Talk:Crassus

I'm not sure who I need to address, or even if this is the place I should address it. After finding http://furry.wikicities.com/wiki/WikiFur:Personal_information and reading the information on it about the two tags, I'd like to have the condition of this article changed to "Protected-Personal|WikiFurAccount" instead of the one currently up, thanks. --Crassus 20:15, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for looking over the policy. Be aware that since it is proposed, it may change a little over time but I'm quite sure the body of it will stay. I'll unprotect the article and apply the other templates, feel free then to import the content that you wish from your User: page. Leave a note here when you are ready for the page to be reprotected, I'll look it over to make sure all formatting/typing etc is ok and reprotect. --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 00:22, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * The point of it is that if it's at the right place (User:Whoever/Something.css or User:Whoever/Something.js) it doesn't need protecting - it's only editable by the user concerned. -- 03:00, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * *blinks* Have I got the wrong end of the stick here? o.O I thought those pages perform technical functions and don't behave like real pages. o.o I thought this was going to work a little like having pages which are monitored more carefully and major changes are prohibited without permission? --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 03:42, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, this page needs protecting, but you can do that at any time, as it will not affect the editablility of the page in the user namespace. You seemed (to me) to be implying that you would be protecting the page he would edit, as well (the page in the user namespace), which should not be protected, otherwise the user can't edit it! :-) -- 04:28, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * (Crassus looks at the convo like a tennis match. d_d .. b_b .. d_d .. b_b) --Crassus 21:24, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Specifically, you should now edit User:Crassus/Me.css. -- 03:41, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Err... ok.. am I reading correctly that User:Crassus/Me.css is a style sheet....? Or am I reading too deeply into this? --Crassus 21:34, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Old Convo
Crassus has a user account and has made edits here. I'd really prefer he leave a message under that account indicating his unwillingness to have an article, since otherwise this could be seen as vandlism. We'd need to know it's crassus or it's an official person, not just someone dropping in an excludedRedcard 21:35, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I'm deleting this article as official requests need to be made to the administrators about this. --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 21:38, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Um... it's me. How can it be considered vandalism, considering the character is copyrighted to me? Plus, how am I supposed to have guessed that I was supposed to contact an administrator? There's nothing on the frontpage or anything that pops in my face about it. I figured after looking at Brian Tiemann's page, all one had to do was insert the bit of text into the page. --Crassus 04:52, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason we haven't made it public is because we really want to avoid having locked articles. Its anti-wiki to have articles locked down and protected. If we thought thought something bad or wrong might be written about anything here, no one would be allowed to edit and well.. nothing would exist. Right now there are two pages that are actually protected, WikiFur Central and Administrators. One because it is a clear target for vandals (however, its still editable if you look at the templates that make it up) and the other because it contains how to contact the admin team if there is an attack in progress and has no data that needs changing by non-admins. All the other pages in the Protected category are not actually protected at all, they just carry the templates for the purpose of demonstration. This of course doesn't include those who asked to be excluded.
 * The other problem is that when you placed in the note to start, you did so without logging in and without giving any kind of notice as to why (that's part of the purpose of the summary box). If a strange edit like this occurs by IP user, we can only assume it was someone playing around. I did of try to assume good faith though and leave a note here, requesting an official request be made, rather than doing anything like blocking the IP user from editing.
 * The thing you have to remember is that as a wiki, anything written here will when it is completed be the truth. True there are some articles where people have written poorly, but the fact it is a wiki will clean this out and correct it. No one should be scared of being written about if there is nothing bad about them to be written about, the wiki strives for a neutral point of view and unless it is reached the article will continue to be edited. The community will then protect these articles and ensure they remain high quality. For an administrator, it takes one click to go back to the last version of an article, and if a user does it, about 4. No change is ever lost. To be perfectly frank, the only thing that happens when you protect an article is that any interest that a reader might of had in the subject is lost. When they hit a dead-end page like this, they are more likely to frown and turn away from the subject than look for it further.
 * --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 05:20, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in until after I had made the edit. Sorry 'bout that.


 * The only reason I want my article locked is simply for privacy. I got enemies that could easily vandal my name and I just don't want that. Call it paranoia. I've never truely done anything wrong. As my friend pointed out to me the other day, the only thing that causes me to have enemies is that I state my opinion, rather loudly. And I'm good at arguing, he said. --Crassus 08:19, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, heh, btw, regarding what you said about "truth"... Truth is held in the eye of the beholder. The only thing closest that could ever be had to the truth is a consensus on what the majority considers the truth, and history has shown that consensus does not always equal the truth. "The world is flat", for example. Fiddler on the Roof touched on this subject. "Well he's right.. And HE'S right.. but they can't both be right!"... the real truth is, they can. --Crassus 08:23, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * You're wrong!


 * But seriously "a heck of a lot of people think this is the truth" is all we're really looking for. As "heck of a lot" approacnes "everyone", it gets to the point where most (hah!) people would just put it down and revert the crazies who say different. ;-) -- 03:03, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This is a user page
This should clearly be a user page, although I'm not sure how to go about moving it, and what to retain as an actual article in the main space. -- Sine