User talk:GreenReaper/Policy5

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 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.