Please stop that. There is no such thing as a Furry Socialite. Not a Furry common furry term (unlike furry fan), so it's a "description", either a self one (we are informed is not), so it was described by a third party, which is noted. No, you are not furry fandom's first Furry Socialite. Fluff is not considered historical data, "descriptions" or "AKAs" are fine. - Spirou 01:32, 2 June 2013 (EDT)
- I'm not sure why this has suddenly become a huge issue, given that the description has stood for nearly a year now, and is, by my understanding, perfectly accurate. It's really not a big deal. --KinielCat 01:45, 2 June 2013 (EDT)
- An Opinion ("No one says "furry fan" anymore, come on.") is not a Fact. Thus, not an option or excuse to use a non-furry recognized term ("furry socialite") as a valid historical substitute. Described as such by your or friends?. No problem, will be noted as such on the article (and, no, it has not stood for nearly a year).
- Tl;dr?: The issue is that furry fan is a valid term, furry socialite is not, but you wish to be known as the later, so the article will be rewritten (has been done so now), to indicate this predilection, without accepting a personal Opinion as established furry lore - Spirou 02:12, 2 June 2013 (EDT)
- Whatever you say. This is way more serious than I ever wanted to get about WikiFur. (I will note, however, that you meant to look here to see where my "nearly a year" comment came from: http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Kiniel&action=historysubmit&diff=374078&oldid=360965 ).
- Look, I don't really want to have a problem with you moving forward. I made a joke about this ridiculous situation on twitter, but I'll agree to drop all this nonsense if you will. --KinielCat 03:55, 2 June 2013 (EDT)