WikiFur talk:Personal exclusion

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

I don't understand why this policy exists, since Wiki == encyclopedia. I can understand toning down personal information, but the bare minimum of a person's info - a name and the reason they're even mentioned in the first place - seems quite reasonable. Perhaps, as an alternative, people can request to have info minimized instead of banned altogether. --Brody

I think the main reason for this policy is to allow people to make a break with the fandom. Having their name on a page here seems to imply that they are involved. They can cope with it being mentioned in passing on other articles - usually - but they don't want people searching for their name and finding a page specifically about them on a furry site.
The big difference between somewhere like Wikipedia and WikiFur is that Wikipedia deals with mostly public figures, and their public actions, while on WikiFur it can get very personal in some respects, and goes into topics that aren't easily verifiable one way or another. The current system is imperfect, but it lets us preserve the critical information about people's public actions on other pages while we concentrate on all the topics that are not disputed. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

why do some ppl on the list have their articles deleted and then the notice put on so it clears the history, but others dont so you can still see all the stuff put on their articles before they made the blanking request? -- 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because some don't ask for that? Most just want to be sure random stuff doesn't show up on a google search. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Review of policy[edit]

Please see for further details.--Kendricks Redtail 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Informal exclusion requests[edit]

Thinking about what I've called Informal exclusion requests at WikiFur:Noticeboard, I wonder if we could put in the line to the effect that WikiFur will treat blanking "delete this" type of edits to an article about a person that reasonably seem to have come from the subject as being requests for personal exclusion. -- Sine 19:18, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

I think that's too much to assume. It's best to try to reach out to them and ask them what exactly the issue is, and discuss the options. Sometimes their concern is just over a certain part and they deleted all of it because they didn't know how to deal with it (or that they're worried about changes and don't know they can watch articles with email notification). There is a potential technical solution as well, in that we can warn them that they're "not doing it right" when they attempt to do so. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:22, 15 June 2011 (EDT)

On not linking names or identities[edit]

On the topic of not linking names or identities, I'd like to see an expansion of our policy specifically addressing the scenario of someone wanting WikiFur to not mention a connection between identities that seems prominent elsewhere. I'm looking at as an example. -- Sine 13:10, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

I'm not clear from what you said whether you're advocating that we adopt their policy or just using it as an example. Precedent seems to be that we do in fact delay removing material, but only as long as is necessary to confirm that they understand that their request will not remove that link. Are you suggesting that we should delay removal beyond this time (perhaps, to allow for further discussion), or even say outright "we won't take it down if you don't"? --GreenReaper(talk) 01:41, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

Tainted Sweet Meats[edit]

Please take down this wiki artile [[1]] . It's about me and I dont want a wiki. Please take it down and exclude me from the website. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hmm (talkcontribs) .

Twitter entry to be taken as personal exclusion request by subject.--Higgs Raccoon 16:24, 19 September 2012 (EDT)