User talk:Chibiabos/Archive1



"User" vs "normal" pages
I'm afraid I'm still too wiki-newb to understand the difference. What is supposed to go on a 'normal' vs. 'user' page, such as my own (Chibiabos vs. User:Chibiabos)? I've been doing my user page to talk about all my projects and characters and things, and the 'normal' (non-user) Chibiabos page to just talk about the Chibiabos character as it appeared in my MUSH I ran a few years back. --Chibiabos 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I should probably have taken the opportunity to explain after my earlier edits. :-) Our current convention is to use the page in the main namespace for both the person and their character, if under the same name. This is partially due to the integration of many people's characters with their personality, but also because by convention a User: page is a personal message from a user (first-person), while the other page is about the person (third-person). Compare GreenReaper and User:GreenReaper. This distinction is considered more important than that between a player and their fursona. Moreover, most of the time people will be referring to people not their characters, and it gets annoying to remember to type User: all over the place - normal articles should link to other normal articles.


 * This policy makes a bit more sense on Wikipedia, where most users will not have pages about themselves because they are non-notable individuals (under their definition). However, it seems to work OK here, and it helps separate the personal message on the User page (which is controlled by you) from the description of yourself (which others should feel free to edit). Hope that clears things up for you! -- 00:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing to note: An awful lot of people that we write about do not have accounts under their names, and so we might well write about someone and find that their account was owned by another (or that they'd used a different account name). Again, this relates to the difference between the idea of a person and the user that is editing the wiki that just happens to be that person as well. -- 00:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Humor in entries
How forbidden is it? I couldn't resist: Mare (Poem) - Stallion (Poem) Chibiabos 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Humour, in-jokes and the like aren't forbidden (see Adam's Mark), but I'd prefer it if those particular articles were be moved into in the User: namespace and linked from the page by or about you. If it were a part of a larger work then that might be a different story, but as it is now they're simply not really that relevant to the wider furry community and - let's face it - are unlikely to gain any such relevance. :-)


 * Though you didn't ask about it, the songs are less of a concern because they show their significance and relevance to others. Essentially, if it doesn't talk about any other people or link to other articles (except for dictionary definitions) then it's a sign that it's probably "personal" content that should be in the [[User: namespace, especially if there's no reason to believe it could be expanded further. -- 10:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and we tend to avoid using capitals for parenthesised words unless they should be used normally to fit with the rest of the house style, so "(poem)" is preferred over "(Poem)". -- 11:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm not understanding ... poems about horses are not on-topic for furry poetry? --Chibiabos 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The poetry is on topic, but I just don't think the works are significant enough to warrant separate pages. It would be like artists having an separate article in WikiFur for every piece of work they'd done. That is fine for an art (or poetry) archive, but inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We're far more relaxed about what is "notable" than Wikipedia, but there are still limits, and I think one of them should be on the level of individual pieces of work with no particular significance to the wider fandom.


 * Obviously, there are some works that are notable enough to be separately included. An example might be Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat, which has 770 google hits. Even more notable would be The Tyger, but frankly that's probably best covered in Wikipedia as it is well known outside the community and has no particular furry-specific relevance. Furry Fantasies is notable, as it is the creative work of several people and is a published CD. 120 kph (an article about the first track of the CD) is less useful - it should probably be merged into the previous article. A published collection of poetry or short stories would have an article in the main namespace, because it is likely to offer a significant topic to talk about. Single poems probably should not.


 * If you want to describe your poems I would suggest writing about them in your user namespace, perhaps all on one page since the current entries are so short (e.g. User:Chibiabos/Poetry). I don't see a problem with that - it lets people access the poems all in one place, and makes it clear who the creator is, plus you're free to write in the first person there. -- 23:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So I shouldn't talk about any of the poems, stories or novels I've written outside of my own personal space? --Chibiabos 00:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't quite mean that. :-) I think you should consider your work's importance to the general fandom before doing so. For example, Move Your Dead Bones is a personal work by Zarla, but it is not in a subpage of her userspace. First of all, this is because she's not a user (which is another telling thing - she didn't start the article, someone else did, so they obviously cared enough to write about it). Secondly and more importantly, it has achieved widespread popularity in the fandom.


 * If you've written a novel, chances are it's worth a page if it's on-topic, because it's had a significant amount of time spent on it. Popular characters might get their own pages, too (this also applies to comics, e.g. Zig Zag of Sabrina Online). Stories . . . well, it depends on the story. Again, if it has achieved popularity, such as Watts Martin's fairly long stories centering around Revar and friends then I would say that it should have a main namespace page.


 * In general, if nobody else has written about a piece of your work in the main namespace, or even linked to it, then I think you should consider carefully whether you should starting an article about it in the main namespace, because I there is a strong chance that nobody really knows anything about it and so nobody will ever edit it - and so it's de-facto a personal article about a personal topic. Having a poetry category filled up with two or three-line stubs about individual poems doesn't seem to be a good idea to me - I'd rather look at a "list of poetry by Chibiabos". Of course, you might already have a list elsewhere, so a link on the page about you could suffice (though having a listing page on here does allow you to link to other pages and put it in the category). Over at Creatures Wiki we had a Songs page where we listed all the songs by every person in the community - that probably wouldn't work here, but it would for individuals (you might not want your actual poetry here as it would fall under the GFDL).


 * This is a policy decision, and one that we've not really discussed before, so it's something that could probably do with input from more community members. That's my reasoning, though. -- 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Categorization conundrums
As I've spammed a few places, I've been working on the Kaze pages a bit and a few things are starting to irritate my sides a bit. First, Kaze: Ghost Warrior is categorized as a movie. According to my information, the closest label that fits for it would actually be a series pilot episode (further snafu'd by the fact that, SFAIK, the series itself will be called 'Kaze: Ghost Warrior'. Its meant to be the first episode of the Kaze: Ghost Warrior (series) more than a standalone movie.  At 22 or 23 minutes long and CGI animated, it could also fit as an Category:Animations.  It is not a broadcast TV program (SFAIK, at least not yet), so that might not fit, either ... how would an unbroadcast animated series be categorized?


 * I'd put the series in animations, if it even gets an article of its own yet. It is dangerous to look too far into the future as it can lead to us recording things that never actually happen. As for the original work . . . well, that's a tricky one. Again, probably animations, and if people treat it as a movie (which I think they do) then it should probably be in there as well.


 * I think Tim's pretty well established that he has everything it takes to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. He already has characters designed for each of these.  I know the prequel is already well into preproduction, and he has at least two animation students working on it.  He's already released cels for Wolfpack, and recent information shows that Freeborn could begin filming as early as next month.  They have all had real work applied to them.  Chibiabos 19:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there a categorization for studios like Timothy Albee Animation, ReQuest Entertainment, Cashel Entertainment, etc.? Or would it be better for those pages to be worked on in, say, Wikipedia?


 * We have Category:Organizations and subcategories. You should probably make your decision as to whether an article should exist here depending on whether or not the company actually does anything in relation to the furry fandom. For example, Dragon's Eye Productions gets one because it makes Furcadia, but Stardock wouldn't just because I work for them.


 * You work for Stardock? Curse you, GC2 is destroying any hope I have for productivity! :)


 * Hehe - yes, it is good, isn't it? Watch for the 1.1 patch! -- 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've already been snared by the 1.1 beta. :p Bass turd!  --Chibiabos 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you answer my query, when you have time, I replied to you with in my talk?


 * Done.

And, egad, your talk page is getting ginormous. :p --Chibiabos 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes . . . again! I'll be making another archive shortly. -- 23:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Timothy Albee's fursona
All the renditions of him I've seen with his current mate, Jessie T. Wolf, are of a white wolf, though a grey wolf may be more accurate, like here and here.--Kitch 12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy, am I out of the loop. I thought I remember Tim mentioning he was gay ... but I guess he prefurs to keep his private life private, even among furs.  --Chibiabos 06:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife MU*s
Hey, thanks for the notice about Verdant Reign! I'm a wizard on another wildlife MUCK (I'm a fan as well XD) - if you're interested, you can find the info about it on here under Meadows MUCK. Spaz Kitty

Wikifur news
I couldn't figure out how to add a news item. :/ I thought the passing of Peter S. Beagle's mother (Peter being the author of The Last Unicorn) might be of note to some furry fans. I just received word from Beagle's newsletter and it pointed to this page ... http://www.conlanpress.com/html/rebecca_beagle.html --Chibiabos


 * To post a news item, you create the link to the template as you did (preferably in a preview first), then make the page that it links to, and add a link to that page to Template:Newsbar and the Community Central page.


 * However, I would have to say that I would not really agree with posting it as news on WikiFur. Wikipedia used to have the somewhat pithy phrase "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them," and I feel this is true for WikiFur as well. People (particularly the mothers and fathers of the older people in the fandom) die all the time.


 * While the death of a person already relevant to WikiFur just for being in the fandom is a fact that should go on the the page about them, it is not site news. Moreover, all previous news items have been directly related to WikiFur. If it had been someone of major relevance to the fandom I might have thought differently - say, Uncle Kage, or maybe, at a stretch, Grandma Kage (who is relevant enough to have a page, but not much of one yet). However, we don't even have an entry on Peter yet, let alone his mother. We're not a furry news aggregator, and this doesn't really seem to count as furry news as much as a personal loss. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Crush! Yiff! Destroy! changes
Hi, I reverted your recent change to the Crush! Yiff! Destroy! article, mainly because of the seriousness of the statement and the lack of supporting documentation. If you know of some evidence online that supports the claims that were made, feel free to revise the article to link to it. Thanks. --Douglas Muth 03:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong, I pointed out a specific string of articles on their own website attacking Ebonlupus.


 * Would you like me to post very offensive FurryMUCK logs of harrassing and stalking behavior by self-described CYD members and fans against me? Not sure what you're looking for, exactly.  The CYD article as it stands is dishonest in its claims that it only attacks politics with humor when, in fact, they stalk and harrass individuals and put private information (like mine) into public areas of PG MUCKs as they have been doing with me for over a year now on FurryMUCK.  I don't see any reason they deserve protection from their own record that contradicts their claims of not being serious and not stalking individuals.  Its more than slightly insulting and it violates NPOV.  --Chibiabos 04:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't recall seeing a link. Was there one?  If so, I apologize.  If not, it would be helpful, from an encylopediac standpoint.


 * I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post logfiles to WikiFur and use them as supporting documentation in an article. But if you were to post them someplace else (website, LJ, etc.) and link to them from the article, I think that would be perfectly acceptable.  --Douglas Muth 04:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I referred to the link already provided to the CYD official website and the Ebonlupus-targetting articles, the most recent of which is http://www.crushyiffdestroy.com/show/lovebeast


 * Ive read the logs from the incident.. when the wizzes get a complaint the logs are usualy reviewed.. you might as well say WikiFur is stalking you, because both Railfoxen and Quilrynn are members of WikiFur.. Quilrynn is from SA, not CYD. Unless there are other incidents with others from CYD.. maybe you should just add that info to their articles.  Its more helpful to people who are being stalked.  ~ Downspin
 * This is a very confusing message. I don't know who Railfoxen nor Quilrynn are.  My documented recent complaint was against a self-described CYD member who goes by Raiya on FM, as were several prior to that.  Further, I have no idea who you are.  And further still, Sibe is a "member" of Wikifur, so I'm not sure what your point is that CYD members are "members" of WikiFur.  --Chibiabos 08:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Raiya is RailFoxen, but he isnt on CYD anymore .. Quilrynn was part of the incident you complained about.. the thing is, CYD doesn't seem to invade chat rooms or MUCKs, none of the other members do, so youre just providing disinformation which harms people looking for truth. Raiya is on WikiFur, Quilrynn is on WikiFur, Sibe was on WikiFur.. does that mean WikiFur is stalking you? ~ Downspin
 * I've seen many CYDers on FM causing trouble, so your claim none of the other members do is false -- not to mention they target and harrass specific individuals on their own website, including an ex bf of mine. On FurryMUCK, they specifically stalk me.  CYD needs to go the way of the other burned fur groups.  Its a nasty hate group, period.  --Chibiabos 15:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Chibiabos - please supply logs + names/aliases/IP addresses so that I can confirm if these people are CYD members. I will take appropriate action if so. Mitch 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend not to log unpleasant stuff, unfortunately, though lately I've been getting better at it and standing up for my rights and protections against such abusive users as defined by the FurryMUCK rules. I have no interest in helping CYD 'clean house' given its official articles on its official website harrassingly targetting specific furries and seeming to demand exclusionary zoophobic intolerance, among other intolerant, elitist and fascist ultimatums.  --Chibiabos 09:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You said above "Would you like me to post very offensive FurryMUCK logs of harrassing and stalking behavior by self-described CYD members and fans against me?" which implied that you had such logs. So why are you now claiming "I tend not to log unpleasant stuff" when I asked you to furnish said logs? And BTW, if by "intolerant" you are referring to our well-known disdain for advocates of animal abuse, then I am proud to be so labelled. Though I don't recall CYD ever issuing any "fascist ultimatums". Perhaps you can point to one? Or is this yet another of your surreal and baseless allegations? Mitch 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a log of Raiya but you disclaimed them. I'm also on a new computer without my old files.  And what does abuse have to do with love?  The terms are incompatible, though the zoophobic crowd likes to re-invent such terms to mean any consentual act they don't approve of.  Zoophilia was ruled out as abusive by several psychologists, most recently Dr. Hani Miletski.  Fascist ultimatum is demanding the removal of a minority they don't like, such as zoophiles.  Being attacked numerous times on FurryMUCk by CYD members breaking the rules of that MUCK and then calling the group for it is not a surreal nor baseless accusation, nor is calling it for what it is ... yet another Burned Fur-esque group, the only new thread is the facade of "its all a joke, its really funny, we don't seriously believe anything we say."  Yeah, right, and if that's true, why don't you go around spouting anti-semitic messages and then try to get away with claiming they are just jokes?  --Chibiabos 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't abuse, even if you obtain a dog from an animal shelter and forcibly 'make love' until you need to take her to the vet for vaginal infection.. but your ex-boyfriend wouldn't know anything about this.. or would he? Sno is such a great help, he seems to know so much about you.. ~ Downspin


 * I have no clue what nor whom you are talking about. Forcibly doing anything precludes making love in my dictionary.  The only instance I am aware of involving force was committed by a former roommate of mine, and I threw that bastard out.  I did have to tend to my mate after the attack, but she was not taken to the vet.  Unfortunately, people like you make it so there is no real solid legal recourse, since courts do not differentiate between consent and non-consent.  I know of an individual named SnowWolf, but he barely remembers me ... he and I never lived together and he's never met any of my mates.  I know of no one else with a name resembling "Sno." --Chibiabos 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's an image I could do without. Can we keep the personal attacks to a minimum please?  This goes for all parties involved.  Thanks.  --Douglas Muth 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Downspin seems to be poking his nose into places where it doesn't belong, in my humble opinion. See Talk:Akida. Spaz Kitty 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies for getting a little heated. I will stop replying to Chibiabos and go shout at a wall instead. Mitch 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk control question
Do I need to go through some process to delete an ugly thread (and not have it reverted) from my own user talk page or can I just delete it and have it stay deleted? --Chibiabos 04:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could archive the page to have it removed from your main talk space, but as for removing it completely, you'd have to check with GreenReaper. Spaz Kitty 04:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jason Aisling lockout
Does this mean we couldn't mention what he did in, say, the African Legends entry? --Chibiabos 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The contents of his article were agreed to be moved to Akida. Spaz Kitty 22:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Recategorization of List of convention acronyms
I don't see why this fits better with Category:Convention terms than Category:Conventions when it seems to fit the Conventions cat just as well as List of furs who were married at a furry con or List of conventions by attendance (both of which are in Category:Conventions), since like those two, its a sort of comparison/reference list between different conventions, as opposed to Category:Convention terms which seems to be a list of general terms used within a convention. --Chibiabos 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Change it back if you wish. My view was that an acronym was a convention term, but I can can see your side too. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ragnah'reknik
What did you mean by your edit summary to my articlepage "Look what the dragon catted in..." I recognize the wordplay on the old adage, but is that all you meant by it? --Rarek 06:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to make bad puns, sorry, was merely remarking that I was categorizing your (you being a dragon) page ... categorizing = catting. My pun-ophilia couldn't pass up the opportunity to twist "look what the cat dragged in" into "look what the dragon catted in."  I know, I know ... bad, bad pun!  I made a similar pun when I categorized Damalia and almost did with Female but refrained.  (Cat, pu ... err, won't go there!)  --Chibiabos 08:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh. I missed that.  I thought you were just twisting the words, I failed to realize that CATegorizing made sense here!  Sometimes things go over my head like that.  x.o  --Rarek 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)