name and current occupation were removed?
I have set this up at Heavy Horse so you can see how it would look, and changed all links mentioning your real name to your fan name. The only pages on which your real name currently appears are these talk pages, which can be edited out if desired. The page about you could also be put under your control if you wish, so that only you or an administrator could edit it directly.
If this will not suffice, let me know at my talk page, and I will exclude the entry completely. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That is an excellent suggestion! Please remove the [real name] section totally and keep Heavy Horse exaclty as you have written it. I will keep a watch over it to make sure it remains unconnected with my real name.
Thanks again for a very creative solution.
[real name]
No worries - I'm glad it solves the problem for you! We've actually had this situation come about a few times before, and this sort of solution usually solves it. I have removed your real name from this conversation - hopefully that should be sufficient to prevent it coming up in searches. If you wish to sign future chat, just type ~~~~ and it will give your username with a link to your user page. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note to the article's talk page so that the details are not accidentally added again. :) Just to clarify and link back to this discussion easily. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A New Policy[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about our policies regarding vanity pages, "encyclopedic-ness", and what constitutes an acceptable article. I cobbled together a first pass at a policy, perhaps something that can be added to Wikifur:What Wikifur is not:

Vanity Articles

Vanity articles, that is, articles about a person or project which are written by the article subject or someone involved with a project, are acceptable on WikiFur, unlike Wikipedia. In order for WikiFur to remain a useful resource for information, these articles must be factual and concise. Articles which are written for humor value or are lacking in reliable, documentable sources are likely to be edited for accuracy, or if the information is not documentable, deleted altogether.

If you have humorous or non-factual information you would like to provide, provide a forum for commentary about yourself or your project, or wish to provide other non-encyclopedic information (within existing WikiFur policies and the boundaries of good taste), you are welcome to create a WikiFur account and post that in the User: namespace pages.

I will freely admit that this is written purely to address some of my own pet peeves :-) What do you think? Can this be improved? Am I off-base in my interpretation? --Duncan da Husky 15:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote for this to be included in full. :) Sounds like a good addition and clarification. Can this be moved to some sort of public space for voting and discussion? --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 17:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Since it is something that we do support, perhaps it should go on WikiFur:What WikiFur is instead, under "WikiFur is about furries and the furry fandom"? --GreenReaper(talk) 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That would work too. I figured it would fit under Wikifur:What Wikifur is not solely due to the existing mention of vanity pages under that heading, but either location would be fine by me. --Duncan da Husky 20:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That works for me as well. -- Siege 02:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Humor in entries[edit]

How forbidden is it? I couldn't resist: Mare (Poem) - Stallion (Poem) Chibiabos 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Humour, in-jokes and the like aren't forbidden (see Adam's Mark), but I'd prefer it if those particular articles were be moved into in the User: namespace and linked from the page by or about you. If it were a part of a larger work then that might be a different story, but as it is now they're simply not really that relevant to the wider furry community and - let's face it - are unlikely to gain any such relevance. :-)
Though you didn't ask about it, the songs are less of a concern because they show their significance and relevance to others. Essentially, if it doesn't talk about any other people or link to other articles (except for dictionary definitions) then it's a sign that it's probably "personal" content that should be in the [[User: namespace, especially if there's no reason to believe it could be expanded further. --GreenReaper(talk) 10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and we tend to avoid using capitals for parenthesised words unless they should be used normally to fit with the rest of the house style, so "(poem)" is preferred over "(Poem)". --GreenReaper(talk) 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)



My name's Luke Metcalfe. Me and my colleagues launched a site last month called Qwika. It's a search engine designed specifically for wikis. We've recently added Wikifur to our index. Some example searches: /find/h-con

We would like to make some interface improvements to our site such that our users can see a small edition of the logo for each WikiCity. We would like your permission to use this, and also a small version on the homepage, just as part of a list of wikis we cover.

If you have any questions or comments, I'd love to hear them.


Luke Metcalfe Phone / Fax: +612 8221 9721 (24 hrs)

I replied to this over AIM, giving permission for the logo to be used (and a few suggestions). --GreenReaper(talk) 09:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Main wiki links[edit]

Anyway, to my question to GreenReaper here (would still like my humor question above the muppet wiki discussion answered if you can, when convenient) is whether it is preferable to link to an already existing article on another wiki or to create a localized furry wiki version in addition to the link. Purely as an example, there is a lengthy one on zoophilia and a local article on zoophilia.

The question arises as I was looking to put together a biographical page on Timothy Albee when, googling his name to try and find a bio page for him, I discovered he already has a wiki entry on [[Wikipedia. Should I copy that locally and work off it, or change all the Timothy Albee links I find to point to the Wikipedia article, which would seem to be more logical (so various wikis, including furry wiki, can share the same article and thus all benefit as folk expand, expound and update that shared article)? --Chibiabos 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not GreenReaper, my opinion is that it is preferable to have both. Where the subject you wish to link or discuss is primarily furry-oriented, it would be better to have a more complete article on WikiFur, but of course, WikiFur is not meant to be a copy of Wikipedia, so by all means expand any incomplete articles that do get copied (and don't forget the attribution tag mentioned in the afore-linked policy, as it links to the original article). If there is a relevant article on Wikipedia or some other wiki or website, which could not be improved or made more relevant to the furry fandom by copying to WikiFur (or in the case of non-Wikipedia articles, would be a copyright violation to bring over), it is entirely appropriate to provide links to it and let others view the content in its original home.
What I would not want to see is a redirect to an external site. -- Siege 08:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Albee is arguably very relevant to the furry community, but I actually think that's a good case for linking to the Wikipedia site instead and keeping that up to date ... is there a way to link back to wikifur from wikipedia in articles there?
I think if we could share back and forth like this, someone might stumble on something (like they were looking up Timothy Albee on wikipedia because of something else he'd done), and find links to wikifur and be able to find out stuff about the furry fandom that way. Hey, reading about it on wikipedia linked to wikifur beats basing their view of furrydom from Fur and Loathing, doesn't it? --Chibiabos 09:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
My personal view is also that it is better to have two articles in this sort of situation. There is duplication, it is true, and the chance of redundancy, but it also makes it far easier to find links (many contributors will not know to look in Wikipedia) and it allows us to build up versions that are better than Wikipedia (due to internal linking) and then export them - something like Ursa Major Awards, only that didn't exist beforehand. You might think that people will add more interwiki links later but realistically I do not think this is likely to happen. It also means the article can be included in our categorization structure.
You can link to WikiFur from Wikipedia by adding the prefix [[WikiFur:. I am reluctant to do too much in the way of interwiki links on Wikipedia due to perception of them as "leeching". I have tested this out with fairly innocuous links and people were a little concerned even then. However, in cases where a topic is never going to be suitable for a Wikipedia article it is probably defensible to link to good articles on a topic. Of course, if the article is that good it is likely to be on a topic that is covered in Wikipedia as well.
This obviously does not apply to all people, just those that are of particular relevance to the fandom and where it is likely that information will be added here that would not be added by Wikipedia editors (and yes, WikiFur editors might get there too, but they're less likely to edit a Wikipedia article, less likely to know how to link back here, etc.). This one appears to be a borderline case.
I guess the question is "is he actually in the furry fandom, or likely to be mentioned in several WikiFur articles?" If either of these are true then I would tend towards adding a local page and link to the Wikipedia article. If the WikiFur page had more information I would probably link back from Wikipedia to our article, either directly if the information was not appropriate for Wikipedia or by incorporating the material into the article and adding the {{WikiFur|original page name}} tag to the discussion for the article.
Sorry, I missed the other question, will reply. --GreenReaper(talk) 10:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikifur's URL has changed ticker[edit]


WikiFur's URL has changed, don't forget to update your bookmarks!

thinger along the top of pages isn't grammatical. I'd suggest making it two sentences. (has changed. Don't forget) but a semi-colon instead of a comma would also work. -- Sine 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call! Feel free to edit it yourself. Oh, and welcome to the admin team. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 18:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thank you! I'm honored. Anything I should read through? Do I suddenly get to make SuperAdminPower statements about, oh, category order? ;) -- Sine 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Echoed on my own talk page)
Probably the best resources are Wikipedia's pages on administrators and their administrators' how-to guide.
Administrative power on WikiFur is much more of a "techncial ability to do things" than a "right to dictate how things should be done". I gave it to you because you had a need to perform actions requiring admin powers, and because you seem to be someone with a history of good contributions who wouldn't go on a deletion spree or ban half the Internet by mistake. It doesn't grant more (or less) right to decide how pages, categories and the like should be organized - they're community decisions. You just have the ability to implement more of these decisions yourself.
Of course, if you decide to be bold and nobody says anything, all well and good. If someone disagrees with something you do, they'll contact you, and you should try to work together to figure out a way in which you can both be happy. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't get to ban half the internet? Or make rules from on high? Darn!
Thanks for the links. I'd found my way to one of them, but I'll give them both a good reading-through.
Regarding category order and suchlike very general questions--is there somewhere already in place to discuss broad topics? I recall seeing a lot getting worked out on individual talk pages. -- Sine 01:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Other than the LiveJournal, not really. I should probably setup some kind of forum for that (I believe there's an extension added for that). Or we could just designate a talk page e.g. WikiFur talk:Community Central. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ow.. my grammar. ;_; --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 23:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Categorization conundrums[edit]

As I've spammed a few places, I've been working on the Kaze pages a bit and a few things are starting to irritate my sides a bit. First, Kaze: Ghost Warrior is categorized as a movie. According to my information, the closest label that fits for it would actually be a series pilot episode (further snafu'd by the fact that, SFAIK, the series itself will be called 'Kaze: Ghost Warrior'. Its meant to be the first episode of the Kaze: Ghost Warrior (series) more than a standalone movie. At 22 or 23 minutes long and CGI animated, it could also fit as an Category:Animations. It is not a broadcast TV program (SFAIK, at least not yet), so that might not fit, either ... how would an unbroadcast animated series be categorized?

I'd put the series in animations, if it even gets an article of its own yet. It is dangerous to look too far into the future as it can lead to us recording things that never actually happen. As for the original work . . . well, that's a tricky one. Again, probably animations, and if people treat it as a movie (which I think they do) then it should probably be in there as well.

Also, is there a categorization for studios like Timothy Albee Animation, ReQuest Entertainment, Cashel Entertainment, etc.? Or woult it be better for those pages to be worked on in, say, Wikipedia?

We have Category:Organizations and subcategories. You should probably make your decision as to whether an article should exist here depending on whether or not the company actually does anything in relation to the furry fandom. For example, Dragon's Eye Productions gets one because it makes Furcadia, but Stardock wouldn't just because I work for them.

Also, could you answer my query, when you have time, I replied to you with in my talk?


And, egad, your talk page is getting ginormous. :p --Chibiabos 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes . . . again! I'll be making another archive shortly. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Sure, I checked to see if there was a Holland category, but I didn't check just Netherlands. Ah, well...

Oh, while I'm here: did you see my comment about inputboxes over at Help Desk? That seems a useful thing to implement, but I'm guessing it requires some sysop-level tinkering to make it available on WikiFur. --Duncan da Husky 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I did see that, yes. Something to strongly consider (I think that given this and other comments, Community Central needs reworking again :-). It shouldn't require sysop tinkering, though . . . as long as it's installed, and I think it is for all Wikia, anyone can setup pages using it. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Visibility of talk pages[edit]

I had been paying very little attention to the Namespace: dropdown at Recent changes, but having properly noticed it, I'm wondering if a prominent "Recent talk changes" might not be a useful thing--and easily done with a link to Recentchanges&namespace=1 -- Sine 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That does indeed seem useful. That sort of thing could replace the permanently out-of-date "recent discussions" section in Community Central. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Watts Martin's page[edit]

In regards to the Watts Martin page that I previously edited -- I spoke with Watts and, although they are in effect the same person as [name deleted], they don't want to be directly linked together because the creator/player is working in a field which is likely to do Google searches and the like. So they just don't want the character/player linked together, although having both entires separate is apparently okay. Just FYI. ~Puc

Hehe, yep - I'd figured as much given the anonymous edit . . . and, umm, you know Google indexes WikiFur, right? Way to make a new page linking them. :-) *edits* --GreenReaper(talk) 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Query about User Talk:Invader Pichu[edit]

Now here's an interesting question: we have a user who has vandalized in the past removing a Blocked User template on their talk page. On the one hand, I can see that the user is clearly no longer blocked. On the other hand, I can see value in leaving some template that a user has been blocked in the past for vandalizing, if only to help admins judge how severely to penalize repeat vandals.

I gather that you have spoken with this person off-wiki; what do you think should be the proper way to address this? Do we need a new template, perhaps? ("This user has been blocked in the past for {X amount of time} for vandalizing articles X, Y, and Z")

I have reverted the template removal for now, but I'm open to ideas as to whether it should be left on or removed.--Duncan da Husky 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

When I check to see if someone is a repeat vandal, I generally take a look at that user's contributions page, since it's not subject to being maliciously edited. :-) If I see rashes of vandalism seperated by a marcoscopic length of time, then I know they've been banned and I'll make the next ban longer. --Dmuth 14:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I talked to them, but I did not look at their user's contributions, only their IP (which is what they were complaining about). I think that some less-incorrect template should be specified after banning, or perhaps that ones in regular use should be modified to specify the length of the ban (in fact, I don't really like the wording of the banning templates right now -- they're not likely to convincce someone to go away, just make them angrier).
We do need to forgive and forget - to an extent. Six months seems like a reasonable time to give people a second chance. A few bad edits at the start should not preclude you from contributing or be left sticking out forever (they do if people care to look, anyway). But yes, if bad faith edits to articles continue, do not hesitate to ban for longer periods. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from 6 April to 22 July 2006. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)

Re my WikiFur entry[edit]

Just noticed that you had stuck in an unwritten link from the Kay Shapero entry for the Anthropomorphic Literature and Arts Association. I had deliberately NOT put a link there, because the ALAA exists to produce the Recommended List and present the Ursa Major awards, both of which have links right after the reference. So I figured it would be superfluous. What do you think? I could probably write an entry, but it'd only be a couple of lines long and probably wouldn't contain much you can't find out from the other two links. --Yealurowluro

(I'm not GR, but we never have a shortage of opinions around here! :-) Actually, even the small amount of information you mention would be useful, if only to define the parametes of the organization and to show that it is independent of any other organization out there (when I first saw mention of ALAA, I erroneously conflated it with AAE, which is a different beastie entirely). ----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's basically why I put it in there (also because I rememebered it was linked in Ursa Major Awards). If you really don't think it should have an entry, take it out, but as Duncan mentions, Anthropomorphic Arts and Education seems to do well enough. It's a short page, but it gives a link to the organization, and as it is a separate page it can be put into Category:Organizations which helps us keep a tab on all such organizations. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To Stub or Not to Stub?[edit]

Is there a guideline as to when a short article (which just doesn't have much to say) doesn't need to be tagged as a stub? 1000 bytes, etc.? Wouldn't stop anyone from dropping in to make changes anyway. Just curious. --Frizzy 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I usually go by the rule of whether I feel there's anything that ought to be added (but that I'm not sure about or don't know or don't feel like putting in right now). -- Siege(talk) 05:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The general rule is "if there is probably something that could be added fairly easily by someone who doesn't know much about the topic" (say with a few minutes of google searching) then it is a stub. If not, then it is not a stub, although if you can describe it entirely in a couple of lines, it is probably a strong candidate for merging with another article. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the quick feedback! I was looking through WikiFur's style guide and had another question: Are there any guidelines on category order at the end of articles? I was going through alphabetically, but it might be helpful to define this in the style guide if there's a prefered order to doing this. --Frizzy 19:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically any order is fine. In practice, for articles about people I've tended to do People and then subcategories of People (note that we only do this category + subcategory thing with people so as to get a full listing in that category), and then their location and year of birth/death. In general I would put the most important or relevant category first, but that's just a personal style. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What you describe is what I've been doing, GreenReaper. I described it in some detail over at Category_talk:Root. -- Sine 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting page protection[edit]

How do I go about requesting my page to be locked so that only myself and administrators can edit it? --Banrai

You just did. I'm at work right now so I can't really look that closely to ensure it's appropriate, but I will later this evening.
Be aware that "your page" is User:Banrai. Banrai is "the page about you". As such it is expected to be reasonably complete, and I do find it odd that there is no mention or reference to the actions mentioned in a certain LiveJournal entry that comes up when searching for your name. What's past is past, and it is important not to dwell on it, but it does deserve recording so that people understand how things ended up as they are today (and so we don't get complaints on the talk page from people who think things are being hidden). I will try and see about that tonight as well. I'm not a concerned party other than ensuring the accuracy of the article, and I don't particularly want to raise any drama about it, so fear not - it'll be brief.
Oh, and just something I noticed glancing over the page - you only need to link to other articles the first time a linkable name comes up, not every time. It's assumed that people will already have clicked on the link if they want to go to it. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I added a small blurb about... that. But feel free to edit it as you see fit. It's a very personal preferance that the article itself not actually be linked, since it IS over and done, but.. yeah, you're the mod. I also went back in and fixed the massive-linking, so it looks a little cleaner now. ;3 --Banrai
I've not linked it. Instead, I spent a while reading various sources, then tried to give a summary of your actions, the context behind them - part of which was already evident in previous sections - and the response from others, without turning it into a duplicate of that post (or another Sibe). I think it says all that needs to be said about that without taking up too much of the article. If people really want to know more, I'm sure they can find out for themselves - but I suspect for most it is enough that they will not feel the need to do so.
As for your request, the article seems a good one as it stands. I will post a notice on the talk page, and unless there is significant dissent from the WikiFur community I will enable the page protection within a day or so. If at a later point you decide that you no longer want the page protected then any admin can help you remove it at request. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism and blocking[edit]

I've just blocked an IP for what I now see is repeated vandalism. (Three incidents so far.) Do we have an understood point where we block for longer periods, or infinitely? -- Sine 03:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say go up by one category per repeated offense - hours, days, weeks, months, years (or forever). If all they do is vandalism feel free to skip a step. We're not Wikipedia, we've not really got time to deal with trouble again and again. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal IPs found and They were found posting images of the vandalism in /b/

Database error on page move[edit]

I was attempting to move Art Show over its redirect Art show (note the caps - one is the name of a show, the other is a type), and I received this error:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
UPDATE `wikicities`.`gpage` SET page_namespace = '0',page_title = 'Art_show' WHERE page_namespace = '0' AND page_title = 'Art_Show'
from within function "Database::update". MySQL returned error "1062: Duplicate entry 'furry-0-Art_show' for key 2 (".

Would you mind passing this on to the Wikia folks? Looks like the parser is missing the routine which checks for a page/redirect/whatever under the name being moved to. Thanks. -- Siege(talk) 10:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Asking your permission[edit]

Would it be okay with you to upload this image (http://www.encyclopediadramatica. com/index.php/Image:Taxidermy.gif) to wikifur? It is an animated gif of scenes from the CSI furry episode. It's 1.8MB so I'm obviously not going to risk spending the long time uploading it if it gets deleted and I'm hoping somebody else will do it. If that is not acceptable, would a link to it in the CSI article be allowed? There's no pressure if you don't agree with these. SleepAtWork 05:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't delete it. It is not the best pictoral representation of the whole show, though. The animation tells a story, but it is not the whole story about the show, just as the show does not tell the whole story about the fandom. Its purpose on ED (http://www.encyclopediadramatica .com/index.php/Taxidermy) was to promote fursecution (to whit, the conversion of furries into trophies and rugs) and the selection of passages in the animation is limited to those supporting that argument. I believe that a small selection of screen captures from various points in the show added by use of the <gallery> tag (see The Forest for an example) might be a better addition to the article.
Another thing to consider - if it takes you a long time to upload it, it will take a long time for many of our contributors to download it as well. 2Mb pages are not really a good idea. This suggests that a link to the animation would be more appropriate, with a note of the file size for those on modems. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
About size, I see so many websites designed where the only way you can view them is flash. I don't know what the deal with that. The real size getter is YTMNDs where each one is huge and often a copy of several other ones with just a tiny change. You know you're actually a pretty cool person (and probably same for others here) compared to the wikipedia furry community where any mention of furries that isn't in their "furries never yiff, or dress in custumes more than bunny ears, and all furries are heterosexual, and there are the same number of male and female furries" propoganda means a witchhunt and I think it's one of the reasons why encyclopedia dramatica has all the anti-furry stuff--and the site says somewhere it's the denial of some furry aspects that get them made fun of----that can be compared to how the site doesn't make fun of star wars / star trek nerds with more than a small amount. SleepAtWork 10:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Flash is not the most ideal system for web user interfaces (although it does have enviable compatability compared to things like JavaScript). I won't go so far as to say that Flash has no place. It is a good system for the delivery of multimedia content. We tend to link to that rather than host it, though. :-)
It is true that people are sometimes overly defensive. However, at the same time, some have good reason - there really are "furry haters" for which it is a hobby to just go out there and spread the message that furries suck. Most of them don't actually know anything about the fandom, participate in any of the events, or contribute anything - they're just having fun putting other people down. I'm more than willing to accept criticism from people like Nothingkat, who at least knows what he's talking about. And . . . well, I've not heard people make the above assertions before. I'm sure a lot of people say "not all furries yiff, not all dress up in fursuits, not all are gay and furries are not all male", but there's a big difference between that and utter denial.
As for Wikipedia, you have to remember that the purpose of their project (as ours) is to make an encyclopedia, not to make fun of people. The furry fandom article already has five whole paragraphs on sexual activities. I think that gives readers a fairly good idea of the extent of sexual content in the fandom. When you get edits like these, it is very easy to see why a lot of them get reverted.
ED would have furry stuff on it regardless, I am sure. After all, we already own LiveJournal. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My page got vandalized...[edit]

Apparently it happened today even, suprisinly. Some user going by the name of Clambake....*sigh*. And it has to be somebody with access to or, because that's the ONLY place I've posted the picture used with even a slight bit of public access. --lucashoal 3:40 PM, May 9 2006 (EST)

I will say that the staff already reverted the edits made to your page. The image, though I have not seen it, was already deleted. ----Markus(talk) 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Duncan was pretty quick on the ball!
I find it odd that you were able to revert their work so quickly - according to the history, just four minutes passed between the picture being uploaded and your reversion. How did you know that they had posted the picture there? --GreenReaper(talk) 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I just decided to log in today to see if anyone had left me a note, or made any changes to my page. And seeing the picture, well... It was a matter of luck really. I know it seems....fishy, but I honestly had no way at all of knowing this edit had taken place.
As for the picture? It was a picture of me, not just Luca, but me in the real world. Specifically, it was one taken at a babyfur party, and in a pink dress.
Thank you though for everything ^^. Lucashoal 9:03 PM, May 9 2006 (EST)
*grins* - well, you were fortunate, then. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article on this whole problem in The New York Times (Growing Wikipedia Revises Its 'Anyone Can Edit' Policy) -- although the article is about "big" Wikipedia the principles and concerns probably still apply. --Auliya

Yes. We have the same features here, and have used them, though they too affect only a small proportion of our pages. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Testing... (how much is too much?)[edit]

I notice one or two articles about me and my comics say they need improving. My question is this: How much is too much? I'd like to do my part without overdoing it, ya know?

--Graveyard Greg
It's hard to do too much. I guess if you found yourself stretching for something to say, then it might be time to stop. Of course, I have a fairly short article, but then I don't have much to say about myself, as I've not had a long history in the furry fandom. Somewolf has a rather longer one. Certainly, comics can be and have been covered in significant depth. The Gaming Guardians article is a good idea of the minimum length that gives a good coverage of the key aspects of the topic, enough that it was featured, but it would certainly be possible to add to it without compromising that.
It is possible to go much farther, of course. For example, Wikipedia has a very extensive article on Kevin and Kell. That would be unusual to see here (probably the closest is Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures, and the plot is hardly covered there), but if people want to go that far on just about any topic it is welcome. We have many relatively short articles through happenstance, not choice. It's not like we're going to run out of paper, after all. :-)
The perfect article tells people everything they want to know about a topic. For some topics, this can be a lot. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Species and characters categories[edit]

I think all of us will agree that having subcategories for species, and for characters of those species, is a good thing, up to a certain point. But I'm concerned that we may be getting a little carried away with it. Perhaps we're not to the point yet where we've overdone it and need to backpedal on some of the categories that have been created, but I think we're getting close to that point in some areas, and that it would be a good idea to stop and think about how far we want to go with this.

What do the rest of you think? More species/character categories, or is it time to rein it in? --mwalimu 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like to think of it as setting the framework for future growth. Although if we start using Latin names, then I think we've gone too far. --Rat 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I look at it this way: If I'm a casual reader and I'm interested in, let's say, wolf characters. I click on the Wolf characters category and I see a whole bunch of names, plus (in this instance) sub-categories for Artic Wolf characters, Werewolves, and Wolf-Hybrid characters. Am I going to click on the subcategories to find the one or two listings beneath each entry, or ignore them and use the large main list? From a usability standpoint, I'm not sure I see the usefulness of breaking things down to the point where it's only two or three entries in a category.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 11:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Extinctioners page being considered for deletion[edit]

I'm so upset right now because my Extinctioners page at is being considered for deletion, if I try and update the one here, will it also be deleted, please let me know in my talk(if it works) --RVDDP2501

On the contrary, we would be glad to have your contributions, as long as the copyright status of the images is satisfactory (either GFDL or another open form of licensing, or permission for use on WikiFur). As you can see on Wikipedia's deletion proposal, their reasoning is that Extinctioners is not sufficiently notable in the general world for an article. WikiFur is all about the furry fandom, so that's not applicable here. Just remember that as with Wikipedia articles are community efforts - after all, you copied the initial article from here - and you should do fine. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal or vertical? (pictures)[edit]

Hey listen, I'm not being a prud but someone named Dmuth has edited some of my character section (I'm not reporting the editing itself) but he caused the multiple pics the stack ontop each other in the right hand side of the screen, I've fixed mos of them, you can see the original ones he did in the jistory section, please let me know what you think of the matter, alright, thank you. --RVDDP2501

I personally think they look better side by side in that particular case. Those pictures happen to be particularly tall, and the fact that there is little text to go with it means that a better use of the space is to have them in a row. Most WikiFur articles have a lot more text in relation to the numbers of pictures, which is why the convention is to have them at the side, or in a combination of side pictures and a gallery as you can see in The Forest. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Andorozon pics (permission)[edit]

The Creator of the Andorozon comics has sent me an e-mail giving me permission to use his picsm how do I forward you the e-mail to get the pics licenced, the pics up already were drawn by Shawntae Howard and were licenced but Ken Singshow is going to send his own pics, what do I do? --RVDDP2501

I would suggest that you just attach a copy of the email giving permission to the discussion page of the Andorozon article. That way everyone who looks at the article. You could also add a note on the image upload description that links to that page (something like [[Talk:Andorozon|permission information]]).
Also, when writing messages on talk pages please sign your name by putting ~~~~ at the end so we know who's talking and so who to reply to. It's possible to find that information out by looking at the edit history, but it's a lot easier if it's right there. Thanks! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Heya. I've noticed that the text of Maxwell Manx (Copy Cat) looks to have come from and I assume that's similarly the case for at least some of the other character articles. Could you clarify that for me? I gather we have permission to use the character images here, but I don't remember reference to text descriptions, and I'm ever anxious about copyright concerns. -- Sine 00:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but believe me, I have been given permission from Shawntae Howard himself to use both his pics and text in this and other related articles pertaining to Extinctioners, listen could you give me your e-mail address so I can forward his e-mail of him giving permission or should I talk about this with GreenReaper what should I do?RVDDP2501 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest copying the e-mail to the talk page of the Extinctioners article; I've seen similar things here previously. You could certainly check with GreenReaper to confirm the procedure. It's great that we have all this Extinctioners material to work with, and that you've been so active with it. -- Sine 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

(forgive me if you have already said something on this matter, my memory isn't al that good) so EXACTLY what must I do?

All we need on the talk page (or on the Licensing section of the image pages) is something to show that a) you have asked to use the author's copyrighted works, on this website or on Wikipedia (which has similar requirements) and b) that he has said yes. This would probably be your initial request to him, and his reply. This should not a general agreement that you can write a wiki page about the topic (you could do that without asking), but something that makes it clear that you intend to use some related parts of his copyrighted works in the pages - as you say, "both his pics and text". That is the thing that requires permission, because it is his right to allow copies of his work on this site (or not to allow them, as he sees fit).
If you have previously asked for specific permission to use parts of his works rather than just writing about them, then that's fine - just put a copy of that on the page. If not, you should do so. You could point him to the wiki pages that have already been written (including some of the pictures) and ask him if that kind of use is OK. You could also invite him to look at the copyrights page, and/or to contact us directly if he has questions. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Extinctioners at[edit]

Hey GreenReaper, RVDDP2501 here, I just found an Extinctioners page (flawed) at I told them about the problems and changes they could make, it looks like an original version I had at (I guess they hadn't checked for updated versions) I also told them about Wikifurs version, they haven't replied yet, so what do you think -, I mean I can't believe how my pages are spreading, you know. - RVDDP2501 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

They are apt to taking the contents of Wikipedia, aren't they? They do that for a lot of other articles as well - it is an automated system. I doubt they will add WikiFur to their list, though it's always a possibility. They will probably update from Wikipedia over the next few months. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, your probably right, anyways if you have any ideas, suggestion, etc. about making the page(s) better, please let me know, thanks - RVDDP2501 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Extinctioners improvement[edit]

Hey GreenReaper, thanks a whole lot with the list improvement, seriously, thanks, if there is any other ideas on how to make the page(s) better, by all mean, do what you think is right. - RVDDP2501 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. In this case I just thought it could be a little more compact before I linked it as our comic of the week. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"comic of the week"? really!, this is just about the comic or the page as well? I don't quite fully understand what you mean? please let me know, thanks - RVDDP2501 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the bottom left of the front page. Our comics of the week can be based on various criteria, but in this case I featured it because of the extensive coverage on WikiFur. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

oh, ok, I see it, sorry about that, listen I wanna ask you opinion and/or permission on something, I was planning on creating a page for a Extinctioners character called Krystin but I was not sure if you and/or Wikifur would approve of the pic of the character which IS a bit mature, I did an edit though in which I put a black back covering the "chest area", do you want me to upload the censored pic without making the caracter page for you to look at and decide as to whether or not it would be appropriate to make the page with the pic? - RVDDP2501 02:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and upload the original, if it is appropriate for the character. WikiFur is not censored for minors. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just uploaded the pic of Krystin, the pic name is Image:Extinctioners_cast_Krystin.jpg, please let me know what you think and if I should go ahead with this character's page, thank you - RVDDP2501 03:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable enough. Go for it! --GreenReaper(talk) 03:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I though I would do the right thing and discuss this with you first about the pic before I did something that would be disapproved of by you and others at wikifur, I do not like to make mistakes, ok - RVDDP2501 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen, thanks a whole lot for removing the nude pic of Krystin, I got an e-mail from Shawntae Howard saying he would prefer I not use that pic of Krystin due to it being so mature, he said he would send me another one to use in time, so until then, I uploaded the other version of the same pic only now with a black bar covering her chest, ok, thanks for removing those pics, I couldn't figure out how to do it. (God, I hope I haven't pissed him off) - RVDDP2501 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. For future reference, you can always overwrite an image with a newer one by uploading a file and specifying the same destination filename, although deleting it entirely requires an administrator (and it is currently an irreversible operation). --GreenReaper(talk) 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I though that was what i had done, I guess I messed up, I'm sorry to do that to you - RVDDP2501 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you did, too - I saw the original had a black bar on it, but perhaps you didn't notice, because soon after you uploaded a (Censored) version as well. Spaz Kitty
I think I know what happened - you uploaded it, but didn't force a refresh by going directly to the image file (not the image page) and pressing Ctrl+F5. Your computer still thought that the image was valid, as it had it cached, so it showed the uncensored version. It's often a problem for new wiki founders who add logos, as it looks like it's not changing, even though it is. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Any ways, long story short, thanks for removing the pic and I hope I don't make the same mistake again, thank you. - RVDDP2501 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry, forget previous post, prolem fixed itself, sorry - RVDDP2501 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


So, uh, I like, decided to add stuff cuz people I knew/knew of weren't on here, and uh.... seems they think I put too much D8

I -was- careful to put only stuff I knew was publically visible, and I did add a bit more than I thought was needed, cuz I thought anyone concerned with privacy, like say other wiki contributors, would be like "Hmm maybe you should delete that"
instead of suddenly "OMG stalkers! everywhere! nuuuuu!" o.o; This really upset me cuz they're people I interact with at least on occasion, and I value their opinion, so having them think I'm crazy(er)...
I didn't tell anyone cuz I wanted a "professional" distance, if they knew I was doing it... well, "the observer changes the observed".

And honestly, I didnt -try- that hard, maybe an hour on each person... after all it's wiki and can be edited later... and I was mostly tryin to just sketch their persona since it's in their ART so much y'know ._.

Anyway I explained myself some on Seel's talk page, because I want to make everyone as happy as possible.

PS- I'd be willing to have anything I do "depersonalized" but won't do it myself if it makes it look like I'm just covering my ass. Of course, yeah, it's a wiki and past changes can be viewed...

--BennuTeomabar 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I think the invididual involved is being a little out of line. Basically they're complaining because you reposted some information that was publically available. It seems to me that their worldview is that nobody should be allowed to talk about anybody else. We don't subscribe to that view here. :-) --Douglas Muth 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikifur news (suitability of topics)[edit]

I couldn't figure out how to add a news item. :/ I thought the passing of Peter S. Beagle's mother (Peter being the author of The Last Unicorn) might be of note to some furry fans. I just received word from Beagle's newsletter and it pointed to this page ... --Chibiabos

To post a news item, you create the link to the template as you did (preferably in a preview first), then make the page that it links to, and add a link to that page to Template:Newsbar and the WikiFur:Community Central page.
However, I would have to say that I would not really agree with posting it as news on WikiFur. Wikipedia used to have the somewhat pithy phrase "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them," and I feel this is true for WikiFur as well. People (particularly the mothers and fathers of the older people in the fandom) die all the time.
While the death of a person already relevant to WikiFur just for being in the fandom is a fact that should go on the the page about them, it is not site news. Moreover, all previous news items have been directly related to WikiFur. If it had been someone of major relevance to the fandom I might have thought differently - say, Uncle Kage, or maybe, at a stretch, Grandma Kage (who is relevant enough to have a page, but not much of one yet). However, we don't even have an entry on Peter yet, let alone his mother. We're not a furry news aggregator, and this doesn't really seem to count as furry news as much as a personal loss. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you help?[edit]

On furluminati, Spirou constantly vandalizes the article, but no matter what I put he reverts me back to his version (and he has not even corrected the grammar/spelling errors in it). I have tried and tried to please him, but I've seen his type and they just revert nonstop as they like--just like willy on wheels likes to move pages to "on wheels" and others like to blank pages, Spirou gets his vandalism high from reverting. I keep trying to please him, but obviously he is just out to cause trouble by revert vandalism. I have put hours and hours into fixing it up and he does not care. Spirou is not here to fix anything, he is just to harass me by reverting anything I do on the article, even fixing his grammar. SleepAtWork 02:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing GreenReaper is away right now. Have either of you heard of the three revert rule on Wikipedia? I think it can apply here on WikiFur too. I'll block for 24 hours if I see a violation of the three revert rule from either of you. --Rat 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Spirou will then just revert 3 times a day, but still vandalize. Also on wikipedia reverting vandalism doesn't count toward 3RR. SleepAtWork 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I was away for a half-hour, but I am back right now. While the three revert rule is not a rule on WikiFur at this time, its rationale is sound. Page edits should not turn into revert wars. I am looking more carefully at the edits made to see what to suggest in this particular circumstance. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Spirou isn't trying to edit, just revert. SleepAtWork 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I said, I'm looking. Patience, please. :-) I would also suggest that you focus on the edits, rather than the person behind them. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
His last edit was a revert again, but he changed some words and acted like it wasn't. SleepAtWork 03:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You locked the article on Spirou's version and he's the cause.  :( SleepAtWork 04:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protection is used to prevent further edits while the situation is delt with. It does not express a preference for the version that happens to be protected. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Person exclusion without current article[edit]

Within the last few minutes I've had the misfortune of encountering a situation with which I've had no prior experience -- an unregistered user has removed a single name from the Category:People/People to add page. I had reverted the change once and the same IP has made the change again. I've now left a message on their talk page about removing information without reason and a link to our personal information policy. I then reverted the change again. I think that the specificity of these edits might indicate that this IP is of the person concerned and I would greatly appreciate advice on how to procede if they should decide to edit the page again without providing more information to us. -- DeVandalizer 19:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, I don't think there's a real problem with removing names on the People to add list. It actually saves time over us having to go through the process of excluding an article later (unless someone makes it via another link). There's not much "information" in just a name. :-)
In general, there's no need to tell people they're going to be banned for removing stuff in the first instance, except in very bad situations. Assume good faith - chances are, they are that person, and are just not particularly interested in having an article. Be welcoming, and then you will probably get a better response from that person (and they will have a better impression of WikiFur, so we avoid situations like this). --GreenReaper(talk) 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see my response on my User talk:DeVandalizer, I watch talk pages that I edit (no need to copy discussion) :) -- DeVandalizer 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

New Featured Article[edit]

I wouldn't mind taking over the duty of writing the summary for featured articles for this week. I looked for something to write about but I can't really find any consensus on the featured article candidates page. What articles would you suggest? -- DeVandalizer 05:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you have a look at some of the long pages and see if there are any on there that have not been featured. Longness in and of itself is not a sign of greatness, but articles should have some length to be featured, so it's a good start. Once you think you've found a good choice, try to condense the gist of it down into three or four fairly short paragraphs, with appropriate links to other articles, and replace the redirect with it. Have a look at last week's examples of formatting and linking. And good luck! --GreenReaper(talk) 05:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm curious - why remove the Category:Werewolf characters from the article about you? We generally apply it to articles about people whose fursonas are the appropriate "species", although not if there is a separate article about the character under a different name. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that the term "Character" applies really. It insinuates that my werewolf side is a fabrication, whereas that is how I see myself spiritually and have done for a very long time.
The only characters I have are Thalyi and Boswell, they have always been pure fabrications and are the only ones I "play". Simply put, I am Graafen.
I hope this isn't too confusing. If it's needed then I will replace the category.
Graafen Blackpaw 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. We tend not to try and force categories on people that they feel are inappropriate, unless there's a good reason for believing otherwise. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
By the way, could you remove my article? I've moved all the info to my User page instead. The only reason it was there as an article anyway was a mistake. XD -- Graafen Blackpaw 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused - it's an article about you, isn't it? It seems to be written neutrally in the third person. That would suggest that it should be at Graafen Blackpaw, not User:Graafen Blackpaw. You can see the difference at GreenReaper and User:GreenReaper - the first page is the one about me, while the second is the one from me. That is also why the {{Contributor}} tag has a link to your user page, because it's meant to be used in the main namespace (it is bold currently because you're already on that page).
When moving articles you should also use the Move tab, so that it preserves the history of article edits. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm the more confused, but I get what you mean now. I've put everything back as it was. Dumb moment. -- Graafen Blackpaw 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, no problem. That's one reason wikis are great - it's easy to change things back, just click the old revision in the history, click edit, type a summary explaining the change and save.
Our main reasoning for having people in the main namespace is so that it's much easier for people to find and link to them there - and they're valid topics, so they shouldn't be shuffled off to another namespace. It also encourages neutral writing, which might be less so if people had the "main" articles about them on their user page, the content of which is traditionally at the user's discretion (unless there are major problems with it, in which case there's historically been major problems with the user as well :-). --GreenReaper(talk) 16:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Combine or seperate an article on furry novel and film?[edit]

Hi there GreenReaper. I've just bought and watched the German animated film Felidae and I have just gone to add a wikifur article on this excellent film. However, I found that in the movies list Felidae is already there - but it is actually the novel (on which the film was based), not the film that the article is about. So my question is, should there be two articles: one for Felidae the film and one for Felidae the novel, or should they be combined into one article? The link to the article is here:

I would suggest that if you think that the film is a faithful adaption of the novel then you keep it in one page, but maybe move it to a more appropriate title using the Move tab. Not sure what that title should be, though - maybe Felidae (fiction), as that covers both novel and film? If they diverge significantly I would make a Felidae (film) about it and link the two. You should update the disambiguation page, Felidae, with whatever you do. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. I was already planning to buy the book, so I'll update the page once I've read the Felidae the novel.

It's good. ;D Spaz Kitty 03:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Old dA page[edit]

Hey, people keep adding a link to my ollllld deviantart page on my wiki...and, to be honest, I don't want it there. :\ Any help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Cowgirl (talkcontribs) .

2005 is ollllld? Well, I'll just put a comment in . . . --GreenReaper(talk) 06:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
yeah, ollld as in I havent uploaded anything sincce 04. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Cowgirl (talkcontribs) .

Agahnim Section[edit]

Spetsnaz here. The article "Agahnim" contains a litany of errors and statements that have no basis in reality which is why changes were made. You write about providing references, though I note that the article as is written does not do this so I would appreciate an explanation as to this apparent double standard. I have known of this Agahnim character IRL for some time and am keenly aware of his IRL issues. Did you know, for example, he is under an anti-trespass order in at least one state and is currently stalking an ex both online and IRL? I look forward to your response.

I suggested that you provide references for the contested sections as without them, it is just your word against that of other editors. While this might be OK if you represented it as "person X says this, while person Y said that" you are not doing that - you are replacing their views with yours. If you want to make definitive statements and remove those that have been made that you can show to be inaccurate, references are the best way to go, because that means we don't have to just take your word for it - we can check for ourselves.
If you do not believe certain statements to be accurate, but cannot prove it, then you should change it so that it talks about assertions of specific people rather than stating the positions as facts, or move them to the talk page for further debate.
Regarding the anti-trespass/stalking charges, I suggest that if you do wish to add these to the article then again you should provide detailed references that can be checked by others, as it is rather a serious accusation. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Trolls is here.[edit]

This person is re-editing to at "eat shit fuckers" at Furcadia. His IP address is I already bring back the orinigal one.

He's doing it again. At Kevin Dewclaw. I don't know who it is, but he edit "kevin declaw is a dumb fag". I remove his flaming words.

You should block him. He's out of the control. This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from 22 July 2006 to 9 June 2007. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)


Name painwolf I need to talk to about my page.

Contact Info: Yahoo and AIM: NL4PAINWOLF MSN:


Replied --GreenReaper(talk) 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to lunch[edit]

Here are my notes from our lunch. We will start working hard to get more information out on where the features and bug fixes are going. I really appreciated your support and encouragement, not too mention chatting with you at dinner Thursday.
Gil| talk

Did you know?[edit]

Rod O'Riley's band Illegal Operation will be performing live as part of the furry programming track at this month's Worldcon in the Los Angeles area. Do you think it would be a reasonable use of the Did you know? box to add an entry for this to help draw attention to it? Thanks! --Frizzy 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't see why not. That whole section could do with a full update. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I just got some bad news that the concert event had to be cancelled due to issues out of their control, so I revised the entry. --Frizzy 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Hey GreenReaper, Its been a while since I had last heard from you, hows things? Listen, I just wanted to say thanks for the reversion of the damaged done to one of my character pages, man, when will this stupidness stop, hope to hear from you - RVDDP2501 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Things are good! The vandalism will continue, undoubtedly, to a greater or lesser extent, but we seem to be coping with it well enough. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi GreenReaper, the upgrade was a pleasant surprise after that last bit of unpleasant business. Thanks! --Frizzy 04:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the previous post :[edit]

Sorry for the post, I just wanted to report a raid that was headed your way. If i suspect a raid in the future where do you think i should report this too?

I had to check the article history to find the post you were referring to. At a guess, it was probably mistaken for link spam, which we get here fairly often. We do appreciate the efforts of people to notify us of attacks in the offing. For future reference, it would be helpful to include a couple of sentences saying what is to be found at the link. (By the way, when I tried the link just now I got a 'Thread Not Found' error - whatver had been there is gone now.) --mwalimu 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is fine, although you could try the forum as well. As for your post, someone else edited my user page to remove it, but I'd already read the thread before you posted it so that was OK. :-)
We get a lot of people planning stuff, but half of them never show up, and the rest turn out only to have 5 people or so. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Incomming Raid Group!!![edit]

This is the WikiFur logo!

Be On the lookout for the next few days please sir! --PaulRevere 21:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we had a link to the site where this came from so we could investigate further. --Douglas Muth 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, DeusEx again? He's been working on that for a while, as I recall. I guess we'll see if anything comes of it. We've coped quite well so far with a full bot attack, even when it was using a network of 600 proxies.
It's cute the way they seem to think using Í will stop google indexing their site, let alone the "totally inept" part. So far it's about 10-0 on successful "organized" raids. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That reminds me - did we ever implement a "panic button" - something any of the admins could use in an emergency to block all updates if a major vandalism/bot attack were in progress? If there is an easy way to protect the entire site to sysop only, that would probably suffice. --mwalimu 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Like a "Lock-down" script? Spirou 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
More like a "restrict edits to group X" script, though locking the DB might be a reasonable first step. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You know, we need to write an app to have a Score Board like what Nidonocu has. --Douglas Muth 21:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I edit that manually you know. ;) Though I agree a panic page would be useful. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh Gods ^-^ or a DHS's like Security Advisory System,... "Today's Threat Level is "Fluffy," with some chances of /b/tards in the afternoon." Spirou 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
sorry duesX or whatever your name is, I'm almost finished with my "vandalism vaccine" project. so nless you can get it in before that's done, you're just wasting your time working on a program that won't work... : ) - cchristian

Removing a name on "People".[edit]

Hello there! i am Crowe Basalt, and previously, i did go by "Grimmutt". i edited an article on "Grimmutt", but, as i am going back to only using the "Crowe Basalt" name, i'd like to have "Grimmutt"'s page removed.

thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crowebasalt (talkcontribs) .

Hi there, Crowe, and welcome back to WikiFur! The best way to go about that is usually to move the article, as that preserves the original history. I will fix that up later tonight when I get home. Do you wish us to keep the information about your character Grimmutt as a separate section on the page about you, or should I remove it and just mention that you used to go by the name? --GreenReaper(talk) 22:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to page protection[edit]

Hey, this is Carrie Pika.

Is there any way I can get this page locked so it shows only this? I don't want anyone adding personal information about me without my knowledge, so I'd like to have it left at just this.

Thanks~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarriePika (talkcontribs) .

We can probably do that. You could also just put your email into your user preferences and then click the Watch tab, so it will tell you whenever someone edits so that you can check it out. Which would you prefer? --GreenReaper(talk) 23:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that'd work great, actually! I'll go ahead and do that. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CarriePika (talkcontribs) .

Excellentage. Enjoy WikiFur. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

something to be very angry[edit]

I wrote an article and someone, german wrote me this:

"Meine Fresse, ich hab noch nie so ein BESCHISSENES ENGLISCH gelesen. Kauf dir mal ein verdammtes Leben!!"

In a free translation it's:"Damn I've never read such a shitty english. Buy a damn life" Well maybe my english isn't taht good but is it necessary to write the comment in this way? Without an name or anything else.

I think you're not able to find out who did it are you?

And so maybe you could delete my account and the article about me. because I don't want to be a part of something like this. Sorry and thanks for the chocolat. ^^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andraste (talkcontribs) .

That comment was made by a person with the IP address They are obviously not a regular user, otherwise they would indeed have signed their comment - and made the edit with a registered account. That edit to the talk page was their only contribution so far. There is therefore little to say about them, other than that their IP address resolved to the name "" - probably a dialup account in Germany.
I would suggest you pay as much attention to you as someone who posts once on a forum anonymously to insult you, never having contributed to that forum before - that is, precisely no attention at all. If your English is not the best, so what? You are German! The fact that you can write English at all is better than most English people could do with German. If they thought the article was bad, the anonymous editor should have fixed it rather than complained about it. And, in fact, many others did. :-)
In the last day several edits by at least four other people have been made to the article about you (perhaps you made a link to it from somewhere else?). I would ask that you consider those edits to be an example of what WikiFur is, and not the anonymous commenter - who, I would note, could not even manage to put their own comment in English. We have a policy against personal attacks, and any regular contributor would know better than to make such a comment. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikifur now adversarial?[edit]

I've read with interest the discussion on Sibe, specifically your comment:

That is why I am opposed to the removal of the article in whole - because what he has done deserves remembering. It is our business, because Sibe has been bothering us as a community.

Does this mean Wikifur will not be so much as a source of neutral information, but that Wikifur will now become adversarial in relations to information about people who you (singularly or collectively) believe have wronged Furry? Do you feel that it's now your job/right/reponsibility to punish these people by using Wikifur as a "bully pulpit"?

I hope this isn't the case. Wikifur, despite a healthy dose of pro-Furry slobbery, has been a respectable source of neutral information.

You'd have to put that question to the wider community for a full answer, as it's a question about where they want WikiFur to go. I'm one of the editors leading the project, but there are others. Still, I can provide some explanation, and the answer I would give is basically "no, but we're not going to go out of our way to do such people any favours either."
The information on the individuals itself should unquestionably be neutral and factual (no, this doesn't always happen, and if you see a problem, please explain why and fix it). The only choice we have been making in some cases is whether or not to remove that neutral information (or some of it) on request, per the personal information policy. This might well not be a neutral decision, because this is a community made up of members of the furry fandom, and as it is our website it is up to us to decide whether or not that is appropriate. Ultimately our role is to serve the best interests of the fandom, and that generally means trying not to hurt those who are or have been worthwhile members of it. We may care less about the possibility of hurting other people.
If a person is just a regular member of the fandom - maybe well-regarded, maybe just "one of the gang", then people tend not to fuss too much if they want to remove personal information - and if they have not really done all that much special, that might include the entire article about them (if not, then references to them might remain in other articles). If an individual has, over time, given the community a significant amount of grief, they are likely to say "no, this person is just trying to hide from the problems they have caused" and deny the request. In short, if they've had no respect for our community, then we as a community are likely to have as little respect for them. That is why exclusions that may be contentious go to talk pages - so that the community can decide what to do in that particular situation.
These sorts of situation are fortunately pretty rare. In Sibe's case, though, his "bothering" was widely commented-on, were intimately connected to his person (not any external group), and occured over a long period of time. If WikiFur is recording furry history, it makes little sense to exclude him, particularly given that he has shown no reticence (or regret) on occasion over detailing the lives of others where it suited him. We're perfectly aware that he doesn't like it being up there, but over time he's pissed off enough people in the fandom that few seem to care about what he feels anymore.
The thing is, all we have to do is say the truth. His own actions are what comdemn him. We don't even need to say they were bad. If telling the truth about someone makes them look bad in the eyes of the reader, then it's a fair bet that they deserve it.
This situation of information removal based on respect does not really apply to groups, whatever the standing of the group in the community. I would not support removing the history of the Burned Furs, for example, or that of Sociopolitical Ramifications, or FurryMUCK, because these are important groups that have had a historical impact on the fandom. Maybe if it was a really small and personal group that hasn't . . . again, that'd be discussed on the appropriate talk pages.

One final question: why is it so common to list the real names of people who've had adversarial relations with furry but not with those individuals considered friendly to the fandom? Why are real names included at all?

There might be various reasons for the inclusion of real names. For some people, their real name is just one item of information about them, such as the colour of their character's fur. Other people might not have nicknames that are well-known within the fandom (but really, this applies as much if not more to people "friendly to the fandom" as to others). In that case, it seems appropriate to use their real name, just as we tend to use the real name of artists that have used it as their identifier in the fandom.
In some cases, there may have been a good reason to find out the real name of a person, particularly if it might allow members of the furry fandom to more easily identify a person who is using a variety of nicknames or even their real name in a different venue (we can't say "go look at Laurence's posts in forum X" without telling them who Laurence is). It might also be that people are just more inclined to include the real names of people that they don't like, in the hope that others outside the fandom will see what that person is like. This is not ideal editing, but if the person concerned doesn't request the removal of their name, it will not be changed - the article will be reworded to be based solely on facts if possible, or removed if not.
The question perhaps shouldn't be "why are real names included at all", but "why aren't real names included for everyone?". Ultimately, aritcles should be under the name which people would link to, and so that is the only name that has to be there. In the furry fandom, this is more often than not the person's fan name, if they have one. They may only use this name, or they may use their real name as well. If so, people may or may not decide to add it, but it's not considered critical if it's not usually used. Even if a person's real name is regularly used, in general we will on request remove a person's real name and replace it with their fan name/nickname when describing them, whether or not they are/have been members of the fandom. However, members of the fandom are a) more likely to request this, becuase more of them come here, b) are (slightly) more likely to have such a request accepted (because if non-members are listed here it is usually because they are either famous or infamous, not just because they're furry), and c) are more likely to have such nicknames to use in the first place (we can't exactly say "The comic Fuzzy Things, authored by {blank} . . .").
I'm aware this answer was rather long and rambling, but that's because I'm tired, and it's a complicated issue when talking in general. If you have specific cases you want explained, feel free to point them out. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
GreenReaper, in response to your reply, I have added comments to two talk sections, Sibe and Burned Fur, pointing out what I see as an unfair biasing. I'm interested in your reply on both.
There's also one other possible point on Sibe that you might want to run by an attorney, since the status of Wiki's as "legitimate publications" is still in legal limbo: Sibe is legally a "private figure" and his actions in Furry do not make him, in the legal sense, a "public figure" (both of these are legal terms). As a private individual, he's afforded certain legal protections about what information can be revealed. These protections may or may not cover his criminal record or other information. I think it would be worth your time to consult with someone from the EFF and make sure you haven't crossed the line. While you say that you're just one editor, if no other person can over-rule your edits without your consent, it's your "publication". As such, even if Sibe were to decide to come after Wikifur et al for any damages the publication of protected information caused him (if any such protections exist at all), you'd still be on the line. Again, the law regarding this may or may not cover him.
I agree (unlike some) that Sibe is a private figure, and as such someone might be liable if we were negligent in publishing made-up facts, even if we did not act with the knowledge that they were false (or with reckless disregard as to whether or not they were false). For example, if we said that the Burned Furs burned people, that would be libel without good evidence. However, a glance at the talk page archives and article history should show you that we have been willing to work with concerned parties to ensure the accuracy of the article, and to obtain exact sources for assertions where appropriate. We have no interest in being negligent (and certainly not grossly negligent), because that makes for a poor article.
In contrast, the limitations on information that is actually true are really quite small, and in general don't apply to us as a private site. I'm not a lawyer, but this situation has come up before and so I've done some research. Criminal records are public information in the State of Washington (and generally speaking in other states). Most other privacy legislation is aimed at restricting what companies can tell third parties about their customers (who they have a contract with), and not about what individuals (who never agreed to any contract) may publish from their own knowledge. The First Amendment gives us rather sweeping powers in this area that allow us to publish just about anything as long as it is true, and in practice the "due process" terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment extends this to the states as well. Credit card numbers, social security numbers and driver's license number would probably be stuff that should be removed. Other than that, it's pretty much fair game and up to the community to decide what it should publish, in a moral sense.
Wikia is able to overrule my edits without my consent. If people feel I'm not doing a good enough job, or that WikiFur is infringing their rights, they should contact them. They have more experience than I do, and I am willing to defer to them. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Peace from AU[edit]

Hello, my name is D. Coldheartt. I am the head admin of the Alternative Universe wiki which is also pretty big. I am a big fan of, well furry stuff and creatures and animals so i decided to join here. I was wondering if i could also become a administrator here if at all possib;e. D. Coldheartt 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin status is generally given to users who have a history of contributing to the wiki. If you're interested in becoming an admin, we recommend following Special:Recentchanges and contributing to/cleaning up articles, dealing with vandalism, etc.
I'm curious about this Alternate Universe wiki that you mentioned. Typing "Alternate Universe wiki" into Google brings up zero matches. A slightly more liberal search did not help me find it either. Did I misspell or typo something? --Douglas Muth 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The AU has actually been down for quite some time and replaced with Vandal Manifest Editthis Wiki. D. Coldheartt 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC) WikiTV started at Revived Haven Editthis and moved on to Meta Wiki. Jimbos one of the users alowed into revived haven. D. Coldheartt 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Googling for Vandal Manifest does not turn up anything.
Googling for Revived Haven does not turn up anything, either.
I'm sensing a pattern here. --Douglas Muth 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
And he first spammed a bunch of the admins to ask for admin privileges. --Frizzy 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres the link: to VM, a former vandal war site but now good. Ignore the messages the page their is called WikiTV. D. Coldheartt 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the pages are available for viewing without a password 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please ignore User:D. Coldheartt, it is a swfanon sockpuppeter and general wikia attention spammer. Usernames include: Alacaster Torn, The Vanguard, ThatLittleMidget, Proffesor Mephisto, Black Dawn, Licorice ... --Splarka (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Furry gaming project...?[edit]

Seeing as how Wikipedia has a project that concetrates on improving the quality and quantity of gaming articles, may I suggest implementing a similiar project? The amount of games with furry elements is not a small one, and it would be very helpful, if information about those games (most are old, PC DOS titles, which run perfectly under DosBox) was included in one place, for sake of completeness and subject coverage.

Especially games like Project Nomad could use that coverage, as they have literally truckloads of content, and it would be helpful to store it in one place, much like Albion's articles are done.

Just a thought.

Oh, and what is the general stance about making articles about oneself? Mikael Grizzly 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a nice enough idea. We already have something similar for fursuiting, although that's been slow recently. The trouble is there are few "meta"-editors at this time, and so you may find it hard to gather contributors to help you out. I would suggest that you concentrate on one or two particular projects at a time so that it doesn't bog down in needing to do 10 different things at once. :-)
Articles about yourself are fine as long as they are neutrally written, like any other article. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Just tell me if I should remove the images. They are censored though, but you still see enough~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garyu (talkcontribs) .

Higgs Raccoon[edit]

May I nominate Higgs Raccoon for upgrading to admin? In addition to contributing to numerous articles, he's helped revert vandalism on more than one occasion. --mwalimu 15:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try that out, then. Contributions are a little low (and lacking discussion edits), but they are all good, and it's not like there aren't a couple of admins with fewer. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is quite an honour. Thankyou Mwalimu for the nomination, and GreenReaper for OKing it. Quite unexpected, really - as noted above, I haven't been here very long and haven't contributed a lot as yet. Hopefully the whole Wikifur novelty won't suddenly wear off. Oh well, if that happens I guess what GreenReaper giveth he can also taketh away! ;) --Higgs Raccoon 10:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, no - I have to go to Wikia for that. That's why I don't generally give it out without recommendation. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok.. I read that wrong[edit]

Thanks for the clarification. I had interpreted that pretty narrowly before. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wunderwood (talkcontribs) .

Wikipedia's techniques on trolls[edit]

Wikipedia usually reverts banned troll's comments and semi-protects pages. It works better. Tretonin 10:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It works for their situation. We have to make our own decisions and see how they work out. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 21:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

DAMN YOU!!![edit]

You ALLWAYS seem to be around to delete changes no matter what time and what wiki I'm hitting :(

WHY?????????????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Because I'm everywhere - I'm like the wind . . . --GreenReaper(talk) 20:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

more vandalism[edit]

Hey GreenReaperm, were getting vandalized including the front page! - RVDDP2501 14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

O NOES VANDALISM @_@ -- 14:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WERE UNDER ATTACK! - RVDDP2501 22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Extinctioners Wikipedia page deletion threat again[edit]

Hey GreenReaper, Sorry to constantly bother you but I just saw on the talk page of the Extinctioners page that it will be coming under a deletion threat within several days claiming wikifur IS NOT a reliable source (yeah right), here is the link to the page - - I hope it will not be removed, I don't understand it, they have pages for other furry comics but they seem the think this one is not worthy but if you think its not worth fighting over, I will understand, thank you - RVDDP2501 13:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WikiFur isn't a reliable source, at least not in Wikipedia's terms. Someone could come by and change anything at any time. Articles are not guaranteed to be peer-reviewed - indeed, there is no particularly certainty that information on WikiFur has been checked by anyone. Contributions are, in many cases, anonymous. If you want to have an article at Wikipedia, you need to give proper references to the primary sources (the comics themselves), or to secondary sources that have been published in some kind of guaranteed editorially-reviewed medium, like a comic review in a published fanzine (or better).
Consider: You wrote most of the pages on WikiFur about the comic. Who's to say you weren't making up half of the stuff you wrote? You can see their situation - they can't just rely on your words for its accuracy. It is not that it is a furry comic. It is the entire article is your original creation, and you've not backed it up with links that show the source of the facts that you state. Go look at this article for an example of what I mean. There are probably worse articles, but that does not excuse the one about Extinctioners. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate what you have told me and I finally can see where wikipedia is coming from, I will leave this decision in the hands of those at Wikipedia (since I am unable to try and fight for it to remain again) and just continue with the one here, thanks for your help :-) - RVDDP2501 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

FA and such[edit]

I just wanted to apologize, again-- though I guess to you directly-- for what I did the other day. I was responding more as damage control to prevent an explosion of drama rather than following the guidelines stipulated. This whole thing, though not directly affecting me, has seemed to've killed my patience and thinking. Thankfully it's cleared up now.

It won't happen again. Verix 17:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's understandable. No worries. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 19:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Uploading avatar pic quesion[edit]

Hey GreenReaper, sorry to bug you but I have a question, there is a pic I would like to use as my avatar (or fursona if thats what its called), I have gotten the artists permission (no via e-mail), I was just wondering what porceedures I need to do before uploading such a pic, here are the links:

I just want to ensure I do not mess up on this matter, I would really appreciate your help with this

I can't see that note, probably since they're private, but for that sort of thing we're fine with taking people's word for it unless the artist complains. Just make sure to mention the name of the artist in the picture description, and select "fursona" in the dropdown license box when you upload it. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
heres the note -

From: *shadow-wolf Date: Nov 4, 2006, 12:17:03 PM sure, go for it! Could you credit me in your journal or something, link back to the original picture? It'd be a great plug for me if you could. ^^ Thank you for having the courtasy to ask first


RVDDP2501 said the following:

Hi Shadow Wolf, I'm RVDDP2501, listen, I was wondering if I could get your permission to use your Venom Pic as my avatar, I really like it and I'm a huge Venom fan, I just wanted to ask your permission first, thanks

P.S. I'm the Extinctioners wikifur page creator

and finally (forgive my ignorence) what exactly is the drop box your refering to? - RVDDP2501 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

wait... I think I've found what your talking about - RVDDP2501 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Other-Language Wikis[edit]

We've talked before about a possible Swedish-language furry wiki. It is likely that I will find myself with a good chunk of free time (or at least that what free time I have won't be eaten up by pesky things like take-home schoolwork) in a month or so - would it still be of interest that I go ahead and request the wiki to be made? (Last we discussed it on LJ, I kind of got heaped with massive amounts of Stuff soon afterwards, unfortunately.) I could probably get Ricadonna to link it from the SveaFur homepage as well, so that there'd be at least a few contributors more or less guaranteed. --quoting_mungo 15:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to learn to think before she talks. I also meant to ask if you have a preference for a Wikia-hosted wiki (would it help with organization, for instance?) or if it could be privately hosted for all you care? I know the host I plan on moving to makes it ridiculously simple to install a wiki, so if it's all the same to you that might be a better route, as that also eliminates the ads? I'm just disorganized today, sorry. --quoting_mungo 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd still be very interested in seeing more furry wikis in different languages. As the one who intends to do the work to found the wiki, it's up to you to decide where it should be. :-) I think Wikia is a good choice for those who don't want to be dealing with server-side issues or costs. If you believe that the technical ability to start and maintain the wiki software is available (whether you or they can provide it), and if you are sure that the hosting will be maintained, then there's no problem with hosting it anywhere. For various reasons, I felt it was suitable for the English language furry wiki to be here, but it doesn't mean others have to. We can link back and forth wherever you are. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I talked to my boyfriend, whom I will be sharing the bandwidth with, and unless I magically get an insane permanent-ish workload, it sounds as though I'll privately host the wiki when we get set up at the new host. Would put it somewhere around early December, which suits me fine as that puts it past most of my current deadlines. --quoting_mungo 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Aaand, I'm slow at getting things done, as usual. I'm still working on this, and it should get somewhere relatively soon (or so I hope), so I just wanted to draw your attention to one little thing. Whether or not you feel the Swedish wiki logo should have anything in common with WikiFur's (font and general text layout is what's in question here, I have an idea of what I want to do instead of the pawprint graphic) is totally up to you. --quoting_mungo 08:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with furry wikis in other languages having similar logos to WikiFur, as long as they act essentially like WikiFur as well (that is, the purpose and general "spirit" of the site remains the same, though obviously the details of the policies would develop based on its own community). For example, I wouldn't want a German equivalent of Furry Horrors Wiki using it - that wouldn't fit in with the expectations that users have of the logo. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the quick response. --quoting_mungo 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Is it okay to change species? cause i don't think a wolf fits me well . . . Wolfie 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

it's fine, but changing your'e account name here? that's a thing... cchristian
Nobody's going to stop you doing either, though if you change your name, let me know what it is and I can move the appropriate pages over so that the history is retained, rather than just copying and pasting it. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess i would want my new name to be Skunk-Raccoon. Wolfie 03:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not going for something a little more . . . original? The danger of such names is that you might change over time, and also other people tend to do the same thing (see Tigerwolf). --GreenReaper(talk) 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Original? Well . . . i'll try, uhm . . . could it taken from a band name or something? Wolfie 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
It's up to you. I just want to help try and avoid name clashes in the future. The advantage of making up a name that nobody else has is that . . . well, nobody else has it. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think i came up with my name . . . "Basic Bassist". It's not the coolest, but, it works, i guess :) Wolfie 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Let me know when you're sure, and if you want me to move the pages about you to a new location (perhaps after you register that as a nickname here). GreenReaper(talk) 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So, i just register that name, and that's it? Wolfie 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, and tell me here. *grin* GreenReaper(talk) 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Wolfie 22:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"I wouldn't want to move your user page until you've registered the name, so tell me here once you have." GreenReaper(talk) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright Basic Basist 14:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Done! GreenReaper(talk) 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!!! *hugs* Basic Basist 23:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I spelled "Bassist" wrong . . . could you fix it? Basic Basist 02:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. GreenReaper(talk) 02:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for the welcome! I've removed some unnecessary personal info from a vandal's userpage, since no one here has checkuser it would be of no benefit to them. Here is the version with the IP info on it, in case you need to request a checkuser with the staff. ^_^ Redfur 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I ([Ket at ED]) didn't really consider it vandalism, so I removed that section. Hope that's fine-SkippFox 09:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Block of[edit]

Are you sure about blocking that entire subnet? We've only had two vandlism incidents from there over the last 24 hours. I'm concerned that we might exclude potential contributors from that block. May I propose that we unblock that block and reblock only if we keep having incidents of vandalism from there? --Douglas Muth 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish. It's only 16384 addresses, though - I doubt we have contributors and trolls in that same block. GreenReaper(talk) 22:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Ok, the discussion seems to have died on the talk page, so I'll ask you personally: can you just delete the info on Aardvark, as he seems to have moved on to other wikis? He hasn't vandalized here in about two months, I don't see the purpose. I understand he tried to get it removed a while back, but was... none too friendly about it and vandalized pages. Well, while that's not the only reason I registered, it's part of it - to get rid of his personal info. I've removed it from the ED article already and several editors, including yourself, have had their attentions drawn to edits to that article, but no one has reverted. Does this mean you feel it's not necessary? Let's say he goes for the rest of 2006 without vandalizing WikiFur - would you consider deleting the vandal page for him then?

ALso, someone has brought up that I may be Blu Aardvark... I'm open to having a staff member checkuser me to prove I'm not. I've actually edited elsewhere under other accounts - I would assume that's allowed on Wikia for privacy reasons, but they can at least tell you I'm located far from Blu Aardvark and edit elsewhere constructively. Redfur 13:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You there? WOuld this be better handled by email? Or are you unconcerned? I don't mean to pester, but it's been buggin me. Redfur 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm here, but I have other things to deal with - work, sponsor relations and quick replies come ahead of replies to things I have to think about. :-)
If you don't get reverted on the ED page, then chances are nobody cares. However, I see nothing on the vandalism record page concerned that needs to be removed. There is no mention of the user's real name, or his full address, so it should not come up on searches for that, but it is possible for our users to obtain it if the vandalism resumes. It will come up on searches for Blu Aardvark (not high, as few pages link to it), but that seems more than appropriate, since the edits were made in connection with that name.
As he says himself, he's "opted for the benefits of accountability versus the benefits of anonymity." If he wants the benefits, he has to be willing to accept the costs as well. We're not about to give his life story (as ED would), but we will say what he did on our wiki, and point to other wikis where he did the same thing so people can see that, yes, there is a pattern here. Our objective is to stop him doing it again, or failing that, be able to respond in a meaningful way by contacting his internet service provider and asking them to enforce their terms of service against a specific customer. I don't see how hiding what he did will help that - I would view it as assurance that I could get away with anything if I waited a few months.
What will happen is that time will pass and eventually people who do happen across it won't care about what wikis he vandalized 5 years ago. He could quite reasonably say on his own page, "Well, yes, this happened, but I've moved on." I don't think many people are going to believe that after 3 months, though. GreenReaper(talk) 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the info that remains isn't so bad. I've taken his real name out of the pages it links to, so if you insist, I'm only happy you replied. Thanks! Redfur 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on spam from webstores?[edit]

I've seen some links that state a specific item is "available at <insert webstore URL here>" where the website is an ordinary online store not involved with the creation of said item. When does this constitute unwanted spam? If the item can be Googled fairly easily, should we delete such link postings? Should we be supportive if the store is sufficiently furry or furry-friendly? -- Frizzy 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this depends on the situation, but if the link does provide value to readers I wouldn't remove it. I may even have added it myself. There's a difference between "could be googled fairly easily" and "everyone will know where buy this item, and will do so without being prompted to do so," and it can often be the difference between a sale and a missed opportunity. I would probably consider putting a furry-friendly store above a generic link to, but I wouldn't remove a link to if it made it more likely that people would buy whatever it was. I see people buying more furry stuff as a good thing. *grin* GreenReaper(talk) 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC statistics[edit]

I think you should edit it so that it shows it by person, not by nickname. also, it need an update because even though it has the names of people who said only 5 or 6 lines, my names are not listed... I was also wondering, where can I put my stuff about the IRC that I'm working on? thanks Green, - cchristian

This is not cool[edit]

encyclopediadramatica. com/index.php?title=User:Dukeotterland&curid=27747&diff=1997066886&oldid=1997066552 That. Tretonin 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you complaining to GR about that edit? He's not an admin on ED. If you have a problem with my conduct there, you should take it up with the ED admins. (Or feel free to bring it up with me directly if you wish.)
And, for the record, I made the exact same edit to my userpage over on ED. www. encyclopediadramatica. com/index.php?title=User:Dmuth&curid=32694&diff=1997066885&oldid=1997066457 --Douglas Muth 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

removal of name[edit]

Sorry to bother you again, I made a request from you about a year ago pertaining to the removal of my name and desc from your wikifur site(this was done & I thank you for it). I've one further request which I hope is in your power to grant, which is: Could you please remove my name entirely from even pointing to that I was ever on this site? As it stands now when I do a search in google or Yahoo, it immediately pops up at the top of this list even though there is no actual description in the wiki, it still gives a desc of past avatars and the info that I no longer wished to be apart of the site. Thanks in advance T*o*m N*a*r*e*y <--done to keep the name from cropping up once again :)

I have removed your name from the disambiguation page that mentioned it - it should be OK as long as the fan names are only associated with each other and not yours. This was the one that Yahoo particularly liked. I cannot guarantee when they will update their cached version of the page - until they do, it will still show up under your name.
I'm a little uncomfortable with removing our talk pages about the exclusion request, since they're essentially our public record of why it's excluded in the first page. It is true that admins can always look, but my view is that if you're hiding something, you should at least not be able to hide the request to hide something. If people care that much about your involvement in a fandom ten years ago, you have to wonder whether they're worth working for . . .
Regardless, another administrator has decided to delete it (read: remove it from public view) for now. The short message stating that you requested removal needs to remain on the actual page, regardless of the fate of the actual request, as without that there is no basis for people to avoid writing about you here. The best way to ensure people don't even read that is to make a web page about yourself that is titled with and which mentions your name. That way it will end up as the main hit for your name, rather than WikiFur, as long as you link it in a few places. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, is that there is no indication of when I was involved. It just says that I was. I've no idea why my name might be up there as I never really did anything in the fandom except create a few pieces of art and almost immediately deleted them within a few months of their creation. Like it or not, there is a dark stigma attached to that fandom by professionals in the game, vfx, sfx, comics, industries; of which I would liked to have had left behind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Well, nothing prevented the addition of a date. :-) I'm guessing a fan who liked your artwork on Yerf started the article about you (it was done by an anonymous user). As for the stigma - well, I guess I must be lucky, since I work for a company that's in games and they're not unaware of my fandom activities - heck, I have a picture up in my cubicle, and my boss will be dropping me off at the airport for FC this Thursday. Maybe the rules are different for programmers vs. artists, but I like to think times are changing, too. It gets harder to treat furry fandom as its stereotype when fans start buying out convention centers for a weekend. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and hiya![edit]

Thanks for sorting my page out dude! I just got some questions: How do I do picture boxes and am I okay to put more up about the stories and stuff? Cya! Darker

You do picture boxes using the syntax in Help:Editing (for example: [[Image:Filename.png|right|thumb|200px|An image floating to the right of 200px width]] - but first, you need to upload the image. Make sure that the uploaded filename is descriptive. As for your stories, you're welcome to add more information about them, as long as it remains a descriptive piece about the works. Such descriptions should probably remain on the page about you unless they cover a work that has been published in paper form and have a notability aside from yourself (this is a slightly fuzzy boundary, but the majority of short stories and unpublished works lie under it). Oh, and on talk pages, you can sign your conversations with ~~~~, and get something like this: --GreenReaper(talk) 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected Dragonmorph[edit]

Hi there GreenReaper, this is Dragonmorph (for real), can you protect my editing from those unknown Furry haters? -- 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly well protected already - the change made by a recent vandal was reverted one minute later. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Those trolls is gonna start messing up this web again and again. -- 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC) - Dragonmorph
It's always possible . . . but if they've not managed it this past year and a half, and not for lack of trying, I think we're reasonably secure. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 20:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing a NPOV[edit]

I am not sure if I have done enough research, so forgive me for missing a relevant FAQ, but I want to know how to remove a NPOV designation from the entry on Wolfhome. Is there a procedure for this? If it still seems to be a slanted viewpoint, what criteria is there for knowing when it has been successfully reworked?

On a separate note, I am curious how to sign a document that I've edited... Yeah, I know, I *really* gotta learn how to RTFM someday! :) My posts are showing up with "The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wunderwood"... Am I supposed to sign my comments?

I'm sure GR will forgive me for responding on his talk page, but to sign your comments, just type -- ~~~~ and it will autosign it. Also, you can just click on the 2nd button from the right on the toolbar, the button that looks like a squiggly.--Kendricks Redtail 03:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kendricks. I will practice by signing this update. :) Anyone want to step up to the plate on the NPOV question? It's not urgent or anything, but I figured since Wolfhome is active now and the article isn't all that acerbic, maybe it should be considered. --underdog 00:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think it has been successfully neutralized, you are welcome to remove the template. If people disagree, they will probably add it back, along with a note to the talk page or in the edit summary. The criteria is the people's consensus opinion of the article. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anthrocon 2007 plannings[edit]

I've created a new page over at WikiFur:Conventions/Anthrocon/2007 so that we can discuss what is planned for AC07 as far as wikifur related activities as we discussed on IRC. Please add whatever information or ideas you have concerning events and such. :) -- JaeSharp 10:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Any chance you'd consider asking the whole Wikifur community to contribute more pictures for this category and Category:Fursuit? -- Zanimum 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We talked in IRC - for those interested in free-licensed images, check out Category:Images by license. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


There doesn't seem to be any precedent, except the one set by SK on the 20th (see [1]). I'm really too tired over here to fight, but it just doesn't feel right. Blast 21.03.07 1324 (UTC)

That's probably because you're from Wikipedia, where most users do not have main-namespace articles about themselves. We have very few categories that are intended for user pages, and they are mostly included for things such as convention attendance which are not considered particularly notable (and which therefore have userboxes). Consider: Would you put Category:Animators on a user page at Wikipedia? No . . . if the person was notable enough to have an article in the main namespace, it would be on there instead. You would remove it from a user page, because main-namespace categories are not meant to link to user pages. Here, almost everyone is considered notable, and so has an article about them, and it is those articles that are under Category:People and the various subcategories thereof. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
For a few more examples of this, check out the user pages linked at WikiFur:Administrators. Most of those people also have pages about themselves. In practice, many users do not have anything but the {{ContributorU}} template link on their user page, added by another user. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hard to get rid of that 'is this notable?' mentality (even if I don't agree with it) on here, so it seemed kind of...I guess narcissistic to make a mainspace article on myself, rather than put it at my userpage (which in practice on WP is where all non-notable people have their 'articles' hosted). Consider also that, when I came here, there were a lot of userspace articles listed in the categories, and so I thought that had been okayed a while ago.
But screw it. I'll shut up and go back to patrolling vandalism on WP now. Blast 21.03.07 1341 (UTC)
Our major problem with user pages is that they're not easy to find or link to. Most searches only cover the main namespace, and with good reason - because those are the ones people want to read and link to. This is fine for Wikipedia, where user pages do not have notable information on, but it doesn't work so well here, where you might well want to link to pages about artists (for example). It also separates the "information about you" edited by anyone from the "information from you" edited mostly by yourself. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would social groups fall under organizations?[edit]

Hi, I'm cleaning up the category and stub hierarchy a bit and wondering if you think social and ideological groups would also fall under organizations? --Frizzy 21:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not really sure, but I'd tend towards "no" - or at least "not always". It can be a hard line to draw, though.
Wikipedia suggests that organization "pursues collective goals, controls its own performance, and has a boundary separating it from its environment". This tends to apply to groups such as conventions (which are usually "organized" as companies, and if not they still have some sort of formal structure), but it may not apply to people who are, for example, simply interested in a particular topic. Some groups may have no collective goal, just a collective interest. Therefore the furry fandom as a whole is a social group, but is not an organization because it has no formal structure - nobody has the power to say "you're not a member of the furry ffandom". Conversely, WikiFur is, because it has a specific (if relatively wide-ranging) goal, has a structure of rules and guidelines for its contributors to follow, and although it has open membership, there is seen to be a difference between being a contributor or not. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I added some more templates for some of the stubs that were hard to categorize. Let me know if the heirarchy works for you. --Frizzy 23:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be fine for now - hopefully the extra stubs will help people concentrate on improving the topics that they're interested in. I'm sure if it becomes necessary to make modifications in the future we can do that. Thanks for your efforts! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The files[edit]

Regarding the link you added to Banrai, I did not do so myself because it asks for people not to link to it anymore at the end of the post. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that! That is indeed the high road to take. --Frizzy 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Hey Green,

I am a Wiz on a MUCK called Altered Realities under the name of "Jeanette", you know, that lovable little longear'd donkey Wiz? Well, anyways just thought you would like to know that your old chumly Mozdoc has gotten himself banned from AR for constant harrassment, page-spamming a member of our Helpstaff with 431 consecutive pages of hate-filled rants, constantly putting the WIZZES THEMSELVES on ignore and PAGE-ignore, stalking of other furs and just generally being his usual self. All I can say is just watch out for him, he is a very unstable individual and a dangerous person. I just want to ask ... HOW IN THE HELL did he ever get in to the National Guard?? He reminds me of a character in a movie called "Earthquake" that was made in the 70s, remember the one National Guard guy who was in charge of other men and was mentally imbalanced? That's Mozdoc. Anyways, just thought youj would like to add this to your listing of places he's been banned from.

Stay safe, your lovable Wizzy-Type Donkey from Altered Realities, "Jeanette" D. Jennet.

P.S. If you would like to see the logfiles on this matter I'll need to ask permission from all the other parties involved before I do, you know, just a common curtesy thing.

Kacey Miyagami Legal Issues[edit]

I posted the following on Talk:Kacey Miyagami a couple of days ago and was wondering if you have any thoughts on it. My thoughts are that it's probably not worth doing if the article is likely to be unlocked within a few days, but if this could drag on for a while...

If the article (Kacey Miyagami) is likely to have to remain locked for more than a few days, I would like to suggest temporarily moving the Legal Issues section to a separate article, e.g. Kacey Miyagami/Legal Issues. There is a great deal more content in this article unrelated to the incidents and issues in question, and I think we should keep these accessible for unrelated edits and updates while the controversial section is locked down. --mwalimu 20:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

--mwalimu 13:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to take the protection and tag off, for now at least. If it happens again, we can deal with it then. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Justin Carpenter[edit]

Good day, GreenReaper. I've note you've marked my page as in need of contextual cleanup. I made a concerted effort to do so in yesterday's round of page updates, and believe significant progress has been made in that direction. If there are additional context-clarification concerns that I might be able to answer, please let me know on my discussion page, and I'll attempt to address them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rancourt (talkcontribs) .

Hi Justin, and thanks for your work to improve the article! The cleanup tags were added by Spirou, who is on a wiki-break right now. If you feel you have addressed the general concerns raised by them, feel free to remove them. If anyone disagrees, they'll add one or more of them back - hopefully with more of an explanation on the discussion page of why they put them on there. People are more likely to write there than your own user talk page, so you might also want to add the page to your watchlist (if you have not already) by clicking the watch tab at the top, so that notification of edits to it or the attached discussion page will be emailed to you. You need to have that option enabled in your preferences, of course. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Kurrel the Raven article unlock[edit]

Hi, Kurrel the Raven here. Would it be possible to unlock and reinstate the WikiFur article i requested voluntary exclusion for?

If you need to verify the request is from me, feel free to check out the journal on my Furaffinity page and verify my IP address is from the right part of the world. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Sure thing. I've done that now. I reinstated it to the page before the "lies and half-truth" revision. You are welcome to create an account and host the contents of that later revision on a user page (like User:GreenReaper as opposed to GreenReaper), but we'd prefer to keep the main article factual. Thanks! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 13:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep ED link off my Wiki fur[edit]

Hey Green.Anjel here. I did some new edits to my Wikifur and I noticed someone tried to link my old ED from mirrored site. I want to keep the drama off my page so can you make sure that people will stop linking that to my wikifur. Thanks

Hi Anjel! The link there had already gained some comment. I have left a note there myself. If you are concerned about the content of the article, you should add it to your watchlist, and make sure that you have an email address set in your preferences. That way you will be emailed on changes so that you can review it yourself rather than relying on others to do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the IP of the person making the edits and I know their Idetity Its JoanMichele and her IP is User: can I ban that IP from my list?

I know that there is a history between us and that is much unfortunate, however I don't think Wikifur would appreciate knowing of your rather blatant attempt at libel. You give me too much credit and you're overtly paranoid. However, I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and opened up the possibility that maybe my computer was hijacked. I checked ipconfig. If your report was accurate, then the results would match your given IP. Looks like it wasn't the case. :) --Joan-Michele 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily. As GR said below, the used IP address was a proxy, which is essentially an anonymous IP that can be used instead of your actual IP. I'm not saying it /was/ you, just that your IP can be changed, and so there's really no way to prove either if you did or didn't do it. Spaz Kitty 05:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no way to block individual users from editing a particular page. However, that IP address is in fact a proxy, so I have blocked it site-wide. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. My friend tells me that she can change her IP so if you can block a range of them from that area it would help. It is coming from nanchang china The only reason this user is on this site is to stalk me and cause drama. She has no account or has made any other edits as you can see.

Sweetheart, you got the wrong McCoy! XD --Joan-Michele 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As noted, the editor was using a proxy server, not their own computer. They probably do not actually come from China. Such servers are present all around the world and more are created every day (usually by people exploiting vulnerable software). The editor probably just found it in a list of such servers. There is no good way to reliably bock users from a particular area, just those using a particular Internet Service Provider, and it would not help in this case. We do block proxy servers as we find them, though. If you look up the IP address of an anonymous editor and find it mentioned frequently in Google, that is a sign that it is a known proxy server, and you should let us know. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The person stalking me is from China. I know this because we use to be friends before she decided to turn on me and leak my friends lock entries to ED. The server probably is proxy. This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from 10 June 2007 to 3 May 2008. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper(talk)

RBW event status[edit]

Regarding User talk:Foxberance#Convention vs. party vs. event

As the main organizer for both the 2007 and 2008 RBW conventions i would like to point out that we ARE a convention.

We have in fact a number of specific tracks for fursuiting, spiritual Furs, art, and general entertainment. We also are based at two location. The 'Party' aspect being held on the boat on the Saturday evening along with the more traditional programming being held at the main venue throughout Saturday and Sunday. 2007 and 2008 have specific affiliated hotels to the convention. RBW as of 1st July will be a registered UK charity and LLP As myself (Foxb) and Rapido as the chairmen.

For 2008 we are holding the event at a major and yet to be disclosed venue in London across 4 days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foxberance (talkcontribs) .

I'd like to see what other people think of this, so I'll bring it up as a question on the appropriate talk page. I would note that there is no mention of a hotel on your website, and in fact the only thing it says about accommodation is that it is not provided as part of the registration. The term "track" is also generally used to refer to several things happening simultaneously in different locations rather than one after the other. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper Articles[edit]

Hi GR. Just writing wondering if you can clarify the way articles on newspaper pieces should look?

Sine has gone and removed the italicization of the title from two entries I put in today: Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My‎, March of the Furries. (I'd originally copied the format from an earlier article about a Denver Westword piece: Let's Pretend We're Bunny Rabbits.)

Is Sine's way correct? (It seems to be, I think Sine is using an accepted style, but I thought I'd double-check before spending time going through the list of Media Coverage articles and standardizing them all - there are few in there that italicize the title).

Also, some articles on newspaper/magazine columns have the "(year) events" category whilst others don't. What's the correct thing here? -- Higgs Raccoon 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would generally agree with this. The titles of newspaper articles are typically encased in quotes if there is a need to offset them from the text. Given that they are already bolded (being the title of the page) this is probably not necessary. We would italicize the name of the publication.
It's tempting to suggest that we should use Category:News by date for this, but it's probably a good idea to keep the two concepts separate. We do have the Timeline of media coverage for non-furry media. I don't think the date categorization really adds much in this case, so it could be removed (they're not really an event). --GreenReaper(talk) 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


You know, you've really demonstrated why I made the right choice to get the hell away from you furries.

I posted a warning about a person who vicitimized me, abused me, left me in a horrible financial situation, and even said he plans to kill someone, all of these FACTS, and you accuse me of attacking someone and delete the post, and don't even bother to contact me.

What the F*** is the matter with you?

Fine, to hell with you if you want to shield Siege, and let him continue to attack other furries. Your name will go down with a list of many others once Siege is put in jail for felony assault, fraud, domestic abuse and much more and the truth is known, the truth I am trying like hell to get out.

You can't imagine how pissed off this makes me feel. Every where I turn, there's Siege, lying, being protected, being allowed to, enabled, to abuse and possibly kill people because people like you can't have the common decency to check things out.

Why didn't I post proof? First, I didn't see a way to post images. Second, I can't legally post Siege's father's phone number. Third, I can't legally post the name of his employer so that that lie can be verified. Fourth, what the hell sense does it make for me to post the name and location of the person Siege has threatened to kill? What are you, f*ing stupid, or do you WANT to see him killed? Is that the only way you people will see the truth; or will you find some way to blame that on me too?

You know, its bad enough that Siege f*ed me over; took advantage of me, abused me, deprived me of my ability to finish college, much less survive; took away my ability to be financially independent (I'm disabled) I have to continue to be victimized by you, Maui, and all the other people who believe a sociopath over a victim.

I want you to do me, and yourself, and the furry community a HUGE f*ing favor. Try to imagine how I feel, what I"m going through...its quite easy, just pretend in that brain of yours, that what I said was all factual. If you can do that, if you can imagine what it was like for me, then you will understand how difficult it is to restrain myself from going totally off on you for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

What you posted was an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It was purely intended as an attack on the character of its subject and contained several unsubstantiated statements from your point of view. Regardless of whether or not it was true (something that none of us could have proved to our own satisfaction from the zero references given), it was not a good article. General policy in this case is to delete unsubstantiated attacks and stick with the bare minimum of facts that we can confirm. As none of it was referenced, the entire article was deleted (by another administrator, I might add - but I do agree with him).
WikiFur is not the court of Internets justice. Nor is it our job to "check things out". If you wish to make such statements on WikiFur, it is your job to provide us with all the sources necessary to do so without risk. If there is a serious problem then you should go to the real world police and talk to them - and any action that they take will provide a series of referencable documents that can be used in the construction of an article, if necessary. If you want to make an assertion of facts that you cannot provide third-party proof for then you should do so on your personal web page or journal. This is not the place for it, any more than an issue of Encyclopedia Brittanica would be the place to announce new research or accuse someone of corruption.
Ultimately, we do not wish to be responsible for defaming someone. Unless what you say is true, defamation is exactly what your essay is, and we're not willing to take that risk just on your word. There is a big difference between saying "Person X says this" and "we say this" - and your essay was the latter. If we say bad things about someone, we must take reasonable care to assure their accuracy, and that is why we insist on references in such cases - so that we can attribute accusations and base our own statements on verifiable facts. Without such proof, we risk opening ourselves up to legal liability for publishing statements with reckless disregard as to whether or not they are true. See the bottom of Sibe for the level of referencing that is considered appropriate. That article is not perfect in other ways, but we are at least reasonably sure that the statements within it are accurate and that we won't get sued for it. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that he is throwing quite the temper tantrum in his LJ, too. [2] [3] --Douglas Muth 03:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, is there a way we can calmly put some of that information out. Surely, he has screenshots of emails, chat logs and transcripts? - Shadow Hito
Sure, if he posts them somewhere that we can cite in a reference. As it is, he's pretty much asking us to take his word for it. And that just won't fly for that sort of controversial material. --Douglas Muth 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Extinctioners Page[edit]

Hey GreenReaper, I was wondering if I could ask your opinion or help on the Wikipedia Extinctioners page. The Page had a second deletion debate and survived but in the process, all links to the Wikifur page were removed, I was wondering what can be done, can a link to the main page be put back in the external links section? there was this huge wikifur link removal thing which I only heard bits and pieces about which I think was envolved with the links being removed. I would really like to put back the link since the wikifur article has much better coverage on the topic but I just don't know if doing so would restart the removal process or threaten my membership with wikipedia. What do you think I should do? Oh, here is the link to the question posted by Labfox - - RVDDP2501 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think a link is good you should put it back. If it gets taken out again, take it to the talk page. Nobody is going to ban you over that (at least not unless you keep doing it after being told not to by several people :-). --GreenReaper(talk) 03:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for blanking[edit]

I would like to ask if you could blank the page

The thing is written totally by Mitch from Crushyiffdestroy and is all about the time they were harrassing me online, I didn't even know it was on here until today.

- Alvero

I will note your request on the discussion page, and if the consensus is to exclude then we will do so. Our general policy is to do so unless there is a good reason not to, and I don't immediately see one here, just a lot of drama over a single issue.
(For what it's worth, if the story element you disliked had been included maliciously, I don't think the author would have gotten so angry about your accusation.) --GreenReaper(talk) 21:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I second this vote —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Umm, it's not really a vote, and it should be discussed here. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Not Certified = Not Artist?" News[edit]

Just re-posting what I put in the talk section of that page, in case you didnt check: It's not personal drama any more than the "Krystal Meme". Trust me, this has effected a LOT of furaffinity members. I added it because I thought people out of the know needed a place to find out what was going on without having to wait for the monstrous page to load, or hear about it from biased, or angered sources. It has already reached LiveJournal and EncyclopediaDramatica, a place I doubt one can find unbiased furry news. It has spawned numerous pictures of its own, but no, lol, it hasnt necessarily caught the newsworthy eye of Vinci and Arty..-- AnonIhmus(talk)

This matters to a lot of people and affects a lot of people from the site, but whatever..Take it down, I dont give a shit. My links did work, btw.

Not that it matters, but just fyi- this effected at least a thousand people, not one. I kinda said before it effected a lot of people, not just the journal poster, but people who saw it, people who heard about it and so on...It also made its way into 2 The Ranting Gryphon's show. ~Anon Ihmus


Hey GreenReaper, sorry to bother you but I was wondering if I could ask your opinion and help with something, I am in the process of creating a character page for a character who will soon appear in the Extinctioners Artic Blue Webcomic called "Neige Unuulaq (Frostbite)" who was originally created by Rei Vegan, my question is in regards to an image created by Rei Vegan, a model/reference sheet for Frostbite - - Rei Vegan has given me permission to create the character page as well as use this reference sheet in the page but what do I do about the licencing info, do I need to get a licence from wikifur to use art by Rei Vagen? - RVDDP2501 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You can upload it and say on the image page that Rei has given WikiFur permission to host the image, as long as Rei has told you that this is the case. If you say on the page that you have acquired a particular permission, we will generally take your word for it. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Question[edit]

Is it appropriate to mark outdated images of your own fursona for speedy deletion? Thought I'd check before I got myself into trouble ;) --Tikuko 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's fine. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As in it's allowed? --Tikuko 18:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 19:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"See also" Re: "How To Be a Furry"[edit]

"It is a WikiFur article". Yes, but don't we follow that "See also"s links should be reserved to "related" Wikifur articles?; In this case, Crush! Yiff! Destroy!, LOLfurries and are "related" due to their purpose and function; on the Drama article, Fursecution and Schadenfreude are "related" on the "See also" for their meaning and intent; On the Anthropomorphic article, etc, etc,..

Right now, How To Be a Furry is the odd man out on a "See also" that lists related web sites with this type of content, hence the "See also"s directs to related Wikifur/Wikipedia/Wiki articles and entries only. Didn't say it was not a Wikifur article, just that needed to be "related." Spirou 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I placed How To Be a Furry under CYD's "See Also:" because CYD hosts the main online version of the article, and it's a satire article about furry drama and the furry fandom in general, which is certainly in CYD's domain. If CYD thought the work fit their motives enough to be hosted on their site, then that's related enough to CYD for my tastes. Jigsaw Forte 03:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
CYD hosts a plethora a articles, images and miscellany in the vein of "How To Be a Furry." Adding all of them would just cluttered the "See also," or just having this article listed on the SE, and not the rest would seem to be favoritism. The CYD article could mentioned "How To Be a Furry" on the article itself, as a solution, which I can quickly edit in right now to see how it would look Spirou 03:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; CYD article looks fine with it in, and association is still made between the two articles. That should work. Jigsaw Forte 03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Aye. By the by, not antagonism was intended when I pointed out and made the first edit on your addition, just trying to follow the Wiki's ways of data presentation and formatting (which I still stumble over from time to time) =) Spirou 03:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for complete removal[edit]

Hi Green.

For personal reasons, I wish to have Quilrynn and all revisions of that article purged from the database and have it protected with the exclusion notice.

Also, I would like Moeryl to be excluded as well. --User:JKM, 10/27/2007, 11:05 CDT

Name redirects[edit]

FYI: I left messages for Spirou to stop reversing the removal of my real name as a pointer to my wikifur entry.

See for verification.

If you feel comfortable taking care of this yourself, please do. I don't have confidence that he will without drama.


-- drewkitty(at gmail d0t c0m)

I have deleted the redirects concerned. I think it is excessive to blame Spirou for not doing so the first time. Removal of personal information is something we take seriously, but we are going to make reasonably sure that we're talking to the person concerned first. An anonymous edit is not sufficient. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)



I would like to request for removal of as being a personal offensive hoax submitted by some hater. This is not my photo! :( Also i would like to ask you to remove as is was a beta-version of some early art posted without my permission thus violating the copyright law. Also the history of contains a hoax personal information(real name and adress) that is highly offensive to me. Please, purge it from data base. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarafina(the artist) (talkcontribs) .

I beleive this is BS. For one thing, real Sarafina does not speak English well enough to know the words "hoax", "purge" and "violating" (real Russian would use the words "lie", "delete" and "break" -- these are the words we are taught in schools for the respective verbs.) As sich, I'm gonna protect that page for the time being since somebody seem to be trying to peck on it. -- Wesha 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Сарочка, если это реально ты, свяжись со мной по аське и все сделаем - собственно говоря, так и надо было с самого начала. -- Wesha 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. The FAQ on is quite sophisticated in the use of English in places, though there are odd parts. I will attempt to email Sarafina at her contact address registered at to confirm this. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have it under control. I now have reports from Russian furry community about certain stir on the topic, so let me figure it all out. What worries me is that she didn't contact me directly for that purpose, so I certainly need to investigate. I should be able to have a conversation with herself in a day or two. -- Wesha 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. The email has been sent anyway. The picture does appear to be out of date. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Identity was confirmed through email. I have deleted the two images and the history revisions concerned. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

These might be stupid questions...[edit]

but I still would like to ask:

  • Is it always unacceptable to add a link to [[[encyclopedia dramatica]] to a page (Looking something like this: [http://encyclopediadramatica .com/Aeris A satrical take on the 'Mary Sue' phenomenon]), or does it depend on the circumstances?
  • What's the policy on using someone's real, birth-cirtificate listed name in their biographical article?
  • What's the policy on using real life pictures in biographical articles?
  • Since they're so short and they don't really have any prospects for more content, shouldn't the articles 'bisexual' and 'heterosexual' be merged into 'homosexual' to create 'sexual preference'?

Boingo 05:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All content decisions are made on a case by case basis. However, ED rarely makes a good link, due to its habit of putting a highly negative spin on any subject that it covers (except for those which result in the glorification of drama). Its editors are also quite willing to make things up if doing so results in "lulz". For these reasons and others, linking to ED is strongly discouraged, and I would advise you to treat anything you find there with caution. For the specific example you give, there seems no reason not to just use an interwiki link to Wikipedia, which has a perfectly good article on the topic. We would not need to have a separate article as it is not a furry topic.
Our policy with birth names is to look at whether or not that name is being concealed in any way. For example, many artists actually go by their real names. Others use fan names alongside their real names. Still others make no mention of their real names, even on the websites containing their work. In the latter case, the use of the real name (if you know it) is probably not appropriate. Real names will usually be removed on request from the subject.
The same thing goes for real life pictures. If you know, or have reason to believe that someone would not want their picture on WikiFur, it is probably best not to put it here. On the other hand, many people do not mind, and it can be a useful means of identification.
Don't really have an opinion on the last. If you think doing so would make a better encyclopedia, you should do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I made the changes. I'd like to ask you some things about the 'sexual preference' page.
  • I wrote a snippet saying that some people think that sexual orientation is an artificial construct and does not really exist. But I don't know of any furries advocating that position besides the one person that I linked.
  • I altered the colors on the table so it has the holistic, ying-yang style of intermixed pink and blue. I tried to lighten the colors a lot compared to my first try at it. How does it look now?
  • I wrote a section saying that a cordial split exists among Christian furs between those who believe homosexuality is immoral and those who disagree. Is this accurate? Or do all (or nearly all) of the Christian furries accept homosexuality? The only anti-gay-marriage furry that I know of is Prince Jeremy.*
  • I'd like to find citations for the theories saying since having a non-furry significant other and raising children may result in a fan having less time and money to devote to the fandom, gays are over-represented because they are less likely to be raising children and Others guess that gays are not over-represented, but that they are simply much more likely to be open about their sexual orientation among their fellow fans than they are in other areas of their life.
  • One other theory is that the demographics of the fandom is reasonably close to the general population. It just happens that people who become furries (a 'coming out' of sorts) become more exposed to alternate lifestyles (which might result in a paralell 'coming out'). I considered adding this to the article, but I didn't because it seems overly speculative.

Boingo 07:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

*Based on his infamous "you all belong in concentration camps" comment. Boingo 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made further edits. Some general points:
  • If you are intending to move one page to another title, use the Move tab at the top rather than cut and pasting. Doing the latter breaks the edit history, and deprives others of the credit for their prior edits, which is required for GFDL compliance.
  • Link to Wikipedia by using [[Wikipedia:Article name|text to display]].
  • Per the style guide, only the first word of titles should be capitalized unless the word would normally be capitalized (like a name).
  • Use a spellchecker. :-) If you use a recent beta of Firefox it will have one built in.
To answer your questions:
  • The table looks fine to me.
  • I suspect there are some who are less than enthused about it, but I do not know for sure. You could always ask the community of Christian furs (or see if the question has been asked already). Jeremy would be an outlier for most purposes.
  • I'm not sure you can really get a citation for that, but you could give examples of involvement in such activities. For example, very significant proportions of the leadership at conventions and other furry events are gay, including key members of (at least) the top five event by attendance, as well as the larger ones overseas. I should note that leadership in this area is not exclusive - as far as I know, there is no "anti-breeder" bias - but if you look closely it is a very clear trend. It might be because gay community members are more interested in organizing communal events. I don't know.
  • Possible. I think the current situation is a combination of this effect and others. Again, more research is required. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see my talk page. Boingo 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions on redirections, elimination of real name[edit]

I was looking though wikifur for my real name and it is all over the place but unlinked to anything. What is the policy of changing that to my character name at every occurrence, really would rather my real name not be seen.--JBadger 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC) For now put in a redirection, might leave it like that--JBadger 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are free to remove it if you wish, unless the WikiFur community feels otherwise (which is unusual, and unlikely to apply in your situation). --GreenReaper(talk) 18:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


I tried to add more truth to my timeline and spirou banned me for 24 hours.

Im not blanking and im clarifying the article. Im not sorry that its not a total

smash me in the face piece if you put the cons I went to and how I acted there as

a positive counter balance to the hit job the fucking article is.

I was following the rules and am getting shit on by your moderation team.

Please help me.

Sibe 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Sibe

  • Sigh* You're 'not "banned for 24 hours", as you still able to write on the site. The article is temp locked for 24 hours for partial blanking, and adding nonsense to the "controversy" timeline section (if you had fun, insert it in the main article, not a reference section.) Spirou 07:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Hey GR. I don't want anything to exist with my username [deleted]. I've made a new one since, and would like to know if this could be deleted. Also there is an article under my real name [deleted] and was wondering if that could be taken down as well. I'd only like an article on Leah the cheetah, which I will I guess either make or edit from the one that was [deleted]. I just don't want it to link to my real name or my former name, this name [deleted]. If this is at all possible.

Thanks! my email is [deleted] if you have any questions or I'll keep an eye on here. Let me know what can be done.  :)

Replied via email, article now at Leah the Cheetah. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Is this an appropriate username? Spaz Kitty 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that as well. I think it's just a mistake. I'll block it. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What about User:Rena Dyne? They made the following edit to the Rena Dyne page ([4]), but they don't appear to actually be the person themselves. Spaz Kitty 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally I suspect that's more likely to be someone trying to be mysterious who was not aware that usernames were recorded in the edit history. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lock my page[edit]

Can you lock my User and Talk pages, please? There is a group of individuals whom I believe will be making hostile edits in the near future. Che'samo 18:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't really engage in preemptive locking; however, I will watch the pages concerned, and if such edits are made and protection seems appropriate, it will be applied. You can also monitor for changes by registering an email address, clicking the watch tab and ensuring that watched page notification is enabled in your preferences. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

advice on giving citations[edit]

Hello GreenRaper. Thanks for clearing up ther article. I never used these ref-tags much. Can you recommend any way to give the required citations for that zoo-porn -redirect without drawing anyone into a possible mudfight? (I did not keep screenshots or similar to not tarnish the name later.)

--Suran 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to claim them, the "other people" really have to go on the record as having said that they saw something there. Perhaps a LiveJournal post, or a post on the attached talk page with them signed into a WikiFur account? Something that can be pointed to. I know there is an element of drawing people in, but having them name themselves would be the best bet. Only then can others judge the truth of the statement.
Another option might be for them to tell me, and I would report that some people I trust had said that (if they were people I trusted) . . . but I do not really like that option, as then readers have to trust me and someone else that they do not know the identity of. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved the all the claims to the talk-page. I is better to forget about the zooporn-incident in the long run. I also added sub-headers to break up the long text. --Suran 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that had made a screenshot while the page showed that content. I linked it as reference and put the claim back in. I do not know how long domaintools takes to update the screenshot to what the page is curently showing or if they are archived. --Suran 06:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey GR -- I believe we have the same person doing some of the recent vandalism. User: and User: seem to be too similar within too few days to otherwise be a coincidence. Can you do a broad IP block on them? I'm not too familiar with that process. ^^ Spaz Kitty 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Blocked for three months. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Need perminent lock[edit]

My page about my Second Life character Yiffy Yaffle Is repeatedly vandalised by anonymous members, who are from Encyclopedia Dramatica. These people strongly hate me and wish to silence my own opinions of my own life. I strongly request a permanent vandalism lock on this page and my own so that only registered users can post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfeedarkfang (talkcontribs) .

I was away when you requested this, but fortunately RainRat and SpazKitty were on the case. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 14:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Message from RVDDP2501 - Vandalism in progress[edit]

GreenReaper, I think we're being hit by an IP address/user named - - he's hit and wiped a lot of pages, I'm trying to undo as I type this - RVDDP2501 12:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)