User talk:Rama

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

Psst! Thanks for all the edits, but for future reference, when adding short pages for people/artists, would you please include the template "person-stub" as well? Thanks, --Dmuth 16:55, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Editing etiquette

First off...nice site. I will admit that I had trepidations about it at first because I could see how this could become just another place to attack each other, but I'm glad to see that stuff like that is kept firmly under control. Gave me something to do when work was slow yesterday. :)

Oh, I knew we'd be getting that. As you say, though, these things can be managed. I don't want this site to be torn apart by personal disagreement.

Anyways...the real question I have is this. There's one article in particular that I don't think is very neutral and I would like to do a massive edit on it. I wouldn't necessarily be removing information in there, because a good portion of it is correct, but I would like to reword and rework it and include some other information to counter what's already in there. Is this acceptable or is a total rewrite of an article seen as a bad thing? Rama

I would say just do it, and then if someone doesn't like it, they can make their own adjustments. If you are hugely concerned about it, you could write it out on that article's discussion page first, and if nobody disagrees, put it in. Up to you! Oh, and welcome to WikiFur. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 00:13, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Along that same line, if someone removes information from an article, is it acceptable to put it back in? Rama
Now, that depends. :-) It is appropriate to consider what the information was and why it was removed. If, after that, you still feel the information should be present in the article, then you should put it back in. If appropriate, you might want to consider rephrasing the information in a way that means that it cannot justifiably be removed again, either by increasing the evidence supporting it or by reducing the assertion of the information.
That's a bit vague because it depends on the information, so let me give an example - if someone said "PersonA stole and gave out stuff that wasn't his, and he sucks.", and someone else removed it, then I would change it to say "PersonA distributed pirated material belonging to PersonB during the period May 2002 - April 2003, including ThingA and ThingC, as shown at this authoritative site with evidence. Specific-group-of-people Somepeople said he sucked as a result."
Note that the rephraising is far harder to argue with because it is specific, and it does not make any judgement. It leaves that up to the reader. It also happens to be more useful! --GreenReaper(talk) 02:41, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pumbaa

I hope you don't mind, but I just fixed several of your new entries to correct the spelling of Pumbaa's name. Mwalimu 04:48, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah...I'm an idiot. ;) Rama 05:02, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Movie characters

Could I convince you to use [[Category:Movie characters]] instead? Trying to keep all category names plural where appropriate. I'll move the old ones, this is just for new ones. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 04:59, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No problem...it's your baby. :) Rama

[edit] Personal request exclusion policy

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. This has come up twice now and it is time for it to be formalised. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:22, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Response

Hey GreenReaper. Thanks fur the uber-quick response to fix the babyfur article after it was spammed. I must appreciate all you admins do; I imagine the articles undergo inappropriate changes like that somewhat frequently. skippyfox 08:25, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I agree...you and the rest of the admins have been great catching vandalism. I imagine we'll probably see a bit of it today since you have the babyfur article featured. Rama 03:16, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a lot easier now we have a lot more eyes watching recent changes for trouble, :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:21, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spellchecker

I noticed your wish for a spellchecker when editing wiki. I personally use the Google Toolbar (available for Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox), it comes with a spellchecker for forms feature which is very handy. One little bug to watch out for is for text boxes with long scrolling text like wiki, the popup menus for each error with corrections sometimes appear at the very bottom of the page in a blank space which appears while spellcheck in progress, still it works well and has a big dictionary.

--Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 03:46, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Personal tools