Talk:The Lining

Voyeur Room
In regards to http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=The_Lining&curid=3536&diff=61110&oldid=61109&rcid=62223 , I'm wondering if it should have been deleted. As WikiFur can be used for historical information, something going down is not automatic cause for deletion. But since I'm not on Tapestries, I don't know if it's notable enough in historical context. --Rat 06:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bi/Gay/Straight bar"
The above term may have meaning for bar experts, but to those not familiar with it it just appears to mean "a bar [that happens to be open to those of all sexual interests]". Is there any way to more clearly define its meaning to people who may not be used to bars? --GreenReaper(talk) 14:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * reply from Banner posted elsewhere:


 * The difference at it's most basic level would be: You'll find threesomes there. The next big difference is that you'll find a mixing of all types there. Regular bars primarily appeal only to straight people, and that's 99.9 percent of who you will find in them. Same for Gay bars, you'll find 99.9 percent of the people in there are gay. In a B/G/S bar you find a mix. Remember too that there are -male- and -female- gay bars and they rarely mix. Again in a B/G/S bar you will find gay males and females mixing, as well as some straights and a lot of bisexual people.


 * This is a unique mix of people, which leads to a different atmosphere. Straight and Gay bars are NOT very tolerant places. If you don't fit in, you're run out. B/G/S bars, because they cater to no one sexuality, are very tolerant places. To go beyond that, well you'd just have to experience it. Somethings are not easily explained to someone who has no understanding, you just have to experience it for yourself. Which of course is why you rely on the advice of experts after all.

Lining Closing
I reverted the last edit by Banner, I feel that it was seriously not NPOV. It was self contradictory (did it because he was told to keep it private ... posted it to a website and linked it publicly?) and made assumptions about my actions stating them as fact instead of banner's opinion. The version by the original author, while not terribly flattering to either of us, was better, which is why I added a link to the wizard's statements and just left it at that. I was quite happy to see someone else had posted something reasonable because I was dreading trying to write it. :P I don't think that the revert dropped anything from the article value wise, but others may disagree. (thus, talk page) ---WhiteFire(talk) 09:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think rereading there may have been some additional information that revert removes. I tried to work it into the article presenting both points of view on why the material was posted to a website instead of on forums. --WhiteFire(talk) 10:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it looks a bit too inflammatory. How about 'The lining was closed due to a disagreement between the lining owner and the muck owner' and the date and leave it at that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.124.169 (talk • contribs).
 * Because that's like saying 'how about we change the Iraq War article to say 'The Iraq war was started due to a disagreement between Bush and Saddam' and leave it at that'. We may be a furry encyclopedia, but we're an encyclopedia nontheless. And that means the cold hard facts, no matter how harsh it may seem. Spaz Kitty 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer this myself, but it's been made clear that "emotionally charged" information is welcome on WikiFur. You can see my thoughts on the treehouse and the responses for more on that subject. See like all three comment pages on Sibe too. I believe the argument is that (paraphrased) drama is part of furry history. Which is true, it's part of all history, I guess. *shrug* Work with what you got.
 * I'm really poor at trying to represent the opinion of someone who's ... well, who's position I just can not grock. Someone who can remain neutral and still grock this may do a much better job. If you think you can, go read Banner's reverted version. --WhiteFire(talk) 01:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better idea, how about Whitefire keep his paws off of my bar now that he's deleted it and I've been booted off of his Muck? The Bar now exists elsewhere and it's really no longer his concern. His running here to immediately put in the the closing is rather interesting. I posted my resons for closing it, because as the owner I have a right to do so. I posted the further details to correct some of the BS that was in his MOTD. --Banner
 * He has just as much right to edit this article as anyone else. No doubt we will end up with a more balanced article if we have views and opinions from both sides of this disagreement. --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 07:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not create the section on the bar closing, and in fact didn't add more than a link to it to the wizard's statement on the subject originally. Please look at the edit history. I only started editing it extensively when you posted clearly biased material to it deleting the other side of the story. This article is not yours, it is documentation on the fandom managed by WikiFur. It is not your bar, it is an article about it on a third party site. --WhiteFire(talk) 08:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have again restated your edits as your opinion, and added back my own, also stated as opinion. --WhiteFire(talk) 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to make any changes to the deletion and toading section. However I would like to point out that when a person complained on the forums about a place being denied a building permit, their character was immediatly stockaded for 3 days. There was nothing inflamatory in that post, it was the only post they ever made to the board, and it just goes to show, that yes, you do get punished for saying the wrong things.

As for the stockading of my character, followed by the toading, they had a lot of time to tell me what happened in an email, at least 12 hours, before I discovered it (possibly longer). Saying that I discovered it before they could contact me, is pretty bizzarre. I only discovered it when I could not log in. I think I'm also the first to be toaded for the first offense on posting a communication between myself and WF. Banner
 * Said user was stockaded for contacting alts of wizards on the muck itself. Such was posted publicly at the time of the incident. The posting of private communications with myself to a website also weighed into Crassus' removal from the Muck (which is discussed on the Treehouse page on this site.) I was very slow getting email out to you because I had goofed the email and got distracted by RL, and didn't realize it had failed until well after I was told you were aware of the situation. I suppose "compose an email" could be changed to "successfully compose an email" to be absolutely accurate. I am hardly perfect. --WhiteFire(talk) 10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarified a few things that I thought weren't clear. Banner
 * You removed portions of the arguments made by the wizards. While you may not agree with the wizard's position, deleting material designated as something the the other side of the argument believed because you don't agree is inappropriate. Reverted edit. --WhiteFire(talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)