Talk:Karl Jorgensen

Older discussions can be found here.

Commonly known
If he is actually more commonly known as Xydexx, surely the article should remain there? Is it proposed that this has changed over time?

I could totally understand using his real name in the sections relating to the person and real-life activities, though. --GreenReaper(talk) 01:27, 17 March 2014 (EDT)


 * Actually, it should read "better known as" (person, not object, will change after this). If it is him, the edit indicated "revert real name vs. fan name", where as the article is normally changed to indicate the user's latest name/handle/aka preference. I don't think it has changed (the few times I have seen the person's "name" brought up is under the fan based one), but if he wishes to be know article wise under his real name in the article (inside and header), normally its edited it to reflect this.
 * But if the article should serve better under the more common known name (furry lore wise), I can change it in one edit (easy). All though, temporarily, until the better way to represent the individual is chosen (real name or fan name), I edit it as we normally do to preferred name changes (lest we be accused of "not respecting" a user's Wiki right of representation).
 * In short, yes, I can change the edit to reflect real name inside the article, fan base name on article. Just making sure. - Spirou 14:30, 17 March 2014 (EDT)

Exclusion request
The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:48, 20 April 2014 (EDT)


 * User is well known furry user and a contributor to a substantial part to the history and lore of the furry fandom, so I would indicate Keep, but if other people that have made an impact on the furry culture (see Charla Trotman) can be excluded, the point is moot and his wish for exclusion should be granted; unless the user is a continuing beneficial contributor to the fandom (see Fred Patten) or a detriment/possible further fandom liability (see Mozdoc, Evil Sibe, et al), which it's neither the case here.


 * Suggestion of separate the Xydexx's Axiom of Fandom Enjoyability onto its own article. This argument/essay/expressed point of view was used frequently in discussions on AFF and multiple sites during the mid-90s until the early 2000s. Consideration should also by given to the Furry Fandom Infocenter, but it already seems to have its own standalone article. - Spirou 23:23, 20 April 2014 (EDT)


 * If his involvement is significant and has a material impact, it should be covered on relevant pages, some of which may already link here, such as furry apologist - perhaps that would be a good place for the "Axiom of Fandom Enjoyability" quote and reference? The mention at Anthrocon seems sufficient to cover his contribution there, although I'm sure more could be said for all the staff. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:07, 21 April 2014 (EDT)


 * Copy/pasted the "Axiom" portion out of article so it may/could be included into the suggested article, so P/E is clear to go whenever to wish to implement it, GR. - Spirou 00:56, 22 April 2014 (EDT)

Question
Can someone explain the bug xydexx has up his ass regarding wikifur? On Twitter he just can't stop whining about it, obsessively picking at it like a scab. Is it true he got bitch-slapped with a ban for vandalising articles?--82.132.234.220 22:23, 21 July 2017 (EDT)