Talk:Vivian Fox

Suggestion for removal (Wikifur-Exclusion?)
Never seen an internal suggestion for a person's article removal before, but there is always a first.

The current article's user seems to be determined to remove his/her historical data from the article bit by bit, and anything that gets added the unref tag was applied ("writer"), gets, or will be, deleted as well. In the current, present state, this article is not a serious addition to Wikifur, and since any further data/info gets deleted by its user, further future editing is all but meaningless, more or less prohibiting editors to even try to enhance it. Submitting, then, proposal for article deletion - Spirou 15:48, 18 February 2013 (EST)


 * On Twitter, this person has requested not to have the article removed; I'm also hesitant to exclude someone that somebody other than the person has requested exclusion for. Equivamp - talk 08:35, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * Not an option I was a really looking to push forward, but since editors seem to be able to restore/add historical data to the article again without being stripped off by the article's user to the point of complete non-relevance, I will remove the proposal and tag. Thanks for the information, Equivamp, by the way - Spirou 10:56, 20 February 2013 (EST)


 * Of course. Equivamp - talk 13:59, 20 February 2013 (EST)

Non-restored historical data
The following information provided originally by the article's user has not being restored: Spirou 13:04, 20 February 2013 (EST)
 * Personal data (name and age) - Privacy rights, up to user for reintroduction.
 * Controversy - Up to user for reintroduction.
 * Early (childhood) information - Privacy rights, up to user for reintroduction.
 * Writer - User makes a point of not being one, even though she originally wrote that she was. Up to user for reintroduction.
 * Fursuit crafter plans - Unable to determine if this course is still pursued. Up to user for reintroduction.

Editing
I'm really not going to bother trying to edit this anymore. The article is about me and written by me. I know this is a place where people can freely edit articles, but I'd kinda like for me to be able to edit it how I like it and not have someone come along and screw it up again (if that makes any sense)
 * shrug* Vivian Ferrox


 * Consensus editing has always been a condition of contribution to WikiFur. Part of the reason people trust us (to the extent that they do) is that we do not grant the subjects or creators of articles sole control. Ultimately, it's all about communication. The removal of information about fandom activities tends to make articles less useful to our readers, and so should be justified by more than "I edited this out for a reason" (what?). Something like "I'm not actually a writer or a fursuit builder, I just intended to be one in the past" would be a good example, likely to convince other editors. (These are especially useful when you added that information.) --GreenReaper(talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (EST)

I lied. I edited out the writer tag and older (non existent fursonas). Please don't add these again, thanks. Vivian Ferrox


 * Short and to the point:
 * This is a Wikia style article, which entails, in your case, the historical information and description of who the artists is, in this case related to the Furry fandom, and enough relevant information to make the article informative.
 * User articles, even one's started by the person mentioned, are not their properties, nor they should assume so. For venues with total control over one's public data, personal sites (websites, blogs, social media outlets), are better recommended.
 * Yes, users have certain rights over the data displayed (privacy among the first). Yes, users can take out as much information as they want, to the point that it can be deleted for "Not enough context/information". Hence the job of editors to always prevent so by editing in/out any and all data.
 * Editors use available public data, or information provided by the article's user, to construct or maintain, a viable entry. If said user, for example, wrote that he/she wanted to be, or was, a writer for FurRag, or that he/she wanted to try their hand at Fursuit Making, that will be added, as it is censured by the artist himself/herself.
 * If a user feels that he/she is being harassed by Wikifur and/or editors because they perceive so because of the constant edit of their articles, perish the thought. As with any other Wikia, all of Wikifur's 15.000 articles are in constant state of updating, trying to keep an article viable and informational. That's (for most cases), editing, not personal attacks.
 * And, no, I'm not reintroducing, as one of the many editors that have worked on this article, the deleted non-privacy data. You struck them down enough many times (as often as you put them back up), to make it pointless, and we can't babysit articles when there's so much to do - Spirou 17:27, 27 February 2013 (EST)

Suggestion for removal (Wikifur-Exclusion II)
Putting the "Appropriate" tag back up. Once again with the removal of all information, either the article user's is not really serious about his/her involvement with the fandom, or the continuous removal of information (public plus agreed upon data), sees to be a fun thing to do to relieve boredom. Having now four six colleagues going behind and picking up the broken pieces to prop the article up over and over is becoming old - Spirou 21:56, 21 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Support. Goodness, enough already. Equivamp - talk 00:40, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Support. She's obviously unable to comprehend that WikiFur articles are less "my personal article that only I can edit" and more "article about me on a public wiki that anyone can edit".--Higgs Raccoon 08:21, 22 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Excluded based on subject's wish to have article deleted. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:01, 22 June 2013 (EDT)