User talk:71.231.123.250

Referencing of criticism
Hi there! You recently made edits to Dogpatch Press regarding supposed criticism of their activities. Statements like "has received criticism" and "appear more valid to critics" tend not to stick around unless references are provided to attribute that criticism to groups or individuals. Basically editors (and readers) want to know "who said it?", "what did they say?", "when did they say it?", "where did they say it?", and possibly "why did they say it?" - otherwise, it tends to be read as WikiFur's opinion - and the site as a whole is not intended to have opinions. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:17, 24 April 2017 (EDT)


 * I'd rather not have my furry identity exposed due to the sensitive nature of recent events. Myself and many others have been outright banned from commenting or blocked due to criticizing articles on 2, and RMFC. 71.231.123.250


 * The problem is that "an anonymous person claims they were blocked from commenting on Dogpatch Press articles because of prior criticism which they posted" just isn't going to fly without evidence. Otherwise we (WikiFur) end up making a claim we can't substantiate. Conversely, if there is a statement from them that a commenter has been blocked because of their comments, we could point to that; and if someone notable has actually criticised them for doing so, we can say that. You see how it works? --GreenReaper(talk) 04:33, 24 April 2017 (EDT)


 * It's not exactly balanced if the person has to be "notable." If I were to show the comment I made, and the subsequent block I would be exposed. Since the articles I linked regard 2, and RMFC I would rather avoid accusations of Nazi appologism, bigotry, etc. For example, I spoke up about this tweet: https://i.imgur.com/CZUhmBB.png which I was blocked for. I said "A furry journalist shouldn't be making statements like this" which was met with a block, then followed by a response I obviously couldn't read. Quite a few others experience the same thing. It's apparent DPP is willing to publish slam articles about people they (the person writing these things) don't like what would make me any different? It's obvious that a writer at DPP has it out for 2, and other Colorado area furs. (Possibly relating to the other two cons folks are trying to start there) To quote bubbles "Something's fucky" about who, how, and what they write about.
 * Being blocked on Twitter doesn't delete the tweet you made about them. Anyway, surely you're not the only one making such comments if you feel they're notable enough to be added, you can cite other people, too. --Equivamp - talk 05:01, 24 April 2017 (EDT)