Talk:Babyfur

Discussion Pages '''I've split this talk page as its displaying the length warning. If you can't find a conversation you were taking part in, please see archived pages.'''
 * Page 2
 * Page 3

Removal of #bfd
I'm curious, why is #bfd being removed? The channel appears to exist and have people in it. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (EST)


 * It's politics, actually. The people who run babyfur.me are buttmad that members of #bfd troll their website, and as such are making an effort to pretend like they don't exist or are irrelevant. This happened a couple of years ago too, after a previous channel (actually a much larger one) had been responsible for a major troll attack on the babyfur community. Essentially babyfurs can't handle that members of their community identify or behave as trolls.


 * It's not that babyfurs "can't handle" the fact that some who calls themselves babyfurs are trolls, but rather that such behavior is irrelevant to the definition of "babyfur", which is what this article is about. It's like saying that because some furries are trolls, they must receive mention in the Furry article on this site, which is ridiculous for the same reasons.  As for this IRC channel specifically, I'm avoiding involvement because I know nothing about it, I merely reverted an anonymous edit to the last contribution by a registered user.  However, I fail to see how babyfur trolls are relevant to the Babyfur article, any moreso than babyfur auto mechanics or babyfur Team Fortress players are specifically relevant.  -- Natasha Softpaw ( talk 05:10, 12 February 2012 (EST)


 * It's relevant because it was a list of babyfur irc channels, and was removed for 'being an insignificant channel', and as greenreaper pointed out, that is just not true. It's actually a decently active channel (as far as irc channels go). It should be noted that when it was first removed was also the same day that a number of other similar removals occurred on other pages. As far as I can tell, someone (most likely an admin on babyfur.me) was just trying to censor information that might lead more people to a group that they have a personal vendetta against, due to the fact that a few members of that group had been involved in trolling their website. (It's also interesting to note that if you go on their website...their profanity filter includes the names of certain people...) Again, it's all politics and censorship and really does not belong on a wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.125.132 (talk • contribs).


 * As a side note, are you saying that the reason it was removed was simply because the edit was from an anonymous source? because if that's so, why allow anonymous editing? I mean, it seems to me that a reasonable edit is a reasonable edit regardless of whether the source is anonymous or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.189.125.132 (talk • contribs).


 * They don't have to receive mention as trolls, but they probably should receive mention as babyfurs. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (EST)


 * There are dozens of babyfur sub channels. The creation of each one is not historically significant to babyfurs. There is nothing significant nor important about #bfd. It is smaller then many other babyfur centric irtc channels, it isn't nearly as active nor is it important in any regard to babyfurs. Not every channel a babyfur creates is historically significant or else one could easily flood the timeline with hundreds of channels that can be registered on IRC networks on a whim.


 * What are the larger IRC channels focused on the topic of babyfurs? We would be glad to list them as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:25, 19 February 2012 (EST)


 * I agree with GreenReaper, if the list consists of hundreds of active channels, then so be it. This is a wiki, it's a collecting point for information. I highly doubt there are dozens of active babyfur irc channels though. Only a handful, and #bfd is notable in that it is an alternative to highly policed irc channels. If a babyfur is banned from all other babyfur groups, should he not still have an alternative for a place to go? Or is your implication that he should just stopped identifying as a member of the babyfur community.


 * It also should be noted that, upon doing research on Natasha Softpaw's edits in the past on other articles, Natasha Softpaw displays a considerable amount of 'babyfur elitism'. In one specific case I recall Natasha repeatedly removing the 'babyfur' category tag from a person who self identified as a babyfur simply because they didn't want that person (a pedophile) associated with their community. They claimed that since the person in question didn't attend their specific social gatherings, or run in their particular circles, the person could not be identified as a babyfur, only 'tangetially' related. I believe this is an unfair stance and against the NPOV position which wikifur tries to uphold. I really believe Natasha Softpaws' bias is unhealthy, not just for the wiki, but for babyfurs in general, which are a large, and quite diverse group consisting of people with vastly differing opinions and ideologies. -- Anonymous


 * The anonymous responses are coming from Ludwig himself, who is attempting to cast some sort of babyfur conspiracy against him. The timeline is noting significant developments in the babyfur community. Opening a new IRC channel, that contrary to Ludwig's claims is not that highly trafficked, is not significant. In the history of the furry fandom article, do we note the opening of each and every irc channel with 10-15 people in it at best? The babyfur community is much larger where this is not a notable development.--Unsigned


 * Fine, I will compromise and remove #bfd from the timeline, if you agree to keep it in the channel list at the bottom of the page, sound fair?


 * As a side note, I don't think there's any question that there's an anti-Ludwig conspiracy among babyfurs. I mean, go to a site like babyfur.me and try posting a message with the name 'Ludwig' in it. It's censored in their profanity filter, whereas the word 'Shit' is not. Go figure. Babyfurs in general do not like Ludwig, and would rather any mention of him or his legacy be removed from historical record. -Anonymous


 * "Fine, I will compromise and remove #bfd from the timeline", no, you will not. BFD is part of the Babyfur history by somebody, liked or not, connected to the subculture. He has been notably entwined in one way or another to it, and his involvement and deeds are well noted and documented, so the timeline stays intact. Further whitewashing will result on the "protection" of the article until cooler heads prevail - Spirou 19:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)


 * Holy crap! Did I just get white knighted? -


 * Opening an IRC with a tiny number of people in such a large community does not make it noteworthy. The babyfur community is much larger then it once was and is no longer centralized among a niche group like it was in the late 90's and early 2000's. Opening an alternative IRC isn't relevant as it once was; alternative and niche babyfur IRC's and babyfur friendly IRC's are common place. The claims of conspiracy and cover up are laughable. An irc of a dozen people who dislike the rest of the babyfur community and have a particular dislike for a large facebook clone filled with babyfurs, does not make it historic. Not everything a babyfur who years ago used to run a comparatively large irc does is notable. Ludwig's notoriety itself is questionable as his impact on the babyfur community became near non-existant after #babyfur moved from furnet and its numbers dwindled. Snuggems and others were removed from the notable babyfurs list for similar reasons. Simply creating an IRC with a few friends is no longer a notable action within the babyfur community. What makes a babyfur worth being put in the "notable babyfurs" section is also questionable as there is no set nor consistent criteria for it and those noted within have their accomplishments noted within the timeline already, including Ludwig. The notable babyfurs section should probably be removed unless a solid criteria could be set. --Anonymous


 * "Opening an IRC with a tiny number of people in such a large community does not make it noteworthy. The babyfur community is much larger then it once was and is no longer centralized among a niche group like it was in the late 90's and early 2000's.". Welcome to how Furry Fandom history started. Burned Furs were a niche, small groups of critic furs that have now disappeared from from mainstream fur. As with bfd, they will be documented on Wikifur as part of fur history. So far all the reasons for bfd deletion ("they are trolls", "they are too small to count", "they don't longer matter",...), are petty, non reasonable, and one sided. Offer a very good reason, and the issue will be revisited - Spirou 16:52, 22 February 2012 (EST)


 * Way to abuse your power to benefit your friend Spirou. The bias is astounding and unbefiting of a wiki. What's notable and what isn't is supposed to be ruled by consensus, which is quite heavily ruling against you and others who frequent #bfd. Burned Furs also took place much earlier in the furry fandoms web history and was certainly not niche in its impact. #bfd is not important in any regard to babyfur or furry history. Blocking the article so your personal decisions stay intact instead of what the majority say is a blatant and disgusting abuse of power. --unsigned


 * Hey there, I resent that, I have no idea who Spirou is. Geez, talk about conspiracy thinking. -


 * "Way to abuse your power to benefit your friend Spirou." 1) I have no clue "who" this friend is you refer to, and 2) If you wish to make a point or edit, register, make the edit, and discuss it here. "#bfd is not important in any regard to babyfur or furry history." is just a one way, biased POV ("they are trolls, or there too few" doesn't cut it), 3) drop the "Way to abuse your power " bit, it get really old, really fast, and 4) You wish to help?, come out from behind the "anonymous"/"unsigned" facade, join, and help edit Wikifur - Spirou 20:03, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Except Spirou that the burned furs nor burned furs 2 are mentioned anywhere in the history of the furry articles. They have their own separate articles, if you personally want to spearhead an article detailing Ludwig's exile from most babyfur communities due to trolling then by all means. Evidence of such is readily available in the history of this article as Ludwig several times edited inappropriate language into past iterations that needed to be corrected. Your justification for keeping #bfd, despite not being a notable part of babyfur history in any sense is completely baseless. Ludwig can deny association with Spirou and even Equivamp, who also needed to be removed from notable furries after continuously trying to insert themselves, but it's already well known that they know each other. This article is being used by Ludwig in attempt to further troll the babyfur community, keeping it as is discredits the articles integrity and puts it on par with conservapedia where consensus is ignored in favour of a certain fews personal and incorrect opinions.--Anonymous {[unsigned|69.22.168.70}}


 * "Except Spirou that the burned furs nor burned furs 2 are mentioned anywhere in the history of the furry articles.". That's because they are big enough to stand on an article of their own, which at the moment bfd is not, so it stays with its parent article, a normal Wiki practice.


 * "if you personally want to spearhead an article detailing Ludwig's exile from most babyfur communities due to trolling then by all means." Not.big.enough.to.separate.


 * "Your justification for keeping #bfd, despite not being a notable part of babyfur history in any sense is completely baseless." "Non-notable"... That's POV statement. Fine, never mind that he is listed already several times in the "history timeline" and "notable furs", if you were to tell me that #bfd is actually a channel taken over by ED only members (not more Ludwig involvement), to troll other babyfur IRC channels and websites, guess what?. It would still be notable enough to go up on the article. You wish to change it to the "Troll" angle?. Move it to the "Controversy" section.


 * "Ludwig can deny association with Spirou and even Equivamp, who also needed to be removed from notable furries after continuously trying to insert themselves, but it's already well known that they know each other." *facepalm* Just... register and move it to "controversy" already. There are 14.000+ articles in Wikifur to be taken care of, and I'm still working on the Julie Bruin one, for God's sakes.


 * "This article is being used by Ludwig in attempt to further troll the babyfur community,...". Just register and edit - Spirou 20:34, 22 February 2012 (EST)


 * It's well documented that Ludwig is a troll, has trolled this article previously, several times, and even trying to glorify his attacks on babyfur communities. It isn't biased when it's reality. It isn't whitewashing to not note every time he creates an irc channel, as creating an irc channel isn't relevant when anyone can create one. If I created a irc channels right now and stated it's a babyfur channel, does that mean it is notable enough to be included in the timeline, even if I had 10 people in it? Of course not. When the babyfur community was barely over 100 people an irc channel with a dozen or so members was relevant. With the size of it today, it's irrelevant, especially when its purpose it to attack babyfurs. Does the history of the furry fandom note each time an anti-furry group raided a website? Each time an anti-furry group set up an anti-furry website, irc, forum, etc? It may be appropriate for wikifur to note them in an article dedicated to anti-furry sentiment, but not for articles included in the history when it has no impact and gives no relevant context to the history of furry fandom. It isn't bias when the consensus has been this is not relevant and the only ones who believe it to be is yourself, equivamp, and ludwig. --Anonymous


 * First, use four tildes (~) at the end of your posts to sign it, and Second, register and move that point to the "Controversy" section - Spirou 20:39, 22 February 2012 (EST)


 * "but it's already well known that they know each other." Erm excuse me, what? I have absolutely no knowledge of who spirou is, and I only know equivamp as an ED editor. 72.189.125.132 20:46, 22 February 2012 (EST)


 * I only know Ludwig by hearsay, how is it "known" that we know each other? O_o Equivamptalk 08:32, 23 February 2012 (EST)

Factual accuracy tags
In the days it took to whitewash the article and talk about it (pro and against), I just spent a couple hours formatting it, cleaning it up and adding more apropos links, data and history information. That said said:

The "Factual tags" involving the "Notable babyfurs" and "Babyfur media" sections (and now "History of the babyfur community") have been up for a long time, and it would behoove babyfurs to settle the matter regarding them (yes, including #bfd), so they may be taken down - Spirou 20:15, 22 February 2012 (EST)


 * They look okay to me...and I've been around longer than Proxima. They were definitely the first as far as babyfur ~anything~ online.  There are some things that could of course be added, for example FTT isn't anywhere in the history list, which it should be.  The "notable" thing doesn't really matter, I mean...nobody cares.  If someone did something or created something worthwhile then put it in the history section, otherwise it's just blatant USI.  --Onideus Mad Hatter 07:00, 29 September 2013 (EDT)

Notable babyfurs section
The section seems to contain people who founded websites, events, moderated lists, and so forth. How about renaming the section to reflect that: a section name such as "Founders and moderators" rather than the unspecified "Notable". -- Sine 17:37, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

I feel that isn't an accurate statement anymore as there are a few "new" players on the board such as Little Foxy and Chibifoxkit. -Anon