User talk:Sirtim

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

Hi there, Sirtim, and welcome to WikiFur! Thanks for telling us a bit about yourself - let me know if you need any help not already provided. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamster image[edit]

Thank you for uploading the image of the Yahoo Answers Hamster. I thought 3911.jpg wasn't a descriptive filename so I reuploaded it as Image:Yamster-confident.jpg. --EarthFurst 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I can only surmise by the fact that you went ahead and posted information of yourself on your userpage in the way that you did that you would like your article name freed up for your personal editing? Please give us a sign either way, so that you can be accomodated. And welcome back. --Kendricks Redtail 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I never left Wikifur, just decided to fill out my userpage. It would be cool if my name was changed to Tim, or even Tim the Dragon. Oh, and thank you for the welcome back. It made my day! ^_^ - Sirtim
Well, it seems you requested an exclusion, so I'm going to assume by your response here, that you no longer wish it. Opening your article back up. Have a nice day. --Kendricks Redtail 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image choice on Nazi Furs[edit]

It makes sense to use the actual logo for an article about a group, because the logo and the group have a connection. For a drawing of a character, there may not be that connection between the character and the group. --Rat 06:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Nazi Furs. The new image is of a Nazi Fur. How someone could not see the connection is beyond me. --Sirtim
Okay, let me try a different way. If you were writing an article on say the US Army, would you start in the lead section with the logo of the US Army, or some random US Army person? Maybe the random US Army person would be suitable later in the article, but the question is for the lead section. --Rat 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and from an editorial stance, the logo is proper. But you must realize that an image of a Nazi flag with a fur paw - the symbol most commonly associated with the entire furry fandom - in place of the Swatstika - the symbol most commonly associated with Nazism, even if it really means "good luck" - is very contraversial, to the point that (a) there is a very high chance that an Internet user will believe that the Nazi furs are furries who secretly harbor Nazi ideaology, even though its clearly stated the opposite in the article; (b) someone not familiar with the furry fandom may believe that all furries are tolerant of Nazis or Neo-Nazis, thereby hurting the fandom's image even more; (c) the Nazi flag definitely reminds someone of all the things that the Nazis did against the Jews and those they deemed inferior to them.
However, I would not object if a different symbol was used on the flag. Not a paw, but something else. Perhaps a "N" or a silohutteon of a Nazi uniform. Something.
I understand it's something reasonable people can disagree on. I will give an chance for anyone else interested to comment and come to some sort of agreement. --Rat 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion and agreement is always a good thing! ^_^
Ultimately, it's probably best to accurately display the image that they have chosen as their logo. That does not mean we endorse their use of those images - we're not meant to be endorsing anything, because we're a neutral third party. The editorial stance is the stance that we should be taking. It is not our responsibility to try and fix the problems that they themselves have created by the use of the logo. If you think that the logo deserves explaining, that is what image captions are for. If you think that it gives the wrong impression then you should talk to the Nazi Furs about changing it, but you should try not to let it influence your edits here. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's a generally accepted logo for the group, then no matter how controversial it may be, it should remain. Hell, the whole article is controversial for that matter. The same people you are afraid of seeing that picture and drawing conclusions will draw the same conclusions from the article. And images of babyfurs on Babyfur will lead them all to believe that all furries are babyfurs. Your argument is weak. I'm not a Nazi Fur, but I don't find this image offensive. You must find the imagery of this article to be equally as shocking then. I vote that the original image be restored and that the new image be shrunk down and placed elsewhere in the article.--Kendricks Redtail 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
But babyfurs are so cute! Also, I don't find those article's images disturbing. The reason I find the logo disturbing is because of the contraversy. It is similar to the contraversy of cub art, but much deeper and harder to get rid of, because of the horrible memories of all the diabolic things that the Nazis did.-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirtim (talkcontribs) .
Some people may disagree on your stance of babyfur. While yes, the images of babyfur are tame, some find it discomforting. Shocking even. Frankly though, if this article can keep their imagery, then why shouldn't this one be allowed the same courtesy? The article isn't preaching any hate message, it's a historically contexted article about a group within the furry fandom. Yes, the whole Nazi thing is horrible to think about, but I suggest you read the Nazi Furs article and then understand why it's all right for the image to remain.--Kendricks Redtail 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going for discussion and agreement. That way everyone will be happy. I just wish I knew where it was.
Besides, Nazi Fur is a uniform fetish.
"Besides, Nazi Fur is a uniform fetish." Eh, no, no really,... It can also be a historical reenactment or role-play desire, or, in some very minor instances, a belief on the philosophy (yes, Nazi furs,)... as for the logo, we are not a PG site, or try to make family friendly. We are a documentation site of the history, lore, and personal accounts of the furry fandom. That's their logo, that's what it should be displayed, no matter how people feel about it, or worry what others may say/think Spirou 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay. No discussion than? Fine. I am not a moderator of the Wikifur, just an user.

?! We are having a discussion!. This is bits of data entered in ones and zeros in this electronic forum by a user's wetware to comment, contradict, point, or agree are discussions on progress (...) Spirou 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Status as moderators or user or whatever has no bearing on this. You brought up your discussion and we're discussing this. But Spirou IS right. Administrators are nothing more than regular users who have powers to protect from vandalism and sometimes to mediate arguments. The responses here are editor responses, not admin responses handed down from on high.--Kendricks Redtail 09:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Spirou ended the discussion. He said that the logo will be back up (at least, that's the impression I'm getting), so no need to discuss anymore. I lost the discussion, I accept that, and I move my little furry butt on in life. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirtim (talkcontribs) .

(.............................) No, I was making a comment/point on a discussion thread, not dictating a final point on a matter,... Spirou 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"That's their logo, that's what it should be displayed" does not equal "He said that the logo will be back up," by the by Spirou 09:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion is still going than?
Ok, so! -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirtim (talkcontribs) .
I think that the Nazi symbol should be changed from a paw to a Nazi cap. (I don't know the term for it, sorry). The Nazi cap represents Nazism, and, more importantly, it shows that the Nazi furs - some, not all - are into the Nazi uniforms, which will thus bring down heat against Nazi furs for their assumed association with Neo-Nazism. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirtim (talkcontribs) .
Well, the links are there. I'll invite you to go to their community and address your concerns. None of us are qualified to redesign some group's logo just because we don't approve of it.--Kendricks Redtail 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
For the time being, until this issue reaches a solution, I have restored the original image and in respect to the kinda nice image you found, have relocated the newer image to a position within the actual article itself.--Kendricks Redtail 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirtim (talkcontribs) .

Would it kill you to sign your comments? For future reference, following your statement by a dash and 4 tildes (they look like ~) autosigns your commentary. Thanks, it'd be so much easier.--Kendricks Redtail 10:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Show Preview[edit]

Hi Sirtim. When you're editing, do try to use the Show preview button before saving. It helps keep the Recentchanges list from getting clogged with repeated minor changes. -- Higgs Raccoon 11:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that^^

Wikipedia links[edit]

Another tip, Sirtim... If you want to link to a Wikipedia article, The correct way of making the link is [ [ Wikipedia:article|link text ] ]. For example, this is linked to the Wikipedia article on fursuits --Higgs Raccoon 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion, part 2[edit]

You can't have it both ways. You've already asked for exclusion once, then unexclusion, and now exclusion again? Pick one and stay with it. Spaz Kitty 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I never asked for unexclusion. I just said I never left the Wikifur. Because the admin thought that I had.

I was unable to return your email to me as the account it was sent from was disabled or removed. That said, feel free to remove any personal details. --GreenReaper(talk) 08:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I'm sorry. I forgot to update my e-mail address to my current one. Now it's updated.
Ugh, I can be so stupid sometimes. SirtimSirtim


First they came for the babyfurs, and I did not speak out, because I was not a babyfur.

Then they came for the plushies, and I did not speak out, because I was not a plushie.

Then they came for the balloonies, and I did not speak out, because I was not a balloonie.

Then they came for me . . . and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Where did the line "First they came for... and I did not speak out, because I was not a... Than they came for me...and there was no one left to speak out for me" line come from? Sirtim 12:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Martin Niemöller. See Wikipedia:First they came.... --GreenReaper(talk) 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


I've noticed you've uploaded the file Image:Bucky.jpg but haven't used it in any articles. Let us know if you need help with anything. --Rat 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add Bucky to Bucky's article^^ Sirtim 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Sirtim

Also, this image has not been tagged with a copyright status. This can be a complicated area, so I can try to help if you need any. The Wikipedia Image use policy may give some background, but it isn't policy here.

To deal with this image, there are a few choices:

  • If you are the copyright holder, release it under a free license, for example:
  • If you are asserting that this image is usable under fair use, add an appropriate fair use tag. A very basic summary is that fair use is used for commentary, criticism and review on the image when no free image could be used instead. Some fair use tags are:
    • Logos: {{logo}}
    • Covers: {{Cover}}
    • Comic panels: {{Comic-panel}}
  • If the image is already under a free license, provide information on the license, and tag the image if you can.
  • If you would like the image to be deleted, ask any administrator

To see a list of current copyright tags available on WikiFur, see Category:Image copyright tags If the copyright status is not resolved, the image may be deleted.

Unless you have a question for me specifically, I'd prefer responses on the page for the image. --Rat 07:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)