Talk:AWFR

Contested data
As the text appeared originally in the article:

The following terms were the creation of some of the more extremist AWFR members, and as such, not not to be considered as part of the ideals of AWFR or TiggyBot. They are included here for historical reference:


 * "AFDers", "Dwaggy|Dwaggy/Dwaggies.": Term for Dragon fans, or the denizens of alt.fan.dragons.
 * "The Dwaggon Beweef System for Dummies": The "definition" of the spiritual beliefs of Dragon fans.
 * "WereFairies," "LycanPoops": Were fans and/or the denizens of alt.horror.werewolves.

As the text read following editing by an unidentified user:

The following terms were the creation of some of people who in no way, shape or form were associated with the ideals of AWFR or TiggyBot. They are included here as reference for revisionist historians who wish to associate the AWFR with derogatory terms of which it had no association:


 * "AFDers", "Dwaggy|Dwaggy/Dwaggies.": Term for Dragon fans, or the denizens of alt.fan.dragons, as many of them call themselves.
 * "The Dwaggon Beweef System for Dummies": The "definition" of the spiritual beliefs of Dragon fans, written by a AFD fan
 * "WereFairies," "LycanPoops": Were fans and/or the denizens of alt.horror.werewolves, both derived from satirical articles written by active members of the were community.

Clean up

 * Reconciled both versions.
 * Removed redundant information
 * Removed POVs without losing some of the data,
 * Remove superfluous information.
 * Added back in factual data removed on prior edit.
 * General clean-up
 * Removed "Anti-Furry" list (Redundancy, already discussed on the "Burned Fur'' page.)
 * Added removed "Category: Ideological groups".
 * Tags.

Request Admins assistance for decision on the changes (Pro/Con,) or additional work on the article. Spirou 02:18, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)

(Copied from Spirou's Talk page) Hmm, it would appear that someone disagrees rather vehemently with the terms you listed in the AWFR article (looking through the history, I believe it was you that put those in). Any comment on the validity of the edits, or is it someone trying to rewrite history in their own way? One way or another, it's going to need to be changed, but to my mind the question is whether to word it such that the terms are in dispute or just delete them entirely.--Duncan da Husky 11:13, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * Whoever wrote the edit was very accurate, definitely somebody who probably was a member or very close to it. The additional information he provided actually helps with the entry (There was information I forgot to add to the initial article which he then wrote in,) but at the same time, he (?) seems to be trying to sanitize what went beyond or inside AWFR, and its understandable, but unfortunately people can't control what people say or do in the name of a group. Its just a rewrite of very small elements of the article to make AWFR less of what "became" at the end. Spirou 11:46, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
 * All right, I see somebody is trying to sanitize the entry again, even though he admits in the edit that "some" of the words were "maybe" used, but since it seems that its going to be a back and forth tug of war, I will just move it here under "contested data". Spirou 15:53, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. The formatting might could use a little tweaking to improve readability (I'll poke at it a bit), but this seems to be a fair compromise.--Duncan da Husky 12:39, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)