Talk:Squee Rat

I have recieved email requesting the removal of this page from the person concerned. In the interest of preserving a link between the identity while in the furry fandom, I intend to leave the redirects from Chuck and Death Versace to this name, but not the person's current userid and their real name. Presence on other pages should probably be changed to Squee Rat if using one of those names. -- 07:19, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Gee, Mark has being a little busy bee, hasn't he =/


 * So it seems. I wonder if he's bothered to poke archive.org about their records of his work? Which reminds me, someone should start an article about the 'Fur Ring' webring (yay for Usenet archives to tell me who this guy was). -- Siege 09:30, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not believe this is necessarily the case. People have and will continue to dislike being mentioned on WikiFur. Mark was quite reasonable with his requests, and an appropriate compromise was found for the tricky points. Others have been what could be most charitably described as "somewhat less reasonable". :-) -- 08:29, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * (???) I thought that the entry was to be reopened, long time ago, as long as all privacy data was deleted?. Why is Squee, the alias, locked, but we keep Sibe (with private information on display) open?. Even the "Random" entry was brought back after being "sanitized,"... Spirou 06:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My reasoning for that would be that Sibe is (or would be, if he wasn't in jail) still an active member of the fandom rather than having made efforts to separate themselves from it as Squee has, and also that while Squee was not entirely positive with her interactions with the fandom, as far as I know she was never a personal danger to any members of the fandom. Her notability appears to have been pretty much entirely due to the Burned Furs.


 * Random did not disagree with the presence of the article, just the presence of their real name. That's what I've been going on so far. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On long past discussions involving exclusions, it was the point of the contribution/notoriety of the person vs the fandom (and her five years influence with the BF movement was felt by a lot of people and/or institutions) the reason some felt that certain entries should be open to perusal, past or present. I'm on that camp, minus the fact, that, if asked to, any and all privacy information should be deleted.


 * The "separate themselves from (fandom)" is a bit of a cop-out, and we have hear that argument before, specially from people that know they have done "something" to the fandom to be "remembered by." "Her notability appears to have been pretty much entirely due to the Burned Furs,"... Exactly, and Sibe was Warez, Random was trolling, TDK was copyrighted furry porn, KAK was her personal psychosis, etc...


 * And her entry exclusion just prompts people to Google and retrieve her data, including private information, from the world wide web... But, this is just my two cents on the matter,... and the only reason I brought this up again is that I thought the entry had been reopened along with Random's one, minus the private data ^-^ Spirou 07:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Translation: Squee admits to being a bitch and can't take what she dishes out... 71.193.172.79 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hearing somebody say that anonymously is really quite funny, especially when a simple IP search shows that 71.193.172.79 is Paul Johnson, aka . 70.113.94.176 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hearing someone pick on someone for being anonymous, while being anonymous, is quite ironic. So, would you like to tell us who you are, Mr. cpe-70-113-94-176.austin.res.rr.com, or should I start talking blind guesses too? --Douglas Muth 19:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)