User talk:SleepAtWork

Asking your permission
Would it be okay with you to upload to wikifur? It is an animated gif of scenes from the CSI furry episode. It's 1.8MB so I'm obviously not going to risk spending the long time uploading it if it gets deleted and I'm hoping somebody else will do it. If that is not acceptable, would a link to it in the CSI article be allowed? There's no pressure if you don't agree with these. SleepAtWork 05:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I probably wouldn't delete it. It is not the best pictoral representation of the whole show, though. The animation tells a story, but it is not the whole story about the show, just as the show does not tell the whole story about the fandom. Its purpose on ED was to promote fursecution (to whit, the conversion of furries into trophies and rugs) and the selection of passages in the animation is limited to those supporting that argument. I believe that a small selection of screen captures from various points in the show added by use of the tag (see The Forest for an example) might be a better addition to the article.


 * Another thing to consider - if it takes you a long time to upload it, it will take a long time for many of our contributors to download it as well. 2Mb pages are not really a good idea. This suggests that a link to the animation would be more appropriate, with a note of the file size for those on modems. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About size, I see so many websites designed where the only way you can view them is flash. I don't know what the deal with that. The real size getter is YTMNDs where each one is huge and often a copy of several other ones with just a tiny change.  You know you're actually a pretty cool person (and probably same for others here) compared to the wikipedia furry community where any mention of furries that isn't in their "furries never yiff, or dress in custumes more than bunny ears, and all furries are heterosexual, and there are the same number of male and female furries" propoganda means a witchhunt and I think it's one of the reasons why encyclopedia dramatica has all the anti-furry stuff--and the site says somewhere it's the denial of some furry aspects that get them made fun ofthat can be compared to how the site doesn't make fun of star wars / star trek nerds with more than a small amount.  SleepAtWork 10:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Flash is not the most ideal system for web user interfaces (although it does have enviable compatability compared to things like JavaScript). I won't go so far as to say that Flash has no place. It is a good system for the delivery of multimedia content. We tend to link to that rather than host it, though. :-)


 * It is true that people are sometimes overly defensive. However, at the same time, some have good reason - there really are "furry haters" for which it is a hobby to just go out there and spread the message that furries suck. Most of them don't actually know anything about the fandom, participate in any of the events, or contribute anything - they're just having fun putting other people down. I'm more than willing to accept criticism from people like Nothingkat, who at least knows what he's talking about. And . . . well, I've not heard people make the above assertions before. I'm sure a lot of people say "not all furries yiff, not all dress up in fursuits, not all are gay and furries are not all male", but there's a big difference between that and utter denial.


 * As for Wikipedia, you have to remember that the purpose of their project (as ours) is to make an encyclopedia, not to make fun of people. The furry fandom article already has five whole paragraphs on sexual activities. I think that gives readers a fairly good idea of the extent of sexual content in the fandom. When you get edits like these, it is very easy to see why a lot of them get reverted.


 * ED would have furry stuff on it regardless, I am sure. After all, we already own LiveJournal. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Tl;dr
I reverted your edit on Tl;dr as, its content was not only an opinion but somewhat malformed and unrelated in any real way to the content of the page. I'm happy to discuss with you the edit if you feel otherwise. --Nidonocu - talk 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

hi
"Girl's amateur use of makeup by applying too much and her voice make are evidence she is a teenager below the age of eighteen." That wasn't meant as personal, though. It was more a Sherlock Holmes style detective work. I just want to be clear it was not my intention. I probably wrote it wrong. SleepAtWork 14:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It just seemed . . . well, like something you'd post on LiveJournal rather than in an encyclopedia, in much the same way as you get anti-furries taking pictures of fat people at cons and going "hey, look, aren't furries fat!" - maybe that wasn't your intention, but it was the vibe I got from your words. Her own words make her look bad enough as it is without pointing out her use of makeup.


 * A secondary consideration is that page is intended to be just a list of links rather than an in-depth discussion of them. If you really want to write up the details (which would probably include details from both videos), you could make an article on it and then link to it, as with the other articles linked from the media links page. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... you have an odd idea of copying the threads of talk and putting it on both talk pages.  Well back to the topic, I also forgot the eyebrows were unplucked (I just wanted to write that down somewhere) as giving evidence that she was a minor.  I think I'll put likely minor in the article.  Umm..  I don't know if it's worthy of an article itself.  It mostly is just a webcam video and then speaking of the vanity fair article.  It would be different if it went through the things produced by actual furries, like her reaction to furry pornography art, but I think the video looks like little effort was put into it, and the humor was mostly the behavior of the girl herself.  Encyclopedia Dramatica and some of the TV spots for instance do put some effort into their work.  SleepAtWork 15:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can just see that sequel: "Valley Girl, Furry Porn". Nuts and berries, indeed!


 * I actually think there's an opportunity to do a good video on furries and put it up there. The question would be whether or not anyone would go around with a videocamera at (say) Anthrocon and film it, and whether or not people would agree to its distribution. Maybe if it was done by someone already respected in the community.


 * I tend to copy talk because it's easier for other people to follow that way. I also archive my talk now and then, which makes it harder for people trying to follow the other side of conversation. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Off subject, when the game Spore comes out (a design evolution), I expect it may have something for furry gaming. SleepAtWork 15:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, though Second Life seems to have grabbing most of the virtual furry world for now. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

how did you do that?
In http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=CSI&action=history I see you have "updated since my last visit" highlighted in green. In the diff, the highlighted doesn't show. How did you do that? SleepAtWork 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any highlighting and actually haven't the faintest what you're referring to. All I can suggest is poking around in preferences (options can be obscurely tucked away in there). -- Sine 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (Echoed to your talk page)

Can you help?
On furluminati, Spirou constantly vandalizes the article, but no matter what I put he reverts me back to his version (and he has not even corrected the grammar/spelling errors in it). I have tried and tried to please him, but I've seen his type and they just revert nonstop as they like--just like willy on wheels likes to move pages to "on wheels" and others like to blank pages, Spirou gets his vandalism high from reverting. I keep trying to please him, but obviously he is just out to cause trouble by revert vandalism. I have put hours and hours into fixing it up and he does not care. Spirou is not here to fix anything, he is just to harass me by reverting anything I do on the article, even fixing his grammar. SleepAtWork 02:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing GreenReaper is away right now. Have either of you heard of the three revert rule on Wikipedia? I think it can apply here on WikiFur too. I'll block for 24 hours if I see a violation of the three revert rule from either of you. --Rat 03:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Spirou will then just revert 3 times a day, but still vandalize. Also on wikipedia reverting vandalism doesn't count toward 3RR.  SleepAtWork 03:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're familiar with vandalism, you'll know that Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. So don't be claiming edits are vandalism unless they are explicitly bad faith. This applies to edit summaries too. --Rat 03:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I considered it explicitly bad faith. SleepAtWork 04:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As GreenReaper has taken over this issue, I have no further comment. --Rat 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the killhamster article here?
You said: "I would note that the article about "killhamster", whose article was used as a reference, was deleted, twice, for being totally full of nonsense added by himself and his friends."

I referenced his livejournal and the edit dispute in the LJ was talking about on ED. Umm... did he make an article on wikifur? SleepAtWork 09:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. It was at various times a duplicate of User:Killhamster on ED, and/or random nonsense. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Meet the Furries article
I created a stub for the article you requested (by the way, I found there's a section under the Media Coverage category for "stuff that doesn't have an article yet") under Meet the "Furries". Feel free to edit it; I just added the bare basics. Spaz Kitty

Recent blanking of conversations on talk page
Please don't blank conversations from your talk page without moving them to an archive. It is important to maintain a public record of conversations between wiki users about the wiki. -- DeVandalizer 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I answered it off this wiki and wished it private. Read my edit summaries next time.  SleepAtWork 13:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read your edit summary and, in my opinion, it did not justify removing that information. The accusation made by GreenReaper and the associated evidence is public in nature and does not qualify for removal under the personal information policy. In addition, this conversation concerns users other than GreenReaper and yourself -- namely Taurin Fox who appearently asked to be excluded in part due to the edits you allegedly made. I will not restore the conversation right now but I will seek the advice of other admins on this matter. -- DeVandalizer 13:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I too am not happy thatthe conversation was blanked, but I will not restore it at this time. I will wait until the private discussion on the matter has concluded.  --Douglas Muth 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what I did to upset Taurin Fox? SleepAtWork 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? All your little inflammatory edits constantly referring to ED even though he made it clear he didn't want anything on his article here referring to his article there? To the point where he asked for his article to be /removed/? I'd say you did plenty. And for the record, I disagree with removing GreenReaper's convo. But we'll see what he says when he returns. Spaz Kitty 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should worry
Miltopia is just trolling. see. Don't feed. Tretonin 08:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DON'T TALK TO YOURSELF. Redfur 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)