For anyone wanting to, you can post topics or messages you may have for me here. Please do not use profanity or insults though.
Being a furry
Furries are fans of anthropomorphic animals. It seems like you fit the definition. How you express that interest is up to you! (For future reference, you can sign your name and date on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~) --GreenReaper(talk) 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, wanted to get a few answers about this....
- From User talk:Spirou
Hi, the reason why I have left this message on your page is because you seem to be the one responsible for the addition of my "Cold-blooded" page to the "Candidates for Deletion" page.
Your reasoning is it's too mainstream. While yes, it is mainstream, it also may be something others would enjoy reading. Think of it this way: A member of the site gets bored, scrolls through the pages and notices it, and decides to do some casual reading. They could learn something. While interpretations often run amok, from what I've seen, this site is just as much for Furries as it is about them. It's okay to add some mainstream, because the more we isolate, the less people reveal themselves to the fandom. The very name Wiki Fur says much. Wiki is where we put our information, and help spread it. Fur is who we are and who this site represents, but at the same time we must educate ourselves. It is better we add some mainstream, not only for educational purposes, but to show the public we do not have one-track minds. This site is dedicated to furries, but also must teach them. I know my article is small, and you may think it does not warrant a response like this, but my response is more fundamental than "Oh hey, put my article back now". If you tell me how to "Clean it up", I will happily work on it. But deleting it just because it's tandem knowledge is wrong. I hope we can resolve this, have a good one, Perservere 18:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, it's not wrong. WikiFur is not a copy of Wikipedia. Here's why:
- The information, and much more, is already on Wikipedia. If people want to learn about the topic of cold-blooded animals, they are far better served by going there.
- The wordwide community is better-served by improvements being made to the Wikipedia article, as it is the one everyone else will read.
- The time of WikiFur editors is better used creating and maintaining articles within our sphere of knowledge that people are going to want to read.
- In general we only give full treatment to a topic which has a Wikipedia article if WikiFur can contain significant amounts of information which is inappropriate for Wikipedia (say, because it cannot be adequately referenced - often the case for furry topics). We only maintain articles in tandem at all when there is clearly some furry-specific content, and said articles should only contain that content plus a brief summary in the lede. An example (though far from perfect) is Fox (species).
- Lacking such content, the page should be deleted and links should be changed to point to Wikipedia (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Cold-blooded|cold-blooded]]). If you care about that topic, you should make edits to that article. --GreenReaper(talk)
When making multiple edits to an article, please use the "Show preview" button to view intermediate changes, and try to limit use of the "Save page" button to when you are finished making all of your changes. Frequent use of "Save page" during editing tends to clutter the article's edit history and the site's change log. --Higgs Raccoon 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)