Talk:Wolfee Darkfang/Archive1

hello, I would like to know where you got your info 1. the FCTC is NOT part of the PN 2. the FCTC was formed in summer 07 3. the FCTC could have no contact whatsoever with wolfeedarkfang 3 years ago since it was created summer 2007 4. when the FCTC discovered the beastforum page and posted it, all the information was deleted 5. ???? 6. PROFIT!!!

kthxbai Whyusman 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)longdong

Adding on to what Whyusman said.
The FCTC wasn't created specifically to fight furries on YT, this is just unwarranted self-importance on the part of the furries getting trolled. Nobody is going to dedicate a trolling group with around 100 members to pissing off furries on YT. The FCTC is a general purpose trolling group that just happened to get involved with the war. 86.42.218.23 14:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Everyone's favourite Irish troll

Wolfee Darkfang/Yiffy Yaffle
I notice that User:wolfeedarkfang has removed large portions of this article on the grounds that the information was about the person Wolfee Darkfang and not the character Yiffy Yaffle, which this article is about.

In this case, should an article on the character's owner be created, and this character-article be merged into it as would normally be done?--Higgs Raccoon 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I went ahead and moved Yiffy's article to Wolfee Darkfang. Spaz Kitty 17:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. The original Yiffy Yaffle article was started by greenreaper when he met me in second life. He didn't know at the time, Yiffy Yaffle was just a secondary name i gone by. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfeedarkfang (talk • contribs).

Pronouns?
The person known under the name "Wolfeedarkfang" is male, as evidenced by pictures of him on YouTube and his voice. It seems he edits this article himself, which is why I'm unsure of the protocol, but referring to the person known as Wolfeedarkfang in this article as "she" is obviously incorrect. If the article were over Yiffy Yaffle specifically, then I could see why, but when it refers to the person himself... that doesn't make sense to me. Can I get any confirmation on that? Unless he is a pre-op MTF transsexual, then I can understand that. (Nexnix 05:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC))


 * It's a tricky question, and probably one that you might best address directly to the subject. We don't have a firm policy on it. Wikipedia tends to use the gender used consistently by the subject, if any, which is why I suggest asking them. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, paragraph four has a random subject shift and seems to have nothing to do with the article as a whole. If no response to the discussion page is made (this wiki tends to be inactive), then I will proceed and edit the article myself. (Nexnix 05:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC))


 * I've removed the section about ownership transfer as it really has very little to do with the subject of the article and is better covered on the appropriate articles. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks. I'm always pretty hesitant to edit wikis, especially when I'm not as "known", because most of my edits get reverted. (Nexnix 06:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

My fursona "Wolfee Darkfang is a FEMALE. Just because I am a male does not make my fursona a male. Please refrain from editing my article with such fictional statements. Here is a reference image. you can clearly see she has breasts. http://images.wolfeedarkfang.com/rebelwolfee2.jpg (Wolfeedarkfang 06:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC))


 * I was under the assumption that this article was about the player, considering it has a separate mention of the fursona 'Yiffy Yaffle'. My apologies, though. Perhaps, as the player mentioned in this article, you can clear those the confusion up to readers of this article who may or may not understand? (Nexnix 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC))
 * On that note, what I mean is that it says this: "October 2004 wolfeedarkfang found Second Life, where she created the account Yiffy Yaffle." This is misleading and it makes me think that the article is about the player, wolfeedarkfang, and not wolfeedarkfang, the fursona. Do you see what I mean? The reason I have a beef with this is because your existence came to my attention by way of a friend, and I didn't think that your YouTube channel was actually yours due to misleading pronouns/subject use. But, considering it's an article about you, I'm not going to go against your wishes since it is technically kosher under the wiki's rules. (Nexnix 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

The furry Second Life logo
After noticing this little tibid had no citations I decided to do some investigating. After searching various furry groups in Second life and seeing the logo nowhere I asked SL users on Fur Affinity's forums. They too had never seen the logo. Considering that this is said to be "the official identifying symbol for all furry presence" within the program, it seems as though this was either a half truth or outright lie. I removed the section because of it. --Paxilrose 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't look hard enough. The logo is prominent in several Furry/non-Furry Locations (Abbott, Furnation, Lusk,...) Having passed the image file around to users that requested several times on the last four years I will say that the logo is more than real. Wolfee Darkfang was indeed the artists being the design, which was presented at "The Forest" old location (pre-Taco) along with several alternate designs.


 * All thought real, and at one point hoisted on all major furry sims, the push to interest new sims and new owners to the standard up is no longer there. A more concise research may avoid deleting actual data like this one in the future - Spirou 03:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Now at what point was this symbol hosted at the major sims? Was it a fairly long ago? I find it odd that dozens of people and quite a bit of research had turned up absolutely no evidence of such an image ever being prominent, let alone a unifying, though it being an archaic symbol may answer that. I'd also like to raise the point that the section should still be amended, since it seems like something that is or was "the official identifying symbol for all furry presence" to be virtually unknown by a significant of those asked about it raises issues about it's notoriety. Due forgive my skepticism on the issue, as knowing the aforementioned artist for quite some time and being aware of his complicated relationship with the truth coupled with the fact no reference or citation was given made me unsure of the authenticity of the claim.--Paxilrose 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The location of the standard/flag/pennant/sign was up to the owners,... Furnation had it at their welcome sim, Abbott's used as a port sign to furry locations, Taco had it near its gazebo, The Forest one was a flag near the landing pad,... On 2006, there was a lot of intersim talk to keep all sims up to date when it came to anything furry. Such efforts, now 4 years later, seem to have been wash away, but that's life.


 * As I was around those venues around 2006, yes, I got to witness this communication effort first hand, so it did indeed occur. But, it doesn't seem you have a problem with the data itself, as you have with the person in question, do you?. Please, put aside any future PoV views you have when editing, as you could have damaged a bit of furry SL lore due to personal dislikes - Spirou 04:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * * "But, it doesn't seem you have a problem with the data itself, as you have with the person in question, do you?" I find this disrespectful. As I said, after looking for evidence myself, asking others for their personal experience and finding nothing to verify the story, I concluded it to be false. I specifically cite asking others for their familiarity with the symbol and they too had never seen it. Given that the section had no citation and seemingly nobody backing it up, I chalked it up as another exaggeration. You yourself have just stated that this particular image's prominence was years ago and has indeed faded over time, logical reasoning for coming up with nothing.


 * I have edited wikis for quite some time and know the difference between simply being mistaken and deliberate vandalization. Considering I specified my reasoning and referenced my sources for coming to the conclusion, I'd appreciate not having a minor mistaken being attributed to somebody's "He's out to get me!" claims. --Paxilrose 04:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize, then, if I sounded brusque, not my intention to accuse you of anything, just editing methods quibbles - Spirou 04:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Spirou, perhaps you could put this information in the article, as you seem to know more about it than anyone else here. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How could I do that?,... I came by by chance; A large group of furs were gathered in one of Furnation's sims, specifically on a platform that they had used the nite prior for an Iron Builder(?) competion. I caught the middle of the conversation, but in a Reader's Digest version, Fur sim owner's (Nexus the only one I remember to date,) and users were both chatting away about the furry presence on SL, how to make it more mainstream within the grid, come up with some kind of interconnected BBS placed on all major sims welcome gates, 3D directional maps (somebody popping up a Death Star like displayed with dots to represent sims,) the problem of griefing, how to combat it non violently (or just by some, ignoring it,)... the discussion winded down, and I caught some discussions here and there about this endeavor. Along the way the logo came up, with a note that (some) participating sim owners and users had agreed to use it as an "official" graphic to symbolize furry on SL.


 * For some reason I remember helping pass the logo image around to all the furry airport sims' owners, to fly up near the welcoming pads. After that, I keep seeing the banner/flag flying in several furry locations, the first non-furry I saw being Abbotts.


 * As it being a general consensus by every furry all over the grid, no, it was not. Was it a large consensus by users and sim's owners on that day on a sim that was one of the most popular at that time and place, yes. It was the only time in all the years in world were people came to an almost agreement,... By now, thou, just another abandoned idea, as fleeting as the next sim layout on any large furry sim.


 * Screenshots?, well I took one of the logo when Wikifur came online, and as most of grid lore, hardly no events make it out to the web printed sites (all though Wikifur is filling that purpose now). First person viewing/account is all I got for you, sry - Spirou 04:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "I suggest giving specific locations where it was displayed instead" Guh! Gods, I would need to actually search for that info =P Most of the sites/sims have been removed/replaced/rearranged,... FurNation Worlds, The Forest, Serenity Woods, Taco, Abbotts Aerodrome, Luskwood (all thought I just popped in world to snap a pic, the banner is gone), Fur Valleys, FlyinTails Airfield, Rainbow Tiger, Lost Forest, and establishments I cannot longer remember =/ Never ocurred back then I would need to have some reference material - Spirou 04:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I can give some pointers as to researching this. The logo was created during a meeting of the furry sim owners, which was easy to do at the time considering there weren't very many. We had the leaders of furnation, fur valley, and some rogue sims and some hosted by anshe chung studios. We decided we needed a logo to represent our alliance. While everyone was deciding i jumped into photoshop and created it, and posted it on a flat panel prim where they can all see it. Since noboy else was there to give other logo ideas, i won and my logo was used. I think the following members attended, but there must have at least been 15-6 participants. infernial savage (i think thats how his last name is spelled), nexxus ambassador, ron overdrive, angel fluffy, the owner of meeting island, the former owners of taco who now co own luskwood, luskwood, and i'm not sure but i think anshe might have been there, but i think she was busy and couldn't attend. --wolfeedarkfang 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Paxilrose is here simply to hide my achievements from the public and turn furries against me. he wants to give me the false impression that the fandom hates me and wants nobody to know what I've really done to help furries. This way more people take his side. I would truly appreciate it if he was stopped or at least not allowed to comment on my article. he has been attempting to troll me for over 2 years, he is afraid to admit he is wrong, and while most trolls move on after they had their fun, he sticks around like a bad disease. --Wolfeedarkfang3 04:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See? Like that.--Paxilrose 05:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he's right. Your only purpose here, as displayed by your contributions, seems to be to denigrate Wolfee Darkfang, and to glorify your meaningless battle against him. Don't think you can use your wiki "experience" to blind us to your interests here. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This had been brought up before, and I had explained my case to you. Not only did you ignore the first time I explained myself, but another request to contact you went ignored, so I assumed you took no issue with my means. --Paxilrose 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Undoing text removal
I am reverting this edit, as Wolfeedarkfang's edit comment (Please refrain from posting it here. YouTube drama needs to go on my userpage not the article of my second life character.) suggests he may be confused about the nature of Articles and User Pages.

On WikiFur, it is not our practice to have separate articles for people and their fursonas. Hence, this isn't an article solely about "(your) second life character", it also covers *you*, the character's player.

Also, while Articles on WikiFur are open to editing by everyone, User Pages are essentially personal pages where (generally) only the User in question makes changes, and can have whatever they like there. Thus, a User Page isn't a substitute for an Article. Relevant information shouldn't be cut from an Article and dumped in a User Page, as it discourages free editing and discussion of that information.--Higgs Raccoon 14:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then essentially things have changed since this article was created, and this would mean both the article and my userpage would be duplicates of each other. :/ This was not my intention. The article was originally about my second life account "Yiffy Yaffle" but the name of the article was changed to reflect my fursona name instead, which i don't think i authorized. Either the article should be deleted or made into a redirect to my userpage or something to prevent duplication. We don't need 2 pages for the same thing. It's too much for me, the creater of the pages to manage. --Wolfeedarkfang 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's OK, you're not really meant to manage it anyway - the community is. :-)
 * We don't redirect to user pages because the User: namespace is (within reasonable limits) under the user's control, and WikiFur doesn't offer articles that are under the subject's control. The User: page is available for you to put forth the things that you want to say personally, but it's main use is to describe your activities as an editor at WikiFur. Compare RainRat and Kendricks Redtail to User:Rat and User:KendricksRedtail. What we usually end with in the non-User: area is one article with two sections - one about the character, and one about the person. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete Revamp of the Page?
Should we completely rewrite the page? Wolfee has taken it upon himself to edit out everything that isn't about SecondLife, and, instead, posting it on his own page. Since the pages should be made without bias, should we include everything from a third-party standpoint? When people are directed to Wolfee's page for everything else, it makes other furs/people believe he's had absolutely no wrong in any of this. I'm not pinning all the blame on him; however, what he has done should be shown as is. Zhael 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a such thing i think should not be standard practice, and that is duplicating pages. If you want to talk about youtube, keep it on the pages related to it. This page was never meant to be related to it. I created this article to talk about my second life character. Nothing else. Wolfeedarkfang 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * On any wiki, one does not have the main parts of themself split up into separate pages, unless the length is such and the content is divided enough that it needs it. This is true from Wikipedia itself, to any of the Wikias, even to parodies like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Uncyclopedia.  The user page is meant to be a personal page, not an extra page in and of itself. Zhael 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case it was needed because my second life account has a life different from my fursona. They did things in SL such as administrating sims and creating a logo for SL furries. This separates them from wolfee darkfang. The youtube drama has nothing to do with yiffy yaffle. Wolfeedarkfang 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand, and respect that you and Yiffy Yaffy are not the same person emotionally, but it is connected enough to have them both together. Like I said previously, this is to prevent both bias and confusion. Zhael 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well just be advised i will revert any changes that defame me. I'm not saying you have, but just be aware i don't want false facts or hate comments on my articles. We have enough of that on ED... Wolfeedarkfang 23:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I plan on adding everything that involves you that I know and can site. This may include controversy, but I plan on not having any sort of negative or positive spin on what I say. My idea is not to defame you, nor is it to praise you. It is only to present what pertains to you in a professional way.  I will admit that I've read your ED article, but I've been following you long before that. Zhael 23:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok but be aware that ED bares no reality about me. Most of it is made up or merely loosely based on events that took place. If you base anything you say off of it, it will most likely be incorrect. You should base things off of other sources instead. Wolfeedarkfang 23:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because I read it doesn't mean my proof comes from them. I also do not agree that it is made up or loosely based, I will say that some of the facts are... inflated, for lack of better word. I can site what I add. Zhael 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a iffy feeling about this quot off your userpage... "I do not identify myself as a troll, but I do argue with those who I have ideas about. The most recent of this is WolfeeDarkfang, who had called me out quite a while ago, whom I held a grudge against". This gives me the impression you will be biased in favor of anti-wolfee propaganda. I hope this wont be the case or i will have to take action. I think i know who you are now and you did make some hate videos about me. You're one of the people who attacked me on youtube after i left the e-drama and made my videos about MrD. MrD and i have made up since then. I don't trust you but if you say your gonna be non biased I will hold you to that. Wolfeedarkfang 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice how I follow it up. I pulled that video about a month ago because I decided that you weren't worth it. Forgive and forget.
 * But I didn't follow propaganda. You probably don't remember me, but you personally attacked me via a YouTube comment when you allowed public comments. But you probably mistook me as a troll. I'm incredibly heavy on my opinions when I believe in something.
 * But it's water under the bridge, and it's not worth bringing up. I no longer see a point in holding grudges. After all, it's either a mistake, or it didn't actually "hurt" me. Zhael 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also see this as if you have a grudge. if you didn't then why are you targeting wolfee and still have it stated that you "had a grudge" on your page.  That seems like you have a particular agenda and still have a grudge.  --Slash V. Lagopus 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said I'm targeting? I'm no longer a supporter or an opposer. What I plan on adding puts him in a better light, and it goes against him, simply by all fact.
 * Why Wolfee specifically? Because he's who I know about. Like I said, I've followed him for a fair amount of time. Why would I do that? I used to be a part of the furry war. Now, I no longer care about it. It's actually quite funny. I'll stop when I feel I've done a sufficient amount, then move to someone else I know. I know a reasonable amount on others in the fandom, such as Taggz, LeeuRex, and others, where I could make a page about them.  I just know mainly about Wolfee.
 * As said by Gene Wilder, "Good day, sir."


 * Zhael 01:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This page was supposed to be about my second life avatar not my fursona
This page was supposed to be about my second life avatar not my fursona. You can even ask GreenRepaer about it. He knew me in Second Life and my accomplishments there, and that my own userpage is about my fursona outside of SL. If you wish to combine the two, then just make this page a redirect to my userpage.

I contacted my friend tamias who has been involved with the youtube community as long as i have and asked him to help me out here. Some things i had him correct are the validity of zhael's claims that i left the community, the false DMCAs, and being banned. None of these things ever happened. Here is the truth. I never left the community. I still make videos. I merely left the e-wars between anti-furs and furries, I've never been banned from youtube. I was hacked and closed my account after wrestling over control of it. I then had it re opened. I have never filed a single false DMCA in my entire time of being on YouTube. I have filed DMCAs but they are all valid because my copyright of the cartoon character Wolfee Darkfang was breached. Already zhael is being biased and you admins who know nothing about what happened are letting all of this slip. What ever happened to being valid? Wikis suffer from being open for all people to contribute, because lies and ignorant false facts slip right into every article if a admin has no knowledge about it.

--wolfeedarkfang 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't bias my facts. If anything, I'm just annoyed you're trying to defend yourself. Within ten minutes, Tamias had been registered, and your page be made to how you like it. I know he's an actual friend of yours, but you only got him to register to defend you. No opening statement, no nothing. Just to change your page. Honestly, it's incredibly hard to believe.  I have nothing against you, I cannot stress this enough. But when you jump on me, most likely because I'm younger, I have a personal idea.  I can site everything, I can refute your claims, and yet you continue to say that I'm being unfair.  I'm sure we could get along if we had a fresh start, but, sadly, I'm afraid neither of us are willing to make that first step. I tried, but apparently I was ignored (check your discussion page).  I'm going to continue to post only what I can prove. Zhael 03:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zhael, everything has been biased and looks pretty much like its based completely off of ED ontop of that nothing has been referenced that you say you can reference. if you have proof Zheal then post them on here rather then being immature.  As far as Tamias is concerned he made an account after I told him about what was going on as he knows wolfee better then I do.  --Slash V. Lagopus 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zhael, both you and Tamias appear to be here just to edit this article. You have made assertions of fact that are disputed. Please provide your citations here so that the matter may be discussed, rather than playing the revert game. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be honest, I am completely tired of repeating myself. What started as a simple addition of facts turned into a battle. I already said when I'm done adding what I can to Wolfee, I'm moving to another fur, and another. LeeuRex, Taggz, CalloeWolf, among others.


 * Citations?
 * http://www.beastforum.com/showuser-133488.html
 * http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=992522#post992522 and http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=992596#post992596. Now, looking at that, compared to :::::http://www.youtube.com/t/terms?gl=GB&hl=en-GB, http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=992632&postcount=236, and http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=992570&postcount=226, it is proved he either DCMAs for the wrong reason, or false DCMAs for things that pertain against him.


 * I'll make what I write only use "neutral" words about him (Which I believe I've done a good job on) if I have the ability to post on this page. However, I agree to talk to Wolfee before adding sections on him, if he agrees to this. Zhael 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Furaffinity Forums LMFAO. You do know that the people who created and contributed to topics are friends of paxilrose the almighty troll right? These are self hating furries who are willing to believe anything that anyone says bad about the fandom. Using that as citations, you might as well be using ED. This has already been discussed before many times. Wolfeedarkfang 03:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reading a select part of what I wrote. My offer still stands. I'm completely fine with ending this at any time, but you have to agree to it, I can't just give up. That would make me either weak or confirm your suspicions that I'm a troll, whichever. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think of the other people, Paxil has a valid point. Zhael 04:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As tamias, felinoid, and myself are on voice chat in second life discussing this at this very moment, we all know that the beast forum account was created during a troll raid on beast forum and that like every other forum of that same software, a user can easily change their username. That is why the link to the page is a number rather then having the name of the user included. Sorta like in second life we all have UUID keys because if for any reason our name has to be changed, the key is there to make sure we can still interact with things that know us by our key. It works the same for the forums. Paxil does not have a valid point, he made up a lot of stuff about me. Which is all in the past, mind you... Right now i see paxilrose neutrally. I have no problems with him right now. --wolfeedarkfang 04:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why does BeastForum have concrete evidence it was you? And sorry, Paxil does have a point. Sorry, but I've seen the video before it was pulled. I've followed you, and I really thought you were right on that, until I saw his post referring everyone to the TOS and the direct quote. I'm not saying this applies to now, but every time I tried to add it, it was changed right back. Once again, it seems you are paying no mind to my proposition.

Zhael 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The beast Forum account was created during a troll raid on Beastforum. A common feature on this site is to easily change the user name of an account. Additionally the account filled under wolfee darkfang was never used. This account was brought up the Fried Chicken Trolling Crew during their campiagn to slander wolfee darkfang and ruin his reputation in the youtube furry community as well as other furry communities throughout the internet. --Tamiasthechipmunk 04:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Most likely because that stuff was posted by the troll who owned the account? Derp derp derp...--wolfeedarkfang 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Admins? Of a much used site? Trolling your account? See how they banned it and posted the proof as an admin? I'm honestly loving the selective wording; picking just one phrase and arguing my entire point. Did i say it was a admin? No... You can lie on your own profile you know... I could post on my youtube profile right now that i am the queen of england. --wolfeedarkfang 04:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The admins have posted the truth, hon. They put the proof there, not the trolls. Are you insinuating that they are lying, which would compromise their entire website for libel? If so, why haven't you sued them, yet?. Zhael 04:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You actually believe that was a admin who posted on the account? Wow you really are ignorant. Also Several of my friends have emailed the support team of beast forum and they either never reply or they state "we do not give out any information about our users". So any information claimed to be from a admin is obviously bullsh!t. Like i said, the user wrote that in their own profile. They may be banned now but they weren't always banned ya know... --wolfeedarkfang 04:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Riddle me this, Batman: if they were banned, why wouldn't the admins delete all the stuff. Once again, the libel suit is present. Instead, they have every argument to against someone who would say it isn't you.  ::::::You do realize they also said that anyone who emails them without a just cause really isn't worth their time, too, right?
 * Remember, though, you're a grown man arguing with a minor. I'll have to go, soon, but I have time for days. Any time you want this to end, just look at my deal. It may not be there forever.


 * Zhael 04:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt when a account is banned it gets wiped... Take furaffinity as a example. When you look at a banned account there, it still shows the account's info, they just can't use it anymore. You should consider getting a job for fox news. You do a much better job being biased then Glen Beck ever could. This is a known forgery everyone is aware of as a forgery. Even the trolls know. They only kept egging me on about it because they got a reaction. They put this to rest a long time ago. You're only necromancing it. I declare this argument over. I have better things to do then argue points i've made billions of times within the past 2 years. I left the furry drama for a reason. It's tiring, stressful, and regurgitates it's self. And here you are contributing to it. It is Over!. --wolfeedarkfang 04:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This only proves what I've said. First of all, they have the power to do it manually. Secondly, I wasn't biased until you took it upon yourself to insubordinate me. Third, you can't just call things over. You aren't the supreme master. Fourth, you claim me of being biased, when you've called me, "ignorant," "immature," and other things. Basically I WILL LET THIS END, but not until you agree to what I have to say, or at least read it. ::::::::You just don't seem to want to even bother to want to know what I've said. Hon, just actually read what I've said, and tell me what you think. No bais, just facts, your approval.  But if you don't want that, I can always just write what I have cited.
 * PERHAPS MY SHIFT KEY WILL MAKE YOU READ IT. I'm tired of being ignored, whether it's status, notability, age, whatever. You've yet to dispute several claims, and it seems you don't have proof. Once again, this ends mutually, not when you want it to. Just read what I've said before.

Inconclusive
To Zhael: Just jumping on this first day, it it's quite obvious that most of the the "data" presented is suspicious and refutable, and using Paxilrose rose (fake cons) as back-up is something we have learned not to use here at this wiki. You seem to have a strong desire for a vendetta or to label this person with a quite damaging brush for X reasons. Please post concrete, valid and verifiable data, because so far, the ones presented are just tenuous hearsay,...

...And that means do not repost the same data so far over and over so far, please - Spirou 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will post what I've said and he has yet to refute himself.
 * On the first day? I just edited the page, he became defensive. Sorry dear, but I'm just trying to edit a page, then create another. I would have let him be if he did not turn this into a personal attack. I already said I would put him in both a flattering light and post the controversy, but not out of bias. I would do it with facts.  I've already proposed to not post anything without his approval, but he doesn't care to read what I say.  I want to be good with everyone, but when Wolfee strikes, it seems everyone else does. Zhael 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A) I'm not your "Dear", B) I don't care about his actions towards you or anybody else unless rude, offensive, threatening or condescending, and C) As asked for proof, please post concrete, valid and verifiable data, and that means do not repost the same data so far over and over so far - Spirou 04:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission Please
Please allow me to delete the talks I've had part in. I'm sorry for what I've done, but I am not at total fault. This is as much Wolfee's fault as it was mine, along with anyone else who was part of this. I ask I also have access to editing his page, when public allowance is back up, if I can cite a "concrete source," as, apparently, my first person accounts along with testimonials do not count. I know of a couple YouTube videos I can use. I will, however, leave out information on BeastForum and the DMCA accounts. I'm tired of arguing, but it's not my fault completely. I take responsibility for my parts in it, however.

Zhael 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend against this action it wil be videos from trolls such as empiroqkrit or paxilrose. Which will be 100% biased due to the fact he refuses to let me speak my part on the matter and continued to revert changes that corrected him before. This person is simply wishing to vandalize my article, which should not be tolerated. We have already seen his "non biased" *caugh* bullsh... edits. Any further allowing of such treachery should be mal advised. He claimed to be non biased, yet he lied in most of the article already. What makes you think this will change? Spouting anything made by trolls, and refusing to allow my side of the story? Yea that is the definition of biased. I recently made a blog entry about this kind of thing. Check it out. . --wolfeedarkfang 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article wasn't biased. The argument wasn't made so until you made it. Your fault, take responsibility. Zhael 22:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zhael the "sources" you have are either disputed or have been debunked. Wolfee has said this, the admin talking here supports it. The only thing I see in your edits to the Wolfee Darkfang article is the same slander and bullying made against Wolfee by internet trolls like those Wolfee has mentioned above. Unless you have solid concrete citations backing your edits then I suggest posting your edits on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Wolfee Darkfang as unfounded slander and bullying is perfectly acceptable on that Wiki site. --Tamiasthechipmunk 01:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend you actually read what I've said.
 * THIS IS MY POINT:
 * I have repeatedly offered to end this, in exchange for Wolfee's approval before adding anything else. All you want to do is accuse me of things I HAVE TRIED TO END. What you guys don't understand is that all of you have positive connections with him, therefore, I don't get a word in, because you won't listen to me. The equivalent would be me telling an eggplant it's an orange; it won't listen, and it won't do anything.


 * Zhael, you were constantly reverting small revisions such as changing "community" back to "drama" and changing the part of being "accused as being a leader" to "self appointed" without any regard. Every change no matter the slitest change in how it was said was changed to be biased against.  You also called wolfee and tamias liers and making comments "You aren't fooling anyone, Wolfee.", "stop trying.", "Lawl, YouTube. This is more accurate, anyhow.".  You keep being childish on this whole thing and you are only referring to other trolls with hearsay.  This kind of editing has no place on wikifur.  Reverting things back and forth is tiring childish on the littlest of changes like changes to just one word.  No one is attacking your age but if you mentally mature and take things seriously and can form an opinion other then what trolls say or whats on ED then there would be a chance to take you seriously.  Now just to the point Wikifur is not ED and is not for this drama.  While the page is locked down start working on someone elses article.  At the moment you are showing you are single purposed and really has no intent on really doing any contribution to wikifur then to defame wolfee or put a negitive slant or just whine on the talk. --Slash V. Lagopus 02:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of this. Everyone taking part in this has personal contact with him. What I did was work against his revisions, as, like before, the whole story wasn't told. My changes kept being reverted without just cause, as they were not explained UNTIL NOW.  And, sorry, already working on other people's articles. Since this went on lockdown, I've been working with Taggz on his, and I'm planning on CalloeWolf next time he resurfaces. I'd so love it if people actually listened to me.
 * Nothing of what I've said has been listened to.
 * Everyone who is part of this is a Wolfee supporter, so you will have nothing to do with me. You want this to be a serious site? Then act like staff on these affairs, not a friend. You give him special treatment. Don't deny it. I'm not listening to the denials, sorry.


 * Zhael 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You say your changes keeped getting reverted without just cause or explanations? "Correcting 1 part. I never stated i was leaving the community. I stated i was leaving any drama that had anything to do with anti-furs and furries. Entirely different" There is one explanation yet you reverted it back making childish comments in the summary.  Also you say that your changes just get reverted back.  Well on that note before you came along there was no youtube section.  It has stayed and it has been corrected but you wouldn't accept even that.  I am not biased for or against wolfee as I do not really know wolfee that well.  That is why I stayed out of the edits to the article.  Also on the matter on people not listening to you, if no one was listening to you then there wouldn't be a list of responses.  it would be just you talking on this page with no replies.  I am not a wolfee supporter and I defenetly don't agree with everything he says.  As far as friend maybe, I am a friend to a lot of people but that is not influencing this one bit.  Like I said before keep ED on ED and keep well founded statements that are not hearsay and opinion (and I watched wolfee's videos on leaving drama and it does not say hes leaving the community but leaving the drama). --Slash V. Lagopus 03:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, allow this to drop.
 * That was the point of this section, but you necroed it, just as Wolfee accused me of doing. The point is that I wanted to be good with Wolfee, but I was assaulted.  I want out of this. I will continue to edit the page, but I'll be posting firm citations and I'll let Wolfee do what he wants, but please, I'm tired of being completely ignored.  I'm done arguing, not because I'm wrong, but because I might as well not be posting anything, as nothing I've said has been listened to in it's entirety.
 * Please, pull my stuff.


 * Zhael 03:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep saying you are completely ignored when I responded to everything you said. If you want this to stop then you stop.  You say you wanted to be good with wolfee then don't post what the trolls say.  if anyone is ignoring things that are said it is you.  Now as far as pulling this off well on wiki it never really is deleted and not my place to remove it.  If you want this arguing to end then this should be the last message on this topic.  Good luck editing other articles and in the mean time and stop with the poor me attitude that is totally exaggerated like the statements you were putting in the article.  I would also suggest reading  Furry Book of Style for future reference on editing wikifur articles. --Slash V. Lagopus 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Several parts went unanswered, but I'm finished.
 * The false sincerity and snide remarks don't go unnoticed. I want a fresh start, and that was one of the first things I tried to do with Wolfee, but I'm done trying.


 * Zhael 03:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * it is hard to get sincerity and welcomed response if you call people liers and start off the snide remarks yourself. First impressions that you gave were very bad and you keep showing that you wont change what so ever.  you say you want this to end but you continue to go at this every reply I give back. --Slash V. Lagopus 03:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wolfee Lies
(This is of course directed towards administration, of course. We all know Wolfee/Tamias' response)

We have him admitting to the BeastForum. Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest, and everything was posted here until a moderator ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag. I completely understand not wanting unsavory factoids litter the hugbox that is WikiFur, but do understand the difference between "We debunked them cuz they were lies!" and "We didn't allow it because it contributed to a negative atmosphere". be aware this was a very widespread event regarding this individuals and many furries, not merely "fake contributors", will verify Wolfee did lie about his involvement, did later admit to doing so, and does attack people that call him out on these events when they're brought up later.

These events have led to Wolfees at best mixed (at on average far, far worse) reputation in his chosen community, and as such should not be exempt from being discussed on what touts itself as a comprehensive wiki on all things and people furry. As I'll point out again, as with Sibe, eventually some individuals are going to gain such a negative reputation to the point where some reference of it will be acknowledged. This does not make it "obsessive trolling/hating/etc", that's what happens when someone willingly involves themselves in as much drama.

All it takes is one talk to the administration of FurAffinity forums and it becomes clear that Wolfee's talk of "super organized elaborate troll conspiracy that is all totally lies that were super duper debunked" is more than a just tad exaggerated, to a point where he maintains the entire forum is full of anti-furries because they disagree with his manner of handling himself. Understand that people can have negative opinions of people and solid proof to back them up and it should it get to such a point people will bring it up. Aggressive revisionism and sanitizing every negative comment is not a professional way to handle dissent.

Everyone's favorite, --Paxilrose 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow your still going on about this? You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you? Do you even think most furries care? And why do you need to make a new paxilrose account? You already had one here. You even have a page on yourself last time i checked. I smell impostor. --wolfeedarkfang 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (Legit account) - Spirou 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You silly fellow, the conversation had continued obviously in my absence. Look above, friend, you'll see a huge issue of controversy was the very matter I addressed. A tad late (2 weeks or so) to the party for sure, but I see no reason for that to be of any significance considering it's still an obvious hot-button issue. As a result, I'll address your issues in order:


 * "You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you?"
 * This is actually what the privious comment was about, namely presenting said evidence and it's swift removal for reasons I can only conclude to be cronyism. Several examples were brought forth and a dialogue was requested, both were soundly ignored without much justification other than "I do not want them here", but on the contrary you're apparently able to go on about "Oh yeah we found them out a long time ago it was hackers and I ended up looking awesome" as though you have it set in stone without having to show anything to back it. Either due to Admins genuinely not believing what I bring to the table or whether they're extending this site to you as a heaven to be rid of your reputation out of a courtesy to someone they deem to have it rough,I'm not sure, and is what I'm asking about.


 * "Do you even think most furries care?"
 * Now see this is a loaded question, since again, as I've pointed out, when furries disagree with you and your methods, in your mind, they evidently cease being furries altogether. Your blog pretty explains as much, unless of course theres an alternate meaning to that post you'd care to share. As FurAffinitys forums prove, to me and you, apparently there is a significant amount of furries that think this is true relevant. Going by your history and usual defense mechanisms, however, you're more than willing to toss these out the window in order to keep up an appearance of "furries V. haters", even 'ol Zhael up there has been a victim of this logic of yours. So that's a pretty irrelevant point.


 * It's really not about whether or not it was you there on BeastForum, we have proof and an admission from you. What I'm inquiring about is when is it ok to bring up well known grievences with so called "famous furries", when is it legitimate to narrate one side of an issue without evidence (since you and yours are apparently touting this "faked and hacked" account as Word of God and basing this on nothing other than "C'mon dood, it's trolls!", why other evidence can be tossed out without much acknowledgement and the opposition deemed "trolls and obsessive harrassers", and the explanation as to how management here deems what is appropriate and what is not. Once more, I'll point to the Sibe article. Pretty damning stuff there, no? But why is it acceptable to advertise his misdeeds and not your own? There's tangible evidence of it (whether or not you want to argue it's authenticity or not is another matter, it exists and backs up what I'm saying. You've brought up almost nothing as far as your "truth" about hackers and false Admins go), other furries are well aware of the goings on (again, whether you believe them to be "real furries" or not is besides the point), so why is one relevant and the other is not? For what it's worth, I recall you bringing up that one or more Admins here are personal friends of yours from SecondLife, so I have a feeling that and that alone is the reason you're free to re-write history as you deem fit and bully children into quietly accepting it. At the same time, as far as "fake contributors and obvious trolls" go, I find it only appropriate to counter you and your comrades version of "the truth" and bring up a rebuttal that not only me, but a significant number of your beloved furries consider factual and relevant. I find that much is only fair.


 * Same old account, btw. Even the Admins will verify that much. Then again who knows, right?--Paxilrose 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica a more suited place to slander people on? The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that? Its not like Wolfee is the President of the United States. He's just some common Joe nobody that the world could care less about. Yet you seem to think that Wolfee is some scandalous celebrity rip for tabloid picking. --Tamiasthechipmunk 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that?"


 * This reasoning is based around the rational that there are people out there deliberatly lying in order to attack him, which would be ill spirited and inappropriate. However, you ignore the fact this did happen, and so is a completely different issue. You know it happened, you know there are furries that know it happened, such as our boy above. Yet you always stress it as a "furry V. troll" issue and try to paint it as something that affects all furries is it's let to be aired. But that brings us back to my other point, what of the furries that don't believe you? Why are they less credible? What makes Wolfee and you more important or noteworthy that such attacks should be considered heinous character assassination?


 * There's a difference between continuously hounding someone who has never done anything to anyone and trying to bring them down for shits and giggles, it's quite another to report on and argue on what both furries and 3rd party observers deem relevant history. You can argue the methods are dirty and committed in ill will, but when you argue "This never happened, we totally annihilated that and if you don't believe us crawl back to the hole you came from" and then bring nothing to support this other than "They are assholes, that's how you know they are making it up", you're outright lying.


 * There's a difference between "omg they're lying!" and bringing up an unflattering history. We both know this is something old Wolfee here would definitely like to forget, but lying and intimidation to push a story you can't back and that few believes is not the way to handle this. Fur Affinity forums should have a been lesson in trying to twist arms of your fellow furry in order to look good in front of them, and in the end only makes you look bad. Admitting you were embarrassed by a bullying asshole (yours truly) is bad, but threatening and trying to force a revisionist history (with again, nothing to back you up) makes you look like you have something you desperately need to hide. And do you remember who comes a'knocking when people cause a scene to hide something embarrassing?


 * You can whine "No, you just hate furries and hate us because we are super awesome furries" all you want, but as you can see this reputation of Woflees is only getting worse and worse and his reaction is only digging the whole faster and faster. Painting yourselves as an eternal victims only works for so long, I suggested an alternate approach before your "mixed" reputation in the furry world continues to deteriorate. I'm gonna go shoot the shit with those guys on FAF for a bit.--Paxilrose 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather then repeat myself for the 1 zillionth time, Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> ... Nuff Said. Don't go away mad, just go away... --wolfeedarkfang 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing that some of you do not understand is the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources and therefore is not a reliable information and thus should not be placed here on Wikifur. Yet there seems to be an outright drive to make the Beastforum angle a part of Wolfee's article. That is the point I am making here. --Tamiasthechipmunk 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> ... Nuff Said.


 * You do understand why people will hear you say "Well I said it was mine but they're pissing me off again so fuck it I take it back" and not necessarily believe it, right? You seem like you can't understand why anyone could ever question that reasoning. And on that note, if you said it was yours then take it back, what good was your word in the first place? You can apparently take back and change facts on a whim, how does this make you a reliable narrator?


 * "the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources"


 * And there we go. You didn't prove it was "beyond a shadow of a doubt false", as you've been claiming. You're saying you don't believe there's ever anyway anyone could possibly prove it wasn't. A valid point, but there's a world of difference between those two statements.


 * Furthermore, why shouldn't be be part of the article? It is how Wolfee gained his furry "fame", for the most part. Whether or not it's something you want and something WikiFur might let you get away with sanitizing, it shouldn't come as a complete shock that people (many of these people being furries) think it's relevant enough for a mention. Wolfees's infamy came as a direct result of BeastForum and his subsequent counter-trolling shenanigians, and noting that is at least worthy of a healthy debate, especially given this is an entire wiki based on furry facts and history.--Paxilrose 01:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can ramble on and on all you want about how you wish your beast forum propaganda would be posted on my wikifur page but it will never be here because it's not true. There is never going to be the possibility of it staying here. Keep it on ED where that kind of slander is allowed. This has been argued for the past 2 years and both sides seem to repeat themselves and regurgitate the same points at each other. It's way beyond old, and damn annoying. I left the furry drama on youtube to get away from this nonsense yet you people feel compelled to keep attacking me knowing full well that it will get my goat. I find it odd how a lot of trolls claim they wish i would go away, and i was even hacked once, yet the moment i try to leave under my own will, all of a sudden i got every troll and their granny coming after me. You guys really need to make up your minds. Keep the beast forum lies to yourself for crying out loud. And as for trying to make it look like i have a bad rep with the fandom, i call bullshit.


 * Most furries either don't know me, or don't care. There are a lot who like me, but the only ones i know of who dislike me are your little insane paxilrose possy over on FAF who swallow down your lies and propaganda like the koolaid it is. These people cannot think for themselves and have to be lead on a string. They don't even put any effort into thinking otherwise in fear of being labeled a wolfee supporter. This is even worse then when cidsilverwing calls everybody heretics for not immediately taking his side on something. We can sit here and argue till we are blue in the face, but afterwords i will still stand by my points, and so will you so lets just cut the crap and stop this already. And don't tell me that if i stop, it wont bother me. I'm not leaving this page till i know for sure you have or until a admin steps in and puts a stop to this. BTW You still haven't told me why your on a new account. Either that or it got drowned out by the flood of lies you told of which i skipped most of. If the case is that you got banned, why are you still here? An admin should do something about that if it's the case, Amirite?. --wolfeedarkfang 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, just said cannot be proven one way or another.
 * Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
 * kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.:


 * Just give it a rest. The beast forum angle is not proven facts meriting an addition to Wikifur. But then again I quess I'm wasting my time trying to tell you this esp. when you seem to flatly refuse to listen and realize this. That's no suprise to me whatsoever becuase you seem to dismiss what the actual subject of this article is trying to tell you and instead go by what amounts to hearsay unproven facts and BS said by other internet trolls. Wiki's like this one does not nor should not go by hearsay, they should go by information back by solid undisputed facts. --Tamiasthechipmunk 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What pisses me off about this situation is that Wolfee and Company are scrambling over each other to cover the facts from going public, even though they are way too late. So what do they do? They claim an impostor made it when the BeastForum admins themselves testify about Wolfee's efforts to cover up the account. Want proof? Here's some proof. I'm sick and tired of WikiFur's cooperation with Wolfee as opposed to actually presenting the facts like a real wiki should. Unlike Lt. Daniel Kaffee, we readers CAN handle the truth. -- KentuckyFriedGunman 17:03 PDT, 9 April 2010
 * This shit again? It's been said a billion times that account was created and owned by a troll during a raid on that site. Names on that site can be changed. That is why the link to the user page is a code rather then a actual user name. I also want to point out that KFC here is a troll from youtube who has refused to listen to logic about the DMCA claim crap. I even gave him a copy of my claim ID for the registration of my copyright of wolfee darkfang direct from the ECO but he still refused to accept the fact that i own the copyright and kept spouting his lies.--wolfeedarkfang 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's KFG to you, good sir. When I "trolled" you on YouTube, I pointed out that the purpose of your copyright registration was not to protect your work from bad people, but to silence any voices speaking against you, fur or non-fur, via abuse of YouTube's broken DMCA report system. The exact reason why I attack you on Blogger and YouTube is because of your actions in this and similar situations, labeling any people standing up to you as an "anti-fur troll". That's defined as fascism, and it is people like you that give the fandom a name and reputation that are much to be desired. Back to the subject at hand: I would love further elaboration on how the testimony of the BeastForum admins themselves were faked. Finally, spell my damn name right. I hope you can spell a three letter acronym.- KentuckyFriedGunman 18:32 PDT, 9 April 2010

...

 * Oh ok, so negative background history is never appropriate for WikiFur whether they are cited or not and at no times should ever be written, especially if it's against the will of the subject. Gotcha.--Paxilrose 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

An so
In this conversation, Wolfee Darkfang;


 * Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, just said cannot be proven one way or another.
 * Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
 * kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.

All of which I said you'd do, all of which you'll deny doing, all of which you'll claim never happened. See? That's what I'm talking about.--Paxilrose 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "We have him admitting to the BeastForum.(A) Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest,(B) and everything was posted here until a moderator(B) ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag(C)."


 * (A) Could you post the admission?,... (B) You known this how?,... (C) How you read that from the actions of the moderators, and why would the moderators care?,...
 * For a "Zoophile, why does his ID/name/handle doesn't appear anywhere else?,... Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him,... Most Zoophiles don't care about who they are, why wouldn't he,... Why try to label him with such fury, has he been uncouth towards you or your friends?,...
 * Finally, who would you believe?,...
 * - Spirou 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (A) Any way I can link it privately? I'm sure he's forgotten about it and I'd rather you see it before he's able to pull it.
 * (B) Was on my own page, which was deleted due to me "not actually being a furry and a troll". I'm unsure if i can view deleted pages, if you could it was one the Paxil Rose page.
 * (C) Based on Wolfees admission that he is close with a moderator or moderators here, coupled with the fact the entire page was pulled "because he's a troll". This fits in nicely with him having a friend do him a favor, if not it's a very nice coincidence given the blog he posted promising he have exactly what happened done.


 * "For a "Zoophile... your friends?"


 * As brought up before, the zoophilia was a catalyst for other, more infamous behaviors and actions, including FurryOps "counter trolling" forum and the FAF vendetta (basically trolling and attacking others all for the sake of "proving I'm not a zoophile"). In addition to being the kicking point to the actions that later garnered him his "fame", this is his rational for slandering me and "fellow trolls and brainwashed sheeple" (aka anyone that doesn't believe his "massive hacker attack" alibi) as, if he's to be believed, genuinely psychotic people who are out to attack some random nobody for no reason and keep it up for years and years. However, this "lunatics out to get me" theory loses quite a bit of that punch when it's understood that there are no hordes of anti-furry maniacs fabricating evidence, but merely a group of people bringing up cited history based on his own actions. While you can argue that's anal as all hell, it's certainly not the obsessive, vicious gang of thugs out to ruin a good, decent mans reputation as he'd like you to believe. By allowing him to continue to spout this anecdotes and actually feeding into them (as you've done), I don't see much of a difference between what you say I'm trying to do and what he's been doing the entire time; ruining peoples names based on lies. If his concerns on the matter are valid, why not those of the opposition?


 * "Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him"


 * For what it's worth, he did befriend several notable, open zoophiles during the incident. --Paxilrose 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And of the "lunatics out to get me", there is not a single Zoophile that would out him?,... - Spirou 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm the alleged lunatic. Also, if he's befriended them, why would they out him "to the trolls"? What sense would that make? He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him, what difference would it make if a fellow zoophile did the same? You do see what I'm getting at with this, no?--Paxilrose 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is becoming more obfuscating with every post - Spirou 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I call bullshit on what pax just said "He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him". I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are. I have talked to a lot of furries about Furaffinity Forums and a lot of people like to stay clear of that place because of the idiocy and bitter hatred over there. Other then what i refer to as the insane paxilrose possy, i don't know of anyone else i have said this about. Except voltagecontrolled but he was exposed as a troll anyway and he has been trolling furries every since so he was a wolf in sheeps clothing anyway. From my perspective paxilrose and his followers are the ones committing this act when they choose to label anybody who does not agree with them a wolfee supporter. Check back in the archives of this very talk page for proof of that, by our past encounters with Zhael trying to claim that arcticfox was a wolfee follower just for not agreeing with him. --wolfeedarkfang 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "This is becoming more obfuscating with every post"


 * If he's their friend, they won't out him if he doesn't want them to.
 * "I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
 * "I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
 * "I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."


 * And there we go. --Paxilrose 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a cohort of Paxilrose's and a witness to the entire drama, so I'd like a word in (Wolfee called in long-time tag-team partner Tamias, so I think it's reasonable I join in). I'm not going to argue for or against the validity of BeastForum, because frankly it's mostly irrelevant, as whether or not it's real (I think it is) is minor compared to the drama that was caused by it simply existing. What BF and many other miscalculations of Wolfee Darkfang have caused is drama, drama which has been around for over 2 years and has had many people involved. I don't know, perhaps they'll deny it, but I can personally claim that this drama has had a huge impact on the online life of Wolfee Darkfang, enough to warrant a comprehensive cataloguing on WikiFur. The opposition may deny the validity of certain details of the drama, but they can't understate it's size and significance. Many people have been involved in it over it's course, it has spanned several websites, it has forged friendships and mateships (as in the case of the above Wolfee Darkfang and Tamias), it has inspired people to set aside their differences and rise up as one on both sides. This was quite a big deal, and not just for Wolfee. As unflattering as it may be, sweeping the existence of this drama under the rug does not do justice to everyone else in the furry fandom affected by it, and those who may be affected by it still. We're not here to destroy anyone's reputation, we're here to give access to information for those who may yet have the pleasure of encountering Wolfee or his associates. They deserve to know that he was accused of being a zoophile, and that he took a series of increasingly ill-conceived steps to deny it, they deserve to know that he was run off of FAF for reasons so and so so they may make up their own minds. We're not trying to silence the opposition, we're trying to make sure the opposing party doesn't do it themselves. Brazen 08:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The furry/troll drama that erupted on youtube has indeed had a significant impact on Wolfee Darkfang, to which is already acknowledged in this article. It is true that Wolfee Darkfang had been accused by anti-furry trolls of having a Beast Forum account. However this does not negate the point that the Beast Forum account accusations are highly contested. As I have explained further up this page there are factored at play that cast serious doubt to the authenticity of evidence supporting the claim . Given that Paxilrose is a known internet troll who has been harassing and insulting Wolfee Darkfang on the Fur Affinity forums and Youtube for the past two years, the motives behind his persistent efforts to include the Beast Forum claims on to Wolfee Darkfang's article are questionable at best. Since there is insufficient evidence supporting the Beast Forum claim, adding this information would serve no purpose other than spurring undue suspicion and speculation over a claim that cannot be proven as fact. Therefore the addition of the beast forum claims would add a negative bias to this article and therefore should not be added.


 * --Tamiasthechipmunk 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And you don't think excluding mention of BF will add a positive bias to the article? Contested or not, true or not BF was the focal point of the drama for almost a year. Without mentioning it or what came out of it your entire perspective on the conflict comes down to (and as far as I can tell, is) "Wolfee Darkfang is so awesome and charitable and great he helped furries everywhere and that's why trolls are attacking him". You may not have realised it yet if you're still maintaining this belief, but this POV is actually very biased towards Wolfee, to an extent that you guys would/have/are appearing arrogant to the many people who come in contact with you and who might have otherwise taken your side. I say this as your longtime friend, but more importantly, as somebody who has been dealing with this sort of thing since before coming to the internet, a lot of the time when you blame Paxilrose's supernatural e-hypnosis abilities for having furries turn on you it's actually the way you guys present Wolfee as a martyr character that turns them off. You're not doing yourself any favors by striving for having an article with absolutely no negative connotations as anybody can look at the article history and see that the stuff about Wolfee Darkfang is largely written by the man himself or the guy he e-sleeps with, and so dismiss the whole thing as positive bias. You'd be much better of portraying Wolfee as a flawed character by admitting "Yeah, you know, there was a BF account and I guess it did look pretty bad, the trolls did find some nasty evidence and I guess I did kind of fuck up a lot in trying to defend myself, but whatever, that's in the past".


 * Ultimately though, I don't think it's just up to you what's written in the article. The entire premise of unbiased documentation revolves around articles like these not being the subject of manipulation only at the hands of one given party. You guys want a flattering article, we want a scrupulous detailing of unflattering events to be included also. Both sides have a sizeable following so both sides should have a say.Brazen 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"You guys want a flattering article, we want a scrupulous detailing of unflattering events to be included also." ...And there lies a caveat,... Unless the data is so furry worthy/know (Thumbles the dragon, Michael Hirtes, Sibe), a normal fur may select to omit certain information from their article, including up to, yes, Zoophilia. No, is not to keep Wikifur tidy, or ass kissing friendly, is because that's somebody's personal article, and, as long as it doesn't affect the fandom, he or she may select that option (most common use to omit data, personal name, location, sexual orientation, sexual preference, mate's name, place of work, and on) - This is not the WWF, but this the outcome - Spirou 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who ever the bastard that hijacked my account for 30 minutes: (A) FAIL, and (B) FAIL some more,... you had Wolfee Darkfang article and all of Wikifur under your fingertips, and you just taunted me by email, giving my roomie enough time to brute force back into my account. And by the theme of the emails, I now what side I should pay not attention to. But now back to the regular edits in progress - Spirou 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm taking a break from this,... another Admin is welcomed to this mess,... I wouldn't recommended - Spirou 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * inb4 "Oh God Paxilrose is hacking WikiFur admins when will the madness stop?!" without anything resembling proof to back that up.--Paxilrose 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hacking admin accounts is not a way to win consideration. It just further shows the low ball evil tactics your side will stoop to to get your way. --wolfeedarkfang 22:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Shut up Paxil, I didn't say it was you,... Shut up, Wolfee, I didn't it was Paxil,... Both of you get a Midol/Paxil shake, and really, realllly get a life. Don't you guys ever stop? *sigh* - Spirou 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow sorry spirou. You do know that I wouldn't even have a need to say anything here if certain people didn't keep attacking or wanting to attack my article and stuff, right? I haven't really posted anything here in a few days. It's paxilrose and his cronies who keep posting and starting stuff. But i guess i will continue to hold the upper hand and omit from this conversation until further issues arise. --wolfeedarkfang 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)