WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fritter

2011-10-03T00:52:34Z

AshleyAshes:

Removal of personal information.

I am Fritter's mate and upon request he has asked me removal all personal information due to issues outside of the fandom. He has no access to the internet and thus is asking this through me.
I removed name, birth date, location, etc. myself. I removed all the material in question via request of Fritter. If you have any issues with these edits, please contact me via my e-mail.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:This request has not been made by the person featured in this article. More over, the person featured in this article, upon pleading guilty or being found guilty, will be proven to a threat to minors within the furry fandom. To attempt to hide this information from the fandom by deleting it from wikifur, would be a disservice to the fandom and increase the risk to minors in the fandom who may not otherwise be able find this information. Finally, precedent exists on Wikifur for sex offenders to not have their names or crimes hidden for the very reasons in my previous sentence. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:06, 8 April 2011 (CEST)

::He has not been found guilty and thus, until he is, information will continually be removed upon request by the user. If this information is continue to be replaced, his lawyer will be contacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:::I have modified your post for better formatting. Please use correct formatting when using the talk page. Agian, you are not Fritter, you do not legally represent Fritter and there are no means to varify that your claims are accurate. Simply put, Fritter has not made the request to Wikifur. However, if you are announcing your intention to start an 'edit war' until you get your own way, I will recommend that this page be placed under protection in order to protect it from a needless series of edits. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:13, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

:::: Fritter has no access to the internet to make the request himself thus, is working through me. I have taken caps of the page and will take caps of the multiple requests to have personal information removed as via wikifur policy if requested. These edits are not needless. They go against your policy of privacy protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::: You threatened to contact Fritter's lawer, having someone who legally represents Fritter would be a reasonable person to use to forward the information to Wikifur. However, please keep in mind the 'No Legal Threats' policy of Wikifur, however in this case, simply using a lawyer to forward a request when one does not have access to the internet for legal reasons seems quite reasonable to me. Further more, I submit that the information on Fritter is in no way private. His name and accused actions have been the subject of news articles in international media and in at least two different languages, even Carleton University has published an article on Fritter and uses quotations from your own Facebook page. I fail to see how this page violates his privacy when it only features publicly available information in the media. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:31, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::: The everyone else is doing it does not count as a viable source. When I contact him next, this will be forwarded to his lawyer. Just because it is public knowledge it is STILL against your privacy policy if requested to be removed by the user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::: You are continuing to revert his page to suit your demands, despite polite attempts to get you to work within Wikifur's rules and it's precedent on featured Furries with criminal pasts. In the interest of keeping this civil and not simply wasting time, I will not revert your edit as you have announced your full intention to engage in an edit war. I will contact an administrator for them to weigh in on this issue. I'm sorry that you are unwilling to let this go any other way. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:43, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::::: "WikiFur allows privacy of personal information such as exact location, real name (if not the primary name used within the fandom), phone numbers, e-mail addresses, birthdays, instant messenger accounts and similar contact details. Such information can simply be removed without asking for full exclusion." "In particular, sometimes a person may ask for valid information about them to be removed from WikiFur (unattributed opinion or libel should automatically be removed). As WikiFur is here to help members of the community, not harm them, it is usually appropriate to honour this request." If this continues there will be a request for the page to be deleted in its entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::::: Requests for exclusion for furries with posted criminal histories are usually refused, as the page remaining serves the greater good of the fandom. More over, I would like you to clearly read what you quoted. 'It is usually appropriate to honor this request', there are circumstances where it is appropriate to not honor this request, and this circumstance can be seen on other pages. More over you have not submitted any evidence that Fritter made this request and expect everyone to simply take your word for it. If Fritter does have a lawyer, and that lawyer can act on his behalf to make the request, then sit and wait. In the meanwhile, as you are unwilling to accept any compromise or even exercise any patients and see starting an edit war as a solution, I've made the request for an admin to come in to assist with this dispute. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 01:20, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

::::::::::It looks like you both want my opinion, though I'd welcome hearing those of others . . .
::::::::::I feel when a person has been charged with a crime that has potential relevance to the fandom (and many do), the public interest concerns should block exclusion at least until the charge is cleared or - if convicted - the crime is expunged. It doesn't necessarily meant all elements of their real life are exposed, but it can "break the veil" between that life and their fandom identity. This seems consistent with our past coverage of convicted criminals, and also of substantiated accusations of fraud within the fandom. Of course, allegations should be presented as such unless and until a conviction is made, and the subject's plea and statements should also be mentioned. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
::::::::::So I'm gonna throw my two cents into this: I feel that the article--and the information--should stay; one of the main reasons I go to this site is to read up on furries I meet online (since it's pointless to come here to read about anthropomorphic characters) and if I met a furry with a criminal record, I'd like to know about it; it would seriously affect the relationship I have with said individual. And, since his name and DOB are mentioned in the reference about the crime, it's pointless to remove it, though I wouldn't be against it. --[[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 12:14, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Expunging? ==

We have a claim that the charges mentioned above have been withdrawn. If this can be shown to be true, how do editors here feel about removing the topic from this article, and archiving this talk page? This would be consistent with our actions in a [[Talk:Paul Kidd/Archive1|similar situation]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think that would depend on the nature of the dismissal of the charges, there are a lot of reasons that the charges could be dismissed. A lot of false information has already been presented, such as the initial edit yesterday saying that Fritter had been 'found innocent' and 'the charge against him dropped' and both of these can not be true, only one. Charges being dropped and being found innocent are mutually exclusive and both being true is a legal impossibility. This means that attempts have been made to put blatently false information of one kind or another in this article already. Details on the dismissal of the charges would be needed, namely, why the charges were dismissed. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:59, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::Withdrawn or dropped?, is it based on no evidence, or is he actually innocent?. Either way, it would enter the area of "allegation", and leaving the "Controversy section" up would be damaging. If the evidence/charges were dropped, then the "tip" was false to begin with (no victim, no CP media), so more points towards eliminating the section. Waiting too about the legal briefs - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:16, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One angle would be to keep information on WikiFur to similar or less than retention of police records in the jurisdiction. In the context of a criminal record check, looks like "The possible existence of criminal convictions and outstanding charges, as well as incidents of all negative police contacts for at least the previous five years will be considered for release." [http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/ServingOttawa/RecordsChecks/index.aspx by the Ottawa Police]. Also [http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cr-cj/nc-faq-eng.htm Questions and Answers about the Policy for the Retention and Destruction of Non-Conviction Information – Adults] -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 01:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Removal ==

How long should we wait for the information on these charges to be given? Fitter is clearly aware that the page states 'Citation Needed' but seems to have no motivation to actually cite anything. What's the point of marking something with 'Citation Needed' if all the effort to put the line there is being made, but zero effort is being made to give it a citation? Without any effort in giving a citaton, this just becomes a scheme to manipulate information. [[Special:Contributions/24.246.13.74|24.246.13.74]] 19:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's the caveat of "citation" requests - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== Not the proper way to deal with this situation ==

"''Removing uncited information as the requested citation has still not been provided''". No, it's actually proving the point with a reference link (valid) or being superseded by a valid contrary statement ("was found guilty of charges",...etc). If we had to eliminate all "citation needed" paragraphs because somebody has yet to provide one, hundreds of articles would have present information/data obliterated. That the problem about "facts" tags: unproven/dubious until proven or countered - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:55, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I think there's a difference being a citation not being provided, and a citation being specifically withheld (Assuming there's there's something to actually cite). One could easily vandalize Wikifur up and down if the simple justification 'There's no proof that what I said isn't true' was all that's needed. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::That's a personal opinion, not a a valid linked reference. Have any of you guys googled if he was ultimately innocent/guilty?. If he (Fritter) knows his outcome of guilt/innocence, he is not forced to publish/edit that data anywhere - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:09, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you asked him? - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:10, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::He's been trying to edit this page, there's no point in asking him, if he was going to attempt anything beyond an edit war, he'd have already provided the information. He knows that the page states 'Citation Needed' because he made that citation necessray but he's obviously not interested in citing anything. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]]
:::::Not the source for a citation, then, unless compelled (not likely). That leaves Google, I can make a quick sweep =/ - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 20:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::While we're at this, why is the line "Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography." maked with Citation Needed? I removed this and you restored this. Citation #4 clearly cites this and infact that sentance is copied verbatim from the news article. So why is further citation needed? [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Fritter

2011-10-03T00:14:49Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-10-03T00:04:02Z

AshleyAshes:

Removal of personal information.

I am Fritter's mate and upon request he has asked me removal all personal information due to issues outside of the fandom. He has no access to the internet and thus is asking this through me.
I removed name, birth date, location, etc. myself. I removed all the material in question via request of Fritter. If you have any issues with these edits, please contact me via my e-mail.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:This request has not been made by the person featured in this article. More over, the person featured in this article, upon pleading guilty or being found guilty, will be proven to a threat to minors within the furry fandom. To attempt to hide this information from the fandom by deleting it from wikifur, would be a disservice to the fandom and increase the risk to minors in the fandom who may not otherwise be able find this information. Finally, precedent exists on Wikifur for sex offenders to not have their names or crimes hidden for the very reasons in my previous sentence. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:06, 8 April 2011 (CEST)

::He has not been found guilty and thus, until he is, information will continually be removed upon request by the user. If this information is continue to be replaced, his lawyer will be contacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:::I have modified your post for better formatting. Please use correct formatting when using the talk page. Agian, you are not Fritter, you do not legally represent Fritter and there are no means to varify that your claims are accurate. Simply put, Fritter has not made the request to Wikifur. However, if you are announcing your intention to start an 'edit war' until you get your own way, I will recommend that this page be placed under protection in order to protect it from a needless series of edits. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:13, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

:::: Fritter has no access to the internet to make the request himself thus, is working through me. I have taken caps of the page and will take caps of the multiple requests to have personal information removed as via wikifur policy if requested. These edits are not needless. They go against your policy of privacy protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::: You threatened to contact Fritter's lawer, having someone who legally represents Fritter would be a reasonable person to use to forward the information to Wikifur. However, please keep in mind the 'No Legal Threats' policy of Wikifur, however in this case, simply using a lawyer to forward a request when one does not have access to the internet for legal reasons seems quite reasonable to me. Further more, I submit that the information on Fritter is in no way private. His name and accused actions have been the subject of news articles in international media and in at least two different languages, even Carleton University has published an article on Fritter and uses quotations from your own Facebook page. I fail to see how this page violates his privacy when it only features publicly available information in the media. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:31, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::: The everyone else is doing it does not count as a viable source. When I contact him next, this will be forwarded to his lawyer. Just because it is public knowledge it is STILL against your privacy policy if requested to be removed by the user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::: You are continuing to revert his page to suit your demands, despite polite attempts to get you to work within Wikifur's rules and it's precedent on featured Furries with criminal pasts. In the interest of keeping this civil and not simply wasting time, I will not revert your edit as you have announced your full intention to engage in an edit war. I will contact an administrator for them to weigh in on this issue. I'm sorry that you are unwilling to let this go any other way. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:43, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::::: "WikiFur allows privacy of personal information such as exact location, real name (if not the primary name used within the fandom), phone numbers, e-mail addresses, birthdays, instant messenger accounts and similar contact details. Such information can simply be removed without asking for full exclusion." "In particular, sometimes a person may ask for valid information about them to be removed from WikiFur (unattributed opinion or libel should automatically be removed). As WikiFur is here to help members of the community, not harm them, it is usually appropriate to honour this request." If this continues there will be a request for the page to be deleted in its entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::::: Requests for exclusion for furries with posted criminal histories are usually refused, as the page remaining serves the greater good of the fandom. More over, I would like you to clearly read what you quoted. 'It is usually appropriate to honor this request', there are circumstances where it is appropriate to not honor this request, and this circumstance can be seen on other pages. More over you have not submitted any evidence that Fritter made this request and expect everyone to simply take your word for it. If Fritter does have a lawyer, and that lawyer can act on his behalf to make the request, then sit and wait. In the meanwhile, as you are unwilling to accept any compromise or even exercise any patients and see starting an edit war as a solution, I've made the request for an admin to come in to assist with this dispute. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 01:20, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

::::::::::It looks like you both want my opinion, though I'd welcome hearing those of others . . .
::::::::::I feel when a person has been charged with a crime that has potential relevance to the fandom (and many do), the public interest concerns should block exclusion at least until the charge is cleared or - if convicted - the crime is expunged. It doesn't necessarily meant all elements of their real life are exposed, but it can "break the veil" between that life and their fandom identity. This seems consistent with our past coverage of convicted criminals, and also of substantiated accusations of fraud within the fandom. Of course, allegations should be presented as such unless and until a conviction is made, and the subject's plea and statements should also be mentioned. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
::::::::::So I'm gonna throw my two cents into this: I feel that the article--and the information--should stay; one of the main reasons I go to this site is to read up on furries I meet online (since it's pointless to come here to read about anthropomorphic characters) and if I met a furry with a criminal record, I'd like to know about it; it would seriously affect the relationship I have with said individual. And, since his name and DOB are mentioned in the reference about the crime, it's pointless to remove it, though I wouldn't be against it. --[[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 12:14, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Expunging? ==

We have a claim that the charges mentioned above have been withdrawn. If this can be shown to be true, how do editors here feel about removing the topic from this article, and archiving this talk page? This would be consistent with our actions in a [[Talk:Paul Kidd/Archive1|similar situation]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think that would depend on the nature of the dismissal of the charges, there are a lot of reasons that the charges could be dismissed. A lot of false information has already been presented, such as the initial edit yesterday saying that Fritter had been 'found innocent' and 'the charge against him dropped' and both of these can not be true, only one. Charges being dropped and being found innocent are mutually exclusive and both being true is a legal impossibility. This means that attempts have been made to put blatently false information of one kind or another in this article already. Details on the dismissal of the charges would be needed, namely, why the charges were dismissed. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:59, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::Withdrawn or dropped?, is it based on no evidence, or is he actually innocent?. Either way, it would enter the area of "allegation", and leaving the "Controversy section" up would be damaging. If the evidence/charges were dropped, then the "tip" was false to begin with (no victim, no CP media), so more points towards eliminating the section. Waiting too about the legal briefs - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:16, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::One angle would be to keep information on WikiFur to similar or less than retention of police records in the jurisdiction. In the context of a criminal record check, looks like "The possible existence of criminal convictions and outstanding charges, as well as incidents of all negative police contacts for at least the previous five years will be considered for release." [http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/ServingOttawa/RecordsChecks/index.aspx by the Ottawa Police]. Also [http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cr-cj/nc-faq-eng.htm Questions and Answers about the Policy for the Retention and Destruction of Non-Conviction Information – Adults] -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 01:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Removal ==

How long should we wait for the information on these charges to be given? Fitter is clearly aware that the page states 'Citation Needed' but seems to have no motivation to actually cite anything. What's the point of marking something with 'Citation Needed' if all the effort to put the line there is being made, but zero effort is being made to give it a citation? Without any effort in giving a citaton, this just becomes a scheme to manipulate information. [[Special:Contributions/24.246.13.74|24.246.13.74]] 19:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's the caveat of "citation" requests - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== Not the proper way to deal with this situation ==

"''Removing uncited information as the requested citation has still not been provided''". No, it's actually proving the point with a reference link (valid) or being superseded by a valid contrary statement ("was found guilty of charges",...etc). If we had to eliminate all "citation needed" paragraphs because somebody has yet to provide one, hundreds of articles would have present information/data obliterated. That the problem about "facts" tags: unproven/dubious until proven or countered - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:55, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I think there's a difference being a citation not being provided, and a citation being specifically withheld (Assuming that there's something to actually cite). One could easily vandalize Wikifur up and down if the simple justification 'There's no proof that what I said isn't true' was all that's needed. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Fritter

2011-10-03T00:02:39Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-10-02T23:56:03Z

AshleyAshes:

Removal of personal information.

I am Fritter's mate and upon request he has asked me removal all personal information due to issues outside of the fandom. He has no access to the internet and thus is asking this through me.
I removed name, birth date, location, etc. myself. I removed all the material in question via request of Fritter. If you have any issues with these edits, please contact me via my e-mail.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:This request has not been made by the person featured in this article. More over, the person featured in this article, upon pleading guilty or being found guilty, will be proven to a threat to minors within the furry fandom. To attempt to hide this information from the fandom by deleting it from wikifur, would be a disservice to the fandom and increase the risk to minors in the fandom who may not otherwise be able find this information. Finally, precedent exists on Wikifur for sex offenders to not have their names or crimes hidden for the very reasons in my previous sentence. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:06, 8 April 2011 (CEST)

::He has not been found guilty and thus, until he is, information will continually be removed upon request by the user. If this information is continue to be replaced, his lawyer will be contacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:::I have modified your post for better formatting. Please use correct formatting when using the talk page. Agian, you are not Fritter, you do not legally represent Fritter and there are no means to varify that your claims are accurate. Simply put, Fritter has not made the request to Wikifur. However, if you are announcing your intention to start an 'edit war' until you get your own way, I will recommend that this page be placed under protection in order to protect it from a needless series of edits. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:13, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

:::: Fritter has no access to the internet to make the request himself thus, is working through me. I have taken caps of the page and will take caps of the multiple requests to have personal information removed as via wikifur policy if requested. These edits are not needless. They go against your policy of privacy protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::: You threatened to contact Fritter's lawer, having someone who legally represents Fritter would be a reasonable person to use to forward the information to Wikifur. However, please keep in mind the 'No Legal Threats' policy of Wikifur, however in this case, simply using a lawyer to forward a request when one does not have access to the internet for legal reasons seems quite reasonable to me. Further more, I submit that the information on Fritter is in no way private. His name and accused actions have been the subject of news articles in international media and in at least two different languages, even Carleton University has published an article on Fritter and uses quotations from your own Facebook page. I fail to see how this page violates his privacy when it only features publicly available information in the media. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:31, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::: The everyone else is doing it does not count as a viable source. When I contact him next, this will be forwarded to his lawyer. Just because it is public knowledge it is STILL against your privacy policy if requested to be removed by the user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::: You are continuing to revert his page to suit your demands, despite polite attempts to get you to work within Wikifur's rules and it's precedent on featured Furries with criminal pasts. In the interest of keeping this civil and not simply wasting time, I will not revert your edit as you have announced your full intention to engage in an edit war. I will contact an administrator for them to weigh in on this issue. I'm sorry that you are unwilling to let this go any other way. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:43, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::::: "WikiFur allows privacy of personal information such as exact location, real name (if not the primary name used within the fandom), phone numbers, e-mail addresses, birthdays, instant messenger accounts and similar contact details. Such information can simply be removed without asking for full exclusion." "In particular, sometimes a person may ask for valid information about them to be removed from WikiFur (unattributed opinion or libel should automatically be removed). As WikiFur is here to help members of the community, not harm them, it is usually appropriate to honour this request." If this continues there will be a request for the page to be deleted in its entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::::: Requests for exclusion for furries with posted criminal histories are usually refused, as the page remaining serves the greater good of the fandom. More over, I would like you to clearly read what you quoted. 'It is usually appropriate to honor this request', there are circumstances where it is appropriate to not honor this request, and this circumstance can be seen on other pages. More over you have not submitted any evidence that Fritter made this request and expect everyone to simply take your word for it. If Fritter does have a lawyer, and that lawyer can act on his behalf to make the request, then sit and wait. In the meanwhile, as you are unwilling to accept any compromise or even exercise any patients and see starting an edit war as a solution, I've made the request for an admin to come in to assist with this dispute. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 01:20, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

::::::::::It looks like you both want my opinion, though I'd welcome hearing those of others . . .
::::::::::I feel when a person has been charged with a crime that has potential relevance to the fandom (and many do), the public interest concerns should block exclusion at least until the charge is cleared or - if convicted - the crime is expunged. It doesn't necessarily meant all elements of their real life are exposed, but it can "break the veil" between that life and their fandom identity. This seems consistent with our past coverage of convicted criminals, and also of substantiated accusations of fraud within the fandom. Of course, allegations should be presented as such unless and until a conviction is made, and the subject's plea and statements should also be mentioned. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
::::::::::So I'm gonna throw my two cents into this: I feel that the article--and the information--should stay; one of the main reasons I go to this site is to read up on furries I meet online (since it's pointless to come here to read about anthropomorphic characters) and if I met a furry with a criminal record, I'd like to know about it; it would seriously affect the relationship I have with said individual. And, since his name and DOB are mentioned in the reference about the crime, it's pointless to remove it, though I wouldn't be against it. --[[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 12:14, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Expunging? ==

We have a claim that the charges mentioned above have been withdrawn. If this can be shown to be true, how do editors here feel about removing the topic from this article, and archiving this talk page? This would be consistent with our actions in a [[Talk:Paul Kidd/Archive1|similar situation]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think that would depend on the nature of the dismissal of the charges, there are a lot of reasons that the charges could be dismissed. A lot of false information has already been presented, such as the initial edit yesterday saying that Fritter had been 'found innocent' and 'the charge against him dropped' and both of these can not be true, only one. Charges being dropped and being found innocent are mutually exclusive and both being true is a legal impossibility. This means that attempts have been made to put blatently false information of one kind or another in this article already. Details on the dismissal of the charges would be needed, namely, why the charges were dismissed. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:59, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::Withdrawn or dropped?, is it based on no evidence, or is he actually innocent?. Either way, it would enter the area of "allegation", and leaving the "Controversy section" up would be damaging. If the evidence/charges were dropped, then the "tip" was false to begin with (no victim, no CP media), so more points towards eliminating the section. Waiting too about the legal briefs - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:16, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:One angle would be to keep information on WikiFur to similar or less than retention of police records in the jurisdiction. In the context of a criminal record check, looks like "The possible existence of criminal convictions and outstanding charges, as well as incidents of all negative police contacts for at least the previous five years will be considered for release." [http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/ServingOttawa/RecordsChecks/index.aspx by the Ottawa Police]. Also [http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cr-cj/nc-faq-eng.htm Questions and Answers about the Policy for the Retention and Destruction of Non-Conviction Information – Adults] -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 01:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:How long should we wait for the information on these charges to be given? Fitter is clearly aware that the page states 'Citation Needed' but seems to have no motivation to actually cite anything. What's the point of marking something with 'Citation Needed' if all the effort to put the line there is being made, but zero effort is being made to give it a citation? Without any effort in giving a citaton, this just becomes a scheme to manipulate information. (Guh, wasn't logged in) [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 19:56, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Fritter

2011-10-02T23:55:26Z

AshleyAshes:

Removal of personal information.

I am Fritter's mate and upon request he has asked me removal all personal information due to issues outside of the fandom. He has no access to the internet and thus is asking this through me.
I removed name, birth date, location, etc. myself. I removed all the material in question via request of Fritter. If you have any issues with these edits, please contact me via my e-mail.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:This request has not been made by the person featured in this article. More over, the person featured in this article, upon pleading guilty or being found guilty, will be proven to a threat to minors within the furry fandom. To attempt to hide this information from the fandom by deleting it from wikifur, would be a disservice to the fandom and increase the risk to minors in the fandom who may not otherwise be able find this information. Finally, precedent exists on Wikifur for sex offenders to not have their names or crimes hidden for the very reasons in my previous sentence. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:06, 8 April 2011 (CEST)

::He has not been found guilty and thus, until he is, information will continually be removed upon request by the user. If this information is continue to be replaced, his lawyer will be contacted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

:::I have modified your post for better formatting. Please use correct formatting when using the talk page. Agian, you are not Fritter, you do not legally represent Fritter and there are no means to varify that your claims are accurate. Simply put, Fritter has not made the request to Wikifur. However, if you are announcing your intention to start an 'edit war' until you get your own way, I will recommend that this page be placed under protection in order to protect it from a needless series of edits. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:13, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

:::: Fritter has no access to the internet to make the request himself thus, is working through me. I have taken caps of the page and will take caps of the multiple requests to have personal information removed as via wikifur policy if requested. These edits are not needless. They go against your policy of privacy protection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::: You threatened to contact Fritter's lawer, having someone who legally represents Fritter would be a reasonable person to use to forward the information to Wikifur. However, please keep in mind the 'No Legal Threats' policy of Wikifur, however in this case, simply using a lawyer to forward a request when one does not have access to the internet for legal reasons seems quite reasonable to me. Further more, I submit that the information on Fritter is in no way private. His name and accused actions have been the subject of news articles in international media and in at least two different languages, even Carleton University has published an article on Fritter and uses quotations from your own Facebook page. I fail to see how this page violates his privacy when it only features publicly available information in the media. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:31, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::: The everyone else is doing it does not count as a viable source. When I contact him next, this will be forwarded to his lawyer. Just because it is public knowledge it is STILL against your privacy policy if requested to be removed by the user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::: You are continuing to revert his page to suit your demands, despite polite attempts to get you to work within Wikifur's rules and it's precedent on featured Furries with criminal pasts. In the interest of keeping this civil and not simply wasting time, I will not revert your edit as you have announced your full intention to engage in an edit war. I will contact an administrator for them to weigh in on this issue. I'm sorry that you are unwilling to let this go any other way. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:43, 9 April 2011 (CEST)
:::::::: "WikiFur allows privacy of personal information such as exact location, real name (if not the primary name used within the fandom), phone numbers, e-mail addresses, birthdays, instant messenger accounts and similar contact details. Such information can simply be removed without asking for full exclusion." "In particular, sometimes a person may ask for valid information about them to be removed from WikiFur (unattributed opinion or libel should automatically be removed). As WikiFur is here to help members of the community, not harm them, it is usually appropriate to honour this request." If this continues there will be a request for the page to be deleted in its entirety. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Skittle|Skittle]] ([[User talk:Skittle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Skittle|contribs]]) .

::::::::: Requests for exclusion for furries with posted criminal histories are usually refused, as the page remaining serves the greater good of the fandom. More over, I would like you to clearly read what you quoted. 'It is usually appropriate to honor this request', there are circumstances where it is appropriate to not honor this request, and this circumstance can be seen on other pages. More over you have not submitted any evidence that Fritter made this request and expect everyone to simply take your word for it. If Fritter does have a lawyer, and that lawyer can act on his behalf to make the request, then sit and wait. In the meanwhile, as you are unwilling to accept any compromise or even exercise any patients and see starting an edit war as a solution, I've made the request for an admin to come in to assist with this dispute. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 01:20, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

::::::::::It looks like you both want my opinion, though I'd welcome hearing those of others . . .
::::::::::I feel when a person has been charged with a crime that has potential relevance to the fandom (and many do), the public interest concerns should block exclusion at least until the charge is cleared or - if convicted - the crime is expunged. It doesn't necessarily meant all elements of their real life are exposed, but it can "break the veil" between that life and their fandom identity. This seems consistent with our past coverage of convicted criminals, and also of substantiated accusations of fraud within the fandom. Of course, allegations should be presented as such unless and until a conviction is made, and the subject's plea and statements should also be mentioned. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 06:46, 12 April 2011 (CEST)
::::::::::So I'm gonna throw my two cents into this: I feel that the article--and the information--should stay; one of the main reasons I go to this site is to read up on furries I meet online (since it's pointless to come here to read about anthropomorphic characters) and if I met a furry with a criminal record, I'd like to know about it; it would seriously affect the relationship I have with said individual. And, since his name and DOB are mentioned in the reference about the crime, it's pointless to remove it, though I wouldn't be against it. --[[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] 12:14, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Expunging? ==

We have a claim that the charges mentioned above have been withdrawn. If this can be shown to be true, how do editors here feel about removing the topic from this article, and archiving this talk page? This would be consistent with our actions in a [[Talk:Paul Kidd/Archive1|similar situation]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:37, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think that would depend on the nature of the dismissal of the charges, there are a lot of reasons that the charges could be dismissed. A lot of false information has already been presented, such as the initial edit yesterday saying that Fritter had been 'found innocent' and 'the charge against him dropped' and both of these can not be true, only one. Charges being dropped and being found innocent are mutually exclusive and both being true is a legal impossibility. This means that attempts have been made to put blatently false information of one kind or another in this article already. Details on the dismissal of the charges would be needed, namely, why the charges were dismissed. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:59, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::Withdrawn or dropped?, is it based on no evidence, or is he actually innocent?. Either way, it would enter the area of "allegation", and leaving the "Controversy section" up would be damaging. If the evidence/charges were dropped, then the "tip" was false to begin with (no victim, no CP media), so more points towards eliminating the section. Waiting too about the legal briefs - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:16, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:One angle would be to keep information on WikiFur to similar or less than retention of police records in the jurisdiction. In the context of a criminal record check, looks like "The possible existence of criminal convictions and outstanding charges, as well as incidents of all negative police contacts for at least the previous five years will be considered for release." [http://www.ottawapolice.ca/en/ServingOttawa/RecordsChecks/index.aspx by the Ottawa Police]. Also [http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cr-cj/nc-faq-eng.htm Questions and Answers about the Policy for the Retention and Destruction of Non-Conviction Information – Adults] -- [[User:Sine|Sine]] 01:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:How long should we wait for the information on these charges to be given? Fitter is clearly aware that the page states 'Citation Needed' but seems to have no motivation to actually cite anything. What's the point of marking something with 'Citation Needed' if all the effort to put the line there is being made, but zero effort is being made to give it a citation? Without any effort in giving a citaton, this just becomes a scheme to manipulate information. [[Special:Contributions/24.246.13.74|24.246.13.74]] 19:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

Fritter

2011-10-02T22:27:47Z

AshleyAshes: Removing uncited information as the requested citation has still not been provided

'''Fritter''', also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> (real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], USA, he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

== Fursona ==

Fritter's [[fursona]] is an [[African Wild Dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip. Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
{{Contributor}}
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:African Wild Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Fritter

2011-09-15T02:12:50Z

AshleyAshes: No citation needed, it was cited and directly quoted from the citation

'''Fritter''', also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> (real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], USA, he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

== Fursona ==

Fritter's [[fursona]] is an [[African Wild Dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip. Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

On Monday, September 12, 2011, the charges against Fritter were formally and unconditionally withdrawn by the Ottawa Police Department and Crown Attorney.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
{{Contributor}}
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:African Wild Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Talk:Fritter

2011-09-15T01:59:24Z

AshleyAshes:

Fritter

2011-09-14T11:11:02Z

AshleyAshes: Reverting uncited edit, and was was this page modified to personally address me? It's a wiki page, not personal email.

'''Fritter''', also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> (real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], USA, he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

== Fursona ==

Fritter's [[fursona]] is an [[African Wild Dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/> Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:African Wild Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Fritter

2011-09-14T03:52:54Z

AshleyAshes: Reverting uncited addition

'''Fritter''', also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> (real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], USA, he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

== Fursona ==

Fritter's [[fursona]] is an [[African Wild Dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/> Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:African Wild Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Fritter

2011-09-14T00:14:37Z

AshleyAshes: Reverting uncited addition

'''Fritter''', also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> (real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], USA, he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

== Fursona ==

Fritter's [[fursona]] is an [[African Wild Dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/> Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:African Wild Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Fritter

2011-05-11T03:48:53Z

AshleyAshes: Reverting another edit made in attempt to hide Fritter's criminal accusations. See article talk page for previous discussions on this issue.

'''Fritter''', also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> (real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], USA, he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

== Fursona ==

Fritter's [[fursona]] is a [[dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==

On Wednesday, March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/> Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T23:20:16Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T23:20:08Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T23:17:13Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T23:15:51Z

AshleyAshes:

User talk:GreenReaper

2011-04-08T22:50:07Z

AshleyAshes:

{{User talk:GreenReaper/Header}}

== Allan is changing (with proof) ==

Jump to post #521 and read from there: http://wys.mirror.henriwatson.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=185

Also, Dragoneer made a journal about his progress: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1619739/

-Glaice

== Apologies ==

With college starting up within the next few weeks, i've been neglecting my duties to the DYK section. I've already missed an update and I apologize for that. Unfortunately, until i'm able to figure out how my computer situation will work out at college and what my schedule will be in general, i'm going to be kind of busy. So I might not be around for a month or two and won't be able to keep up with my duties. :( [[User:Silver seren|Silver]][[User talk:Silver seren|seren]][[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]] 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
:Hey, it's no problem. I've been incredibly busy at work this whole month myself. Whenever you can give your time, it is appreciated - but don't kill yourself over not being able to. :-) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

== Please delete my article. ==

Hey there. I was wondering if you could delete the page http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Fidge for me. I've lost interest in keeping up with wikipedia and stuff and I would like my own page removed. Thanks alot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Fidge|Fidge]] ([[User talk:Fidge|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fidge|contribs]]) .
:It's not your page, it's our page about you - even if you started it. However, we do have an [[WikiFur:Personal exclusion|exclusion policy]], which I have applied to that page. Please contact myself or another administrator if you would like to revert this exclusion. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 18:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

== Vandalism targeted at Anthrochat-related articles ==

Seems that some members from Anthrochat have taken to vandalising particular articles. I've reverted [[Anthrochat]] and [[Furrycoffeeshop]] a few times already today. Is it possible to get those pages protected somehow? Thanks. :) [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:We do not normally protect pages unless vandalism becomes unmanageable, or a "time-out" is needed between editors. However, the two anonymous users concerned have been blocked for inserting inaccurate information before, and they have now been blocked for a longer period for the same reason. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
:: Allright, seems fair, thanks. I'm just not sure it will help much, because I know the people behind those IPs. They'll probably just come back in 2 weeks and do it again... :/ [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

== Deleted Images ==

I can understand the copyright violation, but 'there is agreement that the work was used'? Unless I am understanding you wrong, there was no agreement - you stated that yourself. If I were to upload these again under a different usage, would they be removed again?

[[User:Rinduri|Rinduri]] 00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

:Nobody disagrees that Tuqiri used Vailwolf's work in the art show - just whether or not it was "fair use" to do so. Therefore, there is little justification for using copyrighted works to show this, especially against the wishes of ''both'' copyright holders.
:As I understand it, you were already advised by Vailwolf that she did not wish you to redistribute her work. I think you should strongly reconsider your reasons and legal grounds for doing so regardless. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

== Change picture? ;-) ==

A pal of mine, Aatheus, showed me a picture of me and a fellow CATS cosplayer that is on the various Wikis in the Furry sections. Fantastic to be seen, but oh gosh, can we somehow find a more.. er... flattering image? I can't say that makeup was one of my best now is the wig any good. Can you please contact me so that I can provide a better picture that is by far more suitable? Please note me here on Wikifur or email me.

This is the one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GR_FC2007_furry_cats_costumers.jpg

Best purrs,

[[User:Twospotz|Twospotz]] (Among CATS folks known as Ahdeya - that blackclad CATS cat lady....)

:''Replied via email.'' --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

== Blanking ==
Hi there! Please don't remove all content from pages, as you did with [[Inuki]]. Such changes will be reverted, especially when no reason is given. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 04:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

:That's what she gets for degrading me
:"Like most Thieves, she claims to ask before applying her edits, however this is in fact a lie. Even if it were true she posts her edited pictures in sites that do now allow such works and considers them traced or stolen, hence her label in the fandom as an Art Thief"

:She added that to my page without my permission -Twilightwolf4:

::I'm not sure you have the right person. Inuki is from Germany; the edits in question came from an IP address that traces to New York. Regardless, such edits just waste ''our'' time, not the subject's. Please refrain from them in the future. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 04:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent editing of a userpage?

:[[WikiFur:Administrators|Administrators]] can do lots of things - though page protection is usually a last resort. If there's clearly an ongoing problem, other will step in. Note that you have the ability to watch pages, and to be emailed when an edit is made to them.
:Bear in mind that like most public wikis, WikiFur is open to all editors. While user pages will generally be left to the user concerned, if the information on them appears particularly one-sided, others may be inclined to edit them. Content that appears to be a description of a subject may also be moved to the main namespace and edited further, as user pages are not intended to replace or duplicate articles (compare [[GreenReaper]] and [[User:GreenReaper]]). --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Either way, I'd rather not have my page altered
Especially not with lies made by anti-furs

:Well, and here's where it gets tricky - when it comes to a wiki, it's ''not'' "your page". It's "our page about you". The User: page is intended to provide information relating to your contributions to WikiFur - not as a venue for presenting your own opinion of yourself without fear of rebuttal; nor for criticizing others, especially when it comes to off-wiki matters. That stuff belongs on your homepage, and [[WikiFur:What WikiFur is not#WikiFur is not a free host or webspace provider|we're not a hosting site]]. If you want a page which only you can edit, you should probably look elsewhere. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is deleting possible?
Although 'they' would make a new page about me anyway, ah well, life goes on, popularity has ups and downs, plus, not a lot of people know about my page...

there's no need to reply back to this

== Wiki tagline ==

Just a quick note, because I've noticed it before but not gotten around to asking you about it... Is it possible to get the tagline to WikiLurv changed on the int'l portal for grammar reasons? "Den lurviga encyklopedin", would probably be the best translation of WikiFur's "the furry encyclopedia". Either that or "Den svenska furryencyklopedin" ("The swedish furry encyclopedia" - the former implies that the wiki itself is covered in fur, the latter that it's a furry-related encyclopedia; I'm not sure which WikiFur's tagline is supposed to imply); I'm not married to either translation, just want the grammar straightened out. At your convenience, of course. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 13:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
:Sure. I've tweaked this now; you may have to force a refresh to see it. I guess the meaning I intended is really more the latter, but I used the former because it's shorter and doesn't specify the language, which would obliviate the point of a universal tagline (assuming that "Den furryencyklopedin" is also grammatically incorrect). --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 13:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
::Cheers! --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 15:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

== WikiFur Noticeboard ==

Hi. I just wanted to make sure you were aware that [[WikiFur:Noticeboard]] was recently opened. Your input on any open topics would be appreciated, and please feel free to open new topics as you see fit. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 04:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

I'm glad i was able to help confirming the truth of the article on The Deadly Wolves. Though now that the edi war been taken care of. I'm going to need a bit of help with the article of his. Since i do have concern that this will most become an edit war whenever the confirmination of the truth comes out. (Hoping it doesn't get to that point.) --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
:Just let us know what you have to work with on the article's attached discussion page, and we can all pitch in. It's hardly the first time we've had to document contentious subjects. :-) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
::Well anyway i've finished with citing all of my refs about the subject. I've mentioned this on the subject talk page. [http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:Conner_Lupindo_Hemming Subject talk page] Basically it's all in a notepad. Though is it alright to post all of what i found so it be easier to find what can be used for this article. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
:::Sure, I think that'd be OK - other editors can make use of it in the future. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Alright but where since there's a lot of stuff. Should i post it all on my talk page then?--[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::You should post it on the talk pages for the relevant articles, because that's where other editors will look. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Alright then and i'm done with the first part. [http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:Conner_Lupindo_Hemming#References_of_Ban_Evasions References of ban evasions] I will be posting the other part in the Deadly Wolves Article Section since the next part is mostly related to that. --[[User:Tridragon|Tridragon]] 04:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

== Username change? ==

I don't have an LJ, so I figured this would be the place to ask for it. If it's not an inconvenience, going from "Twilight-wolf" to just "Twilight" would help lots. I've checked around the site, there doesn't seem to be a user with that name, if it's available, I'll take it. If not, I'll come up with something else.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Twilight-wolf|Twilight-wolf]] ([[User talk:Twilight-wolf|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Twilight-wolf|contribs]]) .

:Unfortunately the name Twilight was registered earlier this year. I would be glad to rename your account to something else, though. You already have both Twilight-Wolf and Twilight-wolf (different capitalizations) - it would be good if you logged into the former so that I can merge them before renaming. (The account was created on Wikia.com; if you have forgotten the password, you'll need to go there to reset it first.) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 03:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

== Furry Fashion ==

Wondering if This is appropriate for this site
I run furry fashion the largest furry clothing and accessory store in second life, we are a furry community 3 sims wide, with over 4500 members, 70 furs employed, 4000 items for sale, a welcome centre to help new furs get started and explain what furs are, homes, a mall, events and other other furry things. I have been asked before if we have a page here but I wasn't sure if we was allowed to have one. I have noticed AX , another SL furry company does but wanted to be sure first before making one.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
[[User:Amethysia|Amethysia]] (Amethyst Crystal in second life)
:Hi Amethysia! You're welcome to start an article about your group (presumably at [[Furry Fashion]]). However, we do require that all articles be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view|neutral]] - so try to stick to the facts. Basically, if it doesn't ''sound'' like it was written by you, that's probably a good start. If what you say is true, the facts should be impressive by themselves. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 11:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I be unblocked from your AIM list? When I talked to you at FC2011 you made it sound like you would once you were back home but so far I've not seen it, and even Ayukawataur hasn't relayed any messages saying if you would or not.

--Mozdoc

== Just wanted another's opinion. ==

Hi, I am very new to this (is it a wiki?) wiki, and I was wondering if you could check out my user page and tell me if I fit into the Fandom. I am still learning new things every day, and I am young, but I believe I am a Furry. Since nobody's shoved a pen and paper in my hand and said "You're a Furry, please add your name to the list", I was wanting an opinion from someone more knowledgable on the subject than I, and I thought asking you would be a good idea. Plus, I noticed on your page that you developed an interest in this whole system too at a young age. If you will, please leave a reply on my talk page. I am user:Perservere. Thank you.
:Furries are fans of anthropomorphic animals. It seems like you fit the definition. How you express that interest is up to you! --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I was actually nervous about being scrutinized about my age, my reasons, and such, but you didn't say a word about it. I am ecstatic that (ridiculous though it may sound) I am "classified" so to speak. Going off topic, (just wanted to say this) I find it hilarious that most people who make fun of Furries, 1. Often quote Encyclopedia Dramatica, 2. Most likely are/were fans of the Warner Bros (you know Tom and Jerry among others), and 3. Repeat the same insults over and over. Going back, I can't thank you enough for being so accepting of me. I have actually dealt with people who attacked me for my interests on the subject, but I'm just glad that I have finally gotten clarity on the question of "Am I? or am I not?". Thanks so much, [[User:Perservere|Perservere]] 17:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

== Spam filter exception ==

I'm linking to my survey's results page, and want "<tt><nowiki>Results</nowiki></tt>" to "<tt><nowiki>[http://bit.ly/UltFurSur2011stats Results]</nowiki></tt>" on [[UFS2011]] —[[User:Supuhstar| '''''Supuhstar''''']] [[User_talk:Supuhstar| *]] [[User:Supuhstar/Simpedia|'''''§''''']] 15:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
:That link doesn't seem to work, though. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
::Sorry, I meant /UFS2011stats —[[User:Supuhstar| '''''Supuhstar''''']] [[User_talk:Supuhstar| *]] [[User:Supuhstar/Simpedia|'''''§''''']] 01:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

== Interesting how you put a message first! ==

I believe (even if in a small way) that the article is relevant. Examples being any sort of reptilian anthropomorph, as on your page "Scalies", and any possible others (not much of an argument, I know, but I'm determined). I have revised that article with more accurate information, examples, and links. I will also add a "Species List", of what furry creatures are considered cold-blooded. Keep in mind, I'm not looking to fight anyone, overeaction is all too common. I see your point of view, but we can't trade thoughts. Anyways, good luck, [[User:Perservere|Perservere]] 19:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you see some relevance in the article now, sir? I certainly do. [[User:Perservere|Perservere]] 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

== Two images ==

A little bit ago I was trying to handle a situation where a new user had uploaded an image with a "generic" filename, in this case Example.jpg, for which there was an existing file by the same name, and he apparently had simply replaced the existing image with the new one. What I would like to have done, but couldn't figure out how, was to "fork" both the new and old versions, i.e. to rename the image per the new version, then revert the redirect to point to the old one (which I was also going to rename to something more meaningful than Example.jpg). As far as I was able to determine, the only way to do this was to save one of the versions of the image and re-create it as a new image. Do you know of a better way to do this? Incidentally, it turned out the old version was being referenced by [[User:Ratty913|only one user page]], and the overwritten version of the image was uploaded more recently and by a different user, and therefore was probably not the one intended by the userpage author, so it is now effectively a deleted image, though in actuality it still lives on in the version history of the [[:File:MorinWolf.jpg|renamed image]]. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:I do not believe there is a way to do image forking in MediaWiki. The best solution is probably to upload the new image to a separate page, revert the old image, delete the revision of the new image that is on the old image page and then move that to a better filename. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

== Please remove my name and email address from this article ==

Hi,

I would really appreciate it if you could remove my name and email address from this question I asked several years ago?

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Forum:Furry_comics

It comes up when people search my name in search engines so i'd really appreciate it if those bits could be removed?

Thank you

P {{unsignedIP|78.147.58.35}}

:I've redacted the e-mail address from that article. Since you posted this request as an anonymous IP user, we can't tell what your name is and there are several mentioned in the article. You could just change the article yourself. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 14:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

- Fab, thanks, have done.

::Sorry for the reversion, I didn't see this discussion, and didn't know there was a legitimate request to remove that information (or that it was even the original user doing it). -- ''[[User:Softpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:Softpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Softpaw|contribs]] ) 03:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

== Featured Article Frequency? ==

Hey GreenReaper :)

I'm curious how often the Featured Articles are updated? It seems like the current one on the [[Nephilim]] has been there for quite some time.

[[User:Seanmcelroy|BlueOtter]] 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

:The front page is setup to rotate them weekly, and a process for updating them is at [[WikiFur:Featured articles]]/[[WikiFur:Featured article candidates|Featured article candidates]]. However, no one editor has taken a lead in doing so, and so they remain un-updated (this has been a problem since 2007, as I've been increasingly involved with work and [[WikiFur News]]/[[Flayrah]]). A replacement involving dynamic selection of articles from a collection is on my list for after our [http://community.livejournal.com/wikifur/87354.html server move], but if you're interested in helping out right now, it looks like [[Oklacon]] has support. There's no rule to say you can't promote one you nominated! --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 17:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

== King of the Internet ==

Furries make the internet go; Green Reaper makes the furrydom go; ergo, Green Reaper makes the internet go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:69.169.167.47|69.169.167.47]] ([[User talk:69.169.167.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.169.167.47|contribs]]) .

:No [[meatball:GodKing|gods or kings]]; only [[Creatures:Norn|norn]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

== Username Change ==

GreenReaper, is it possible for you to rename my username to BlueOtter, merging my user paging into the existing [[BlueOtter]] article? Thanks in advance! [[User:Seanmcelroy|BlueOtter]] 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:Done. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::You are ridiculously fast... and awesome. Thank you. :) [[User:BlueOtter|BlueOtter]] 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
:There seems to be some confusion, however. User pages are intended for information about the user ''on WikiFur''. They are not intended to separate people from their characters. The main-space page is a third-person account intended to be edited by all, while the user page is typically written by the editor in first person, who may give background to their editing activities or provide details of a non-encyclopedic nature (e.g. contact info). Compare [[User:GreenReaper|my user page]] and [[GreenReaper]]. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification. I believe I understand, but how do you suggest then separating real-life people who are referred to by their character names as a pseudonym (who only give such a name), but also have distinct eponymous characters? For instance, my year of birth or occupation don't have any baring on these attributes for my characters, and applying for instance, the Programming category to my real-person make sense, but not BlueOtter, the character and online persona. Would you suggest a disambiguation page in this case for person vs. character? I just want to make sure I do things right and consistent with the patterns you and others have established. :) [[User:BlueOtter|BlueOtter]] 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Because most furs use their character names to represent themselves, articles under their names are assumed to be primarily about the person ("People" is invariably the first category). Their character is either treated as if it were "part of the person" and integrated throughout ("RandomFurry is a grey wolf and software developer who lives in Newark") or described in a separate "Character" section of the same article, depending on the attitude that the subject has to their primary character. In your case, a section might be most appropriate - you can restate any differing information such as age or personal characteristics in that area. The categories are combined at the end, unless the character has a different name. (In that case - often used by fursuiters - we normally make a separate section for the characters, then make the character name a redirect to that section and put the character-specific categories on the redirect page so that the character name shows up in those categories - e.g. YellowOtter == <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[RandomFurry#Character]][[Category:Otter characters]]</nowiki>.) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Another approach to take if your life outside fandom is not a major factor in your activities is to treat the character as the primary topic and have a separate section labelled something like "Real life". The order of categories would remain the same, however. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 15:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

== People who don't get it ==

Just had a look at recent edits and wow... [[User:Meepsheep|'''Meepsheep''']] appears to be racking up an impressive number of block evasions (assuming Meepsheep is the original account). Talk about failing to get the message. Would it be effective to block all logins from that IP? Or would that be against Wikifur's policies/ethos? Just wondering, because one could spend a lot of time just keeping track of this one clown. --[[GingerM]] ([[User_talk:GingerM|Leave me a message]]) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
:I did, however many proxy addresses were used in an attempt to circumvent it. I have filed an abuse report with Comcast. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

== Impending Edit War ==

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Fritter

The user [[User:Skittle|'''Skittle''']] has set out to edit the Fritter wikifur page in an effort to remove all information on Fritter's accused from, this information is widely publicly in countless media outless. Skittle's announced his full intention to edit the article to his needs and has no interest in discussion of the issue. Skittle claims that Fritter has requested the page be removed but has no evidence of this. With this intention for an edit war, reverting the article seems futile and I would like an administrator to step in and clarify the rules in this case of 'Publicly available private information' as it seems it would be the most expedient solution. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 00:50, 9 April 2011 (CEST)

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T22:43:29Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T22:31:45Z

AshleyAshes:

Fritter

2011-04-08T22:13:42Z

AshleyAshes: Undo revision 322623 by Skittle (talk)

'''Fritter''' (also known as '''FrittMonster''', '''FireLover343''', and '''Aniu''';<ref>[http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[SheezyArt]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> real name '''Adam Boyko''';<ref>[http://www.sheezyart.com/journal/view/148524/ "A little something I'd like to share"] - posting by FireLover343 on his SheezyArt journal. Dated December 14, 2005. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> born September 24, 1991)<ref>[http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343's profile] on [[deviantART]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref><ref name="AdamBoykoSun">[http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/31/17821466.html "Cops charge teen for child porn"] - article in the Ottawa Sun. Dated March 31, 2011. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> is an occasional [[furry artist]]. Originally from [[Wikipedia:Cranford, New Jersey|Cranford, New Jersey]], U.S.A., he lives in [[Wikipedia:Ottawa|Ottawa]], Ontario, Canada.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/>

Fritter's [[fursona]] is a [[dog]],<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5477897/ "Fritter Painted Dog Reference WIP"] - posting by Fritter, on his [[Fur Affinity]] gallery. Dated March 28, 2011. Retrieved Apil 2, 2011</ref> and was previously a [[wolf|gray wolf]]<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu Aniu's profile] on [[Fur Affinity]]. Retrieved April 2, 2011</ref> and an osprey.<ref>[http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4540087/ "Fritter 2.0"] - posting by Fritter, on his Fur Affinity gallery. Dated September 27, 2010. April 2, 2011</ref> He is the [[mate]] of [[Skittle T. Furfag]].

==Controversy==
On Wednesday March 30, 2011, Fritter was arrested by the Ottawa police Internet Child Exploitation unit after they received a tip.<ref name="AdamBoykoSun"/> Police seized a laptop they allege contained images and videos of child pornography.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/aniu/ Aniu], [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/frittmonster FrittMonster], and [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/fritter Fritter] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://firelover343.sheezyart.com/ FireLover343] on [[SheezyArt]]
* [http://aniu24.deviantart.com/ Aniu24], [http://firelover343.deviantart.com/ FireLover343], and [http://frittmonster.deviantart.com/ FrittMonster] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://s11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Firelover343/ FireLover343] on photobucket
* [http://www.formspring.me/fritter Fritter] and [http://www.formspring.me/chewablefritter ChewableFritter] on formspring.me
* [http://gender-fauxpas.livejournal.com/ Gender_fauxpas (Fritter)] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Artists]]
[[Category:Dog characters]]
[[Category:New Jersey]]
[[Category:Ontario]]
[[Category:1991 births]]

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T22:13:12Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T22:12:51Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T19:07:34Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Fritter

2011-04-08T19:06:51Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:TORA

2009-09-28T04:37:47Z

AshleyAshes:

{{noindex}}

==Conviction==

User Almightytora is attempting to cover up verified, cited information about himself by continuously undoing a section involving his apparent conviction for pedophilia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] ([[User talk:Isopodic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isopodic|contribs]]) .

:OK. There's no need for a revert war over this. TORA, you have stated that the information is [[Wikipedia:Defamation|defamatory]]. In the U.S., this can only be the case if it is not true. Would you like to say anything about that? It seems like quite a good match. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps my addition could have been stated in a more NPV, but that isn't the case for deletion. That said, the three links presented are evidence of an argument, and it must be decided how that argument is stated. In my opinion, the evidence is very strong: the person in the Meganslaw website lives in the same small town as Tora, has nearly identical facial features, and the same moles. The probability of two such individuals so similar as to be mistaken for twins is very low. Of course, a citation that references Tora stating his real name would clear up any ambiguity whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] ([[User talk:Isopodic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isopodic|contribs]]) .
Additional evidence: From the logs posted on http://lulz.net/furi/res/734059.html Tora states he is 33. This article on the incident (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/28/local/me-16030) posted in 2001 states that Daniel Mizuho Llamas is 25 years old, which would make Daniel 33 at present. Exact age match.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] ([[User talk:Isopodic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isopodic|contribs]]) .

:OK. I'm talking with TORA and he is writing a statement to share with everyone. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 03:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:He's posted [[User:Almightytora/Statement|his statement]] now. I plan on trying to write a summary of this all and placing it in the article. Lulz is not a good source. The LA Times paper is. Not sure about the Megan's Law site since it [http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/faq.aspx?lang=ENGLISH#1a dissuades people from linking to it] unless there is a specific need to. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::As a result of the edits made to the 'Criminal History' section it now reads as being absurdly biased in Tora's favor. It suggests to readers that the events that he plead no contest to and was thusly found guilty of in a court of law somehow 'doesn't count' just because he plead 'no contest' rather than 'guilty'. He was found guilty in court, thus it has been determine by the legal system of what is accepted as the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] ([[User talk:AshleyAshes|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AshleyAshes|contribs]]) .

:::If you don't like it, you have the power to edit it. But bear in mind that this is a result of a [[Wikipedia:plea bargain|plea bargain]], not a jury trial - he did not contest a charge for a crime that he says he did not actually commit, in order to avoid the risk of a heavy penalty if actually tried for and found guilty of the full set of charges - or even one of them (you get fewer "sentence points" if you accept a bargain). "Lewd contact" is a relatively light penalty - you get more time for possession of child pornography - and that suggests to me the DA's case was less than airtight. But we don't know for sure. The one thing we do know he ''was'' guilty of is sending nude images to minors, which is why I put it first. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::However he was still found guilty. If pleading 'no contest' and being found guilty seemingly reduces the validity of the guilty verdict, then what of those that plead 'Not guilty' but are found guilty, is there invalidity to the guilty verdict then? He was still found guilty. In a system where one is innocent untill proven guilty there was considdered sufficent evidence to find him guilty. There was enough evidence that he felt he could not plead 'not guilty' and defend himself infact. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information pertaining to Lulz.net. This is important, relevant information because it describes how TORA was originally discovered.--[[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:You'll need to include a citation for that. Specifically the part about the chatlogs. --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::I'm looking at the screencap and trying to find a clue to positively ID the party identified as "Seph8" as being TORA, rather than the whole thing being fabricated. Unless we can confirm that they are the same person and the screencap is genuine, the image and the related text should be removed. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::[[User:Almightytora/Statement|TORA's statement]] refers to this conversation, and I see no reason to believe it is untrue. That said, if we use it, we must be careful that things aren't taken out of context. The IM conversation was not an innocent conversation, but deliberately laden with his interests for the purpose of getting a reaction, and that should be mentioned. It didn't get quite the reaction they were hoping for, either, as he refused the idea of having illegal sex with an underage teen - consistent with his statement. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Okay, taking your word for it that the conversation is genuine, my next question would have to be, did Seph8/TORA consent to having the conversation publicized? I'm getting the impression here that someone contacted him and made an unsuccessful attempt to bait him into revealing an interest in the sort of activity he was accused of in the past, possibly with no inkling that it was about to hit the fan. I don't know about you, but when I engage in an IM chat or RP session with someone online, there is an expectation that the exchange is private, and to publicize it without my consent is a breach of netiquette. There may be reasons why it is appropriate to do so in some cases, and if he had tried to follow up on the encounter with a minor, that may well be one of them, but he didn't. We can't control how they do things over on lulz.com, but we don't have to be party to their actions either. I might be all wrong here if I'm misunderstanding the pretext of this conversation or the circumstances around it. Or maybe not. I'm just sayin'... --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::I doubt that he particularly wanted or wants it publicised. Personally I suspect the conversation could be summarized and the image removed, if the existing summary is not sufficient. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::Agreed. That the incident occurred at all may be notable and deserve mention, if only for the role it played in resurfacing his past. IMHO, what coverage we provide should stop short of propagating the breach of netiquette. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
All of this is absurd and not needed for anyone. Someone took it upon themselves to bring "justice" to someone for something they did many years ago, and has already served his sentence. It is none of our business, and is not needed to be pushed all in our faces on the internet. {{unsignedIP|75.62.133.154}}

::Everything on this page is no one's buisness. It's a vanity page, it's nothing but a presentation of personal information for vanity's sake. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vanity pertains to boosting ones ego, not inciting a riot and linking to a page that tells people to go and harass a user in person, call his phone and verbally abuse others, or confronting an individual at a con because of his past. {{unsignedIP|75.62.133.154}}

:There is a reasonable concern about having a registered sex offender participating in fandom activities, which often involve minors, without those responsible for these activities having knowledge of that fact. That is why this information is here. Nobody has posted his phone number here, and I hope nobody here intends to harrass him at a convention. If you have complaints about the content of [[Lulz.net]], talk to its moderators. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the newly posted Dragoneer/Preyfur and Tora log: Confirmation of the factual accuracy can be seen by the reply by Dragoneer to a tweet posting the log. The original tweet is (http://twitter.com/minnieshoof/status/4380287261)and his reply is (http://twitter.com/Dragoneer/status/4380406312)
This is important information because it shows 1) Possible evidence of a serious crime by Tora, 2) Deception on Tora's part, making him a higher risk for further criminal violations, 3) Possible abuse of admin powers by Dragoneer. Such information is in the best interests of the fandom to know because 1) It is critical to have as much information on high-risk sex offenders in a fandom with so many minors as its part, 2) To strengthen the case that sexual abuse of minors is NOT acceptable in furry, and won't be tolerated, and 3) Possible problems with the administration of the largest furry fandom that run counter to community interests. {{unsigned|Isopodic}}

:Unfortunately it also shows personal information from innocent minors. Again, I feel a summary without a link might be the best approach here. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

::Allow me to toss out one more question here. From what I know of pedophiles, it is the ones who seek out/initiate contact with minors on their own who are the greatest cause for concern. The ones who respond to incoming contacts from minors or those posing as minors, while certainly not without guilt, are considerably less of a concern. So based on the recent incidents, where does Tora fall on this spectrum? --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

::GreenReaper: This concern is very justified, and is not one I had considered. In this case, if possible, a good middle option would be to link to the log where the account name of the minor has been redacted, or if this is not viable, a summary would be suitable. Exposing the personal information of a minor is a strict no. Mwalimu: pedophiles (in the legal sense) are much more likely to repeat offenses. The fact that he is a registered offender is by far the largest factor in risk; it shows that he is not just attracted to adolescent boys, but has acted upon it. That, combined with his shown deception and recent sexual conversations with minors (both real and baited) only adds to the risk of another, in-person incident of abuse. --[[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't know about first contact, but the evidence suggests TORA solicited explicit material from a minor despite their misgivings and having been reminded by them of its illegality. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 06:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a good example of how sleazy the government can be once you've been fingered for a "ZOMGPERV" type charge. Nobody should be forced to plead anything but not guilty out of fear.

That said, what he has admitted to (not plead no contest to) would IMHO have warranted the same sentence. Dateline's special series "To Catch A Predator" nailed quite a few folks for exactly what TORA himself admitted to doing.

However, the only reason he's a lifetime registered sex offender is because the DA bullied him into pleading no contest to a charge he didn't actually commit. Anyone can be pressured into a deal like that if their balls are squeezed hard enough, if you have enough leverage against them, or if you simply wear them out. It's part of being a defendant in almost any country, sadly including the USA. The DA played hardball and TORA caved. I'm actually curious how a jury would have decided had it gone to trial.

Since he wasn't actually convicted of an offense that requires sex offender registration, I find that any conclusions based upon that status are somewhat dubious if based on said status alone.

Based on what I have read and his admissions, I conclude that he is a pervert. However, as far as a dangerous pedophile, I have my doubts.

Regarding Dragoneer's abuse of admin powers: Assuming the evidence is correct, that TORA was using FA notes as a means of sexual chats with minors, then Dragoneer was entirely within his rights to ban TORA, and in fact would probably have been aiding and abetting a crime had he knowingly allowed it to continue. I would have done the same, and additionally would have archived the notes in question and turned them over to the police as evidence. So as far as I'm concerned, Dragoneer's response was entirely justified and he may as a practical matter not actually have had any choice about it.

In conclusion, I suggest that fact and opinion continue to be well separated, and also in this particular case that the politics involved in criminal prosecutions be also remembered.

:You assume that Tora's statement is truthful. Tora clearly felt that there was not enough evidence to prove his innocence, this could very well because he had no innocence. It would seem that his 35yo boyfriend who was also convicted wasn't helping in bail out Tora by saying he had no involvement either, maybe because Tora did have involvement? The fact remains however that Tora choose not to plead not guilty and to defend himself in court. Even his version of the events posted on Wikifur has signifigant gaps. He claims no responsibility by saying he was asleep at the time, and glosses over all details and thusly any responsibility to how he found himself in a hotel room with his boyfriend and a fourteen year old boy in the first place. Tora's version of the events is unbelievably convenient and even childish. Then after being charged, convicted, serving in prison and probation from the internet untill 2007, Tora still finds himself chatting about sex with people he knows to be minors in the state he resides in?

:There are two undenyable facts here: 1) Tora got himself into a scenario that any responsible adult of a civilized society wouldn't have gotten close to. 2) After that scenario and punishment for it, he has been undenyably proven to be using the internet to solicit underaged boys, even using FurAffinity as a means to do so and being imprisoned once for the very same thing.

:On a personal note, I would like to say that the furry fandom has an abundance of young but perfectly legal boys who are desperate for attention and affection and would love to have some internet stranger asking them if they can suck their own penis. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's Tora's own fault for not capitalizing on them instead of the underaged ones. Why rob the bank when the store next door is giving money away for free? [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[[User:Shentino|Shentino]] 03:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

==Protection==
An edit war has been engaged by an unregistered user. ( http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.62.133.154 ) He is blanking out all information relevent to recent controversy. I suggest protection for this article is necessary.
:If an individual user continues to remove information against consensus, that individual will be temporarily blocked. Protection against everyone is not required. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:TORA

2009-09-28T04:37:23Z

AshleyAshes:

{{noindex}}

==Conviction==

User Almightytora is attempting to cover up verified, cited information about himself by continuously undoing a section involving his apparent conviction for pedophilia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] ([[User talk:Isopodic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isopodic|contribs]]) .

:OK. There's no need for a revert war over this. TORA, you have stated that the information is [[Wikipedia:Defamation|defamatory]]. In the U.S., this can only be the case if it is not true. Would you like to say anything about that? It seems like quite a good match. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps my addition could have been stated in a more NPV, but that isn't the case for deletion. That said, the three links presented are evidence of an argument, and it must be decided how that argument is stated. In my opinion, the evidence is very strong: the person in the Meganslaw website lives in the same small town as Tora, has nearly identical facial features, and the same moles. The probability of two such individuals so similar as to be mistaken for twins is very low. Of course, a citation that references Tora stating his real name would clear up any ambiguity whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] ([[User talk:Isopodic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isopodic|contribs]]) .
Additional evidence: From the logs posted on http://lulz.net/furi/res/734059.html Tora states he is 33. This article on the incident (http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/28/local/me-16030) posted in 2001 states that Daniel Mizuho Llamas is 25 years old, which would make Daniel 33 at present. Exact age match.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] ([[User talk:Isopodic|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Isopodic|contribs]]) .

:OK. I'm talking with TORA and he is writing a statement to share with everyone. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 03:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:He's posted [[User:Almightytora/Statement|his statement]] now. I plan on trying to write a summary of this all and placing it in the article. Lulz is not a good source. The LA Times paper is. Not sure about the Megan's Law site since it [http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/faq.aspx?lang=ENGLISH#1a dissuades people from linking to it] unless there is a specific need to. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::As a result of the edits made to the 'Criminal History' section it now reads as being absurdly biased in Tora's favor. It suggests to readers that the events that he plead no contest to and was thusly found guilty of in a court of law somehow 'doesn't count' just because he plead 'no contest' rather than 'guilty'. He was found guilty in court, thus it has been determine by the legal system of what is accepted as the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] ([[User talk:AshleyAshes|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AshleyAshes|contribs]]) .

:::If you don't like it, you have the power to edit it. But bear in mind that this is a result of a [[Wikipedia:plea bargain|plea bargain]], not a jury trial - he did not contest a charge for a crime that he says he did not actually commit, in order to avoid the risk of a heavy penalty if actually tried for and found guilty of the full set of charges - or even one of them (you get fewer "sentence points" if you accept a bargain). "Lewd contact" is a relatively light penalty - you get more time for possession of child pornography - and that suggests to me the DA's case was less than airtight. But we don't know for sure. The one thing we do know he ''was'' guilty of is sending nude images to minors, which is why I put it first. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::However he was still found guilty. If pleading 'no contest' and being found guilty seemingly reduces the validity of the guilty verdict, then what of those that plead 'Not guilty' but are found guilty, is there invalidity to the guilty verdict then? He was still found guilty. In a system where one is innocent untill proven guilty there was considdered sufficent evidence to find him guilty. There was enough evidence that he felt he could not plead 'not guilty' and defend himself infact. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information pertaining to Lulz.net. This is important, relevant information because it describes how TORA was originally discovered.--[[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] 18:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:You'll need to include a citation for that. Specifically the part about the chatlogs. --[[User:Dmuth|Douglas Muth]] 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::I'm looking at the screencap and trying to find a clue to positively ID the party identified as "Seph8" as being TORA, rather than the whole thing being fabricated. Unless we can confirm that they are the same person and the screencap is genuine, the image and the related text should be removed. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::[[User:Almightytora/Statement|TORA's statement]] refers to this conversation, and I see no reason to believe it is untrue. That said, if we use it, we must be careful that things aren't taken out of context. The IM conversation was not an innocent conversation, but deliberately laden with his interests for the purpose of getting a reaction, and that should be mentioned. It didn't get quite the reaction they were hoping for, either, as he refused the idea of having illegal sex with an underage teen - consistent with his statement. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Okay, taking your word for it that the conversation is genuine, my next question would have to be, did Seph8/TORA consent to having the conversation publicized? I'm getting the impression here that someone contacted him and made an unsuccessful attempt to bait him into revealing an interest in the sort of activity he was accused of in the past, possibly with no inkling that it was about to hit the fan. I don't know about you, but when I engage in an IM chat or RP session with someone online, there is an expectation that the exchange is private, and to publicize it without my consent is a breach of netiquette. There may be reasons why it is appropriate to do so in some cases, and if he had tried to follow up on the encounter with a minor, that may well be one of them, but he didn't. We can't control how they do things over on lulz.com, but we don't have to be party to their actions either. I might be all wrong here if I'm misunderstanding the pretext of this conversation or the circumstances around it. Or maybe not. I'm just sayin'... --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::I doubt that he particularly wanted or wants it publicised. Personally I suspect the conversation could be summarized and the image removed, if the existing summary is not sufficient. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::Agreed. That the incident occurred at all may be notable and deserve mention, if only for the role it played in resurfacing his past. IMHO, what coverage we provide should stop short of propagating the breach of netiquette. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
All of this is absurd and not needed for anyone. Someone took it upon themselves to bring "justice" to someone for something they did many years ago, and has already served his sentence. It is none of our business, and is not needed to be pushed all in our faces on the internet. {{unsignedIP|75.62.133.154}}

::Everything on this page is no one's buisness. It's a vanity page, it's nothing but a presentation of personal information for vanity's sake. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vanity pertains to boosting ones ego, not inciting a riot and linking to a page that tells people to go and harass a user in person, call his phone and verbally abuse others, or confronting an individual at a con because of his past. {{unsignedIP|75.62.133.154}}

:There is a reasonable concern about having a registered sex offender participating in fandom activities, which often involve minors, without those responsible for these activities having knowledge of that fact. That is why this information is here. Nobody has posted his phone number here, and I hope nobody here intends to harrass him at a convention. If you have complaints about the content of [[Lulz.net]], talk to its moderators. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the newly posted Dragoneer/Preyfur and Tora log: Confirmation of the factual accuracy can be seen by the reply by Dragoneer to a tweet posting the log. The original tweet is (http://twitter.com/minnieshoof/status/4380287261)and his reply is (http://twitter.com/Dragoneer/status/4380406312)
This is important information because it shows 1) Possible evidence of a serious crime by Tora, 2) Deception on Tora's part, making him a higher risk for further criminal violations, 3) Possible abuse of admin powers by Dragoneer. Such information is in the best interests of the fandom to know because 1) It is critical to have as much information on high-risk sex offenders in a fandom with so many minors as its part, 2) To strengthen the case that sexual abuse of minors is NOT acceptable in furry, and won't be tolerated, and 3) Possible problems with the administration of the largest furry fandom that run counter to community interests. {{unsigned|Isopodic}}

:Unfortunately it also shows personal information from innocent minors. Again, I feel a summary without a link might be the best approach here. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

::Allow me to toss out one more question here. From what I know of pedophiles, it is the ones who seek out/initiate contact with minors on their own who are the greatest cause for concern. The ones who respond to incoming contacts from minors or those posing as minors, while certainly not without guilt, are considerably less of a concern. So based on the recent incidents, where does Tora fall on this spectrum? --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

::GreenReaper: This concern is very justified, and is not one I had considered. In this case, if possible, a good middle option would be to link to the log where the account name of the minor has been redacted, or if this is not viable, a summary would be suitable. Exposing the personal information of a minor is a strict no. Mwalimu: pedophiles (in the legal sense) are much more likely to repeat offenses. The fact that he is a registered offender is by far the largest factor in risk; it shows that he is not just attracted to adolescent boys, but has acted upon it. That, combined with his shown deception and recent sexual conversations with minors (both real and baited) only adds to the risk of another, in-person incident of abuse. --[[User:Isopodic|Isopodic]] 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I don't know about first contact, but the evidence suggests TORA solicited explicit material from a minor despite their misgivings and having been reminded by them of its illegality. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 06:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is a good example of how sleazy the government can be once you've been fingered for a "ZOMGPERV" type charge. Nobody should be forced to plead anything but not guilty out of fear.

That said, what he has admitted to (not plead no contest to) would IMHO have warranted the same sentence. Dateline's special series "To Catch A Predator" nailed quite a few folks for exactly what TORA himself admitted to doing.

However, the only reason he's a lifetime registered sex offender is because the DA bullied him into pleading no contest to a charge he didn't actually commit. Anyone can be pressured into a deal like that if their balls are squeezed hard enough, if you have enough leverage against them, or if you simply wear them out. It's part of being a defendant in almost any country, sadly including the USA. The DA played hardball and TORA caved. I'm actually curious how a jury would have decided had it gone to trial.

Since he wasn't actually convicted of an offense that requires sex offender registration, I find that any conclusions based upon that status are somewhat dubious if based on said status alone.

Based on what I have read and his admissions, I conclude that he is a pervert. However, as far as a dangerous pedophile, I have my doubts.

Regarding Dragoneer's abuse of admin powers: Assuming the evidence is correct, that TORA was using FA notes as a means of sexual chats with minors, then Dragoneer was entirely within his rights to ban TORA, and in fact would probably have been aiding and abetting a crime had he knowingly allowed it to continue. I would have done the same, and additionally would have archived the notes in question and turned them over to the police as evidence. So as far as I'm concerned, Dragoneer's response was entirely justified and he may as a practical matter not actually have had any choice about it.

In conclusion, I suggest that fact and opinion continue to be well separated, and also in this particular case that the politics involved in criminal prosecutions be also remembered.

:You assume that Tora's statement is truthful. Tora clearly felt that there was not enough evidence to prove his innocence, this could very well because he had no innocence. It would seem that his 35yo boyfriend who was also convicted wasn't helping in bail out Tora by saying he had no involvement either, maybe because Tora did have involvement? The fact remains however that Tora choose not to plead not guilty and to defend himself in court. Even his version of the events posted on Wikifur has signifigant gaps. He claims no responsibility by saying he was asleep at the time, and glosses over all details and thusly any responsibility to how he found himself in a hotel room with his boyfriend and a fourteen year old boy in the first place. Tora's version of the events is unbelievably convenient and even childish. Then after being charged, convicted, serving in prison and probation from the internet untill 2007, Tora still finds himself chatting about sex with people he knows to be minors in the state he resides in?

There are two undenyable facts here: 1) Tora got himself into a scenario that any responsible adult of a civilized society wouldn't have gotten close to. 2) After that scenario and punishment for it, he has been undenyably proven to be using the internet to solicit underaged boys, even using FurAffinity as a means to do so and being imprisoned once for the very same thing.

On a personal note, I would like to say that the furry fandom has an abundance of young but perfectly legal boys who are desperate for attention and affection and would love to have some internet stranger asking them if they can suck their own penis. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's Tora's own fault for not capitalizing on them instead of the underaged ones. Why rob the bank when the store next door is giving money away for free? [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[[User:Shentino|Shentino]] 03:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

==Protection==
An edit war has been engaged by an unregistered user. ( http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.62.133.154 ) He is blanking out all information relevent to recent controversy. I suggest protection for this article is necessary.
:If an individual user continues to remove information against consensus, that individual will be temporarily blocked. Protection against everyone is not required. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

TORA

2009-09-26T04:11:14Z

AshleyAshes: The log leak is confirmed as ligit by Dragoneer

__NOTOC__[[Image:Califur 2008 Growly.JPG|right|thumb|Growly at [[Califur 4]]]]'''TORA''', also known as '''Almightytora''' (born 2 June 1976)<ref name="TORALJP">[http://almightytora.livejournal.com/profile Almightytora's profile] on [[LiveJournal]]. Retrieved August 27, 2008</ref> is a [[fursuiter]] who lives in [[Wikipedia:Panorama City, California|Panorama City, California]], U.S.A.<ref name="TORALJP"/> He has been a furry fan since 1999.

== Fursona ==

TORA's [[fursuit]] character is '''Growly''', a [[dog]] based on the [[Pokémon]] "[[Wikipedia:Growlithe|Growlithe]]".<ref>[http://db.fursuit.org/?c=viewsuit&id=1068 Growly] on [[the Fursuit Database]]. Retrieved August 27, 2008</ref> The costume was built by [[Fallimar]] and debuted at [[Further Confusion 2008]], where he appeared in an act in the [[masquerade]]. Since then, Growly has been seen in many convention pictures sporting his trademark peace sign.

Growly wears fully functional glasses, as he is near-sighted in [[real life]]. People often ask if the glasses are real, and are amazed when Growly nods yes. He also wears one of two jerseys with the number 58 on it, which is Growlithe's [[Wikipedia:Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex|Pokédex]] number in the older versions of the game.

==Character and naming confusion==
[[Image:Growly7347.jpg|right|thumb|Growly at [[Further Confusion 2009]], flashing his peace sign]]
===Growly the Tiger===
A common misconception is that Growly is a [[tiger]], as he has stripes on his arms and his jerseys both depict tigers and the name on the back of the jersey says TORA (which means "tiger" in Japanese). When Growly walked around [[Wikipedia:Anime Expo|Anime Expo]] in 2008, many thought he was [[Tony the Tiger]]. This prompted Growly to put "I AM NOT TONY THE TIGER" on his oft-worn LED marquee, causing a few laughs from passersby.

When Penh introduced Growly at the [[Critterlympics]] at [[Further Confusion 2009]] as part of the Rawhide Chews (the dog team), some people were confused. One even said, "That's not a dog!" to which Penh replied, "He's a... he's an honorary dog." <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENV9RD5soME Further Confusion 2009 - Day 4 (Critterlympics Unleashed) Part 1] (2:36 - 2:51)</ref>

===Growly the Bear===

Growly has been confused with [[Growly]] the fursuit maker many times at conventions and at furry get-togethers. To further complicate matters, Growly (the fursuiter) commissioned Growly (the fursuit maker) for a [http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2020636/ badge], which was shown at the [[Prancing Skiltaire]]. When people asked Growly who made the badge, he simply responded, "Growly did." When the person responded back, "You did?", he knew he had confused another person with the Growly names, and simply giggled.

Another common mix-up is when Growly is fursuiting with his best friend [[Subbycoon]]. People commonly ask who made Subby's suit. Subby usually responds "Growly did." They then look at Growly and ask if he made it, which again causes Growly to giggle, as Growly (the fursuit maker) made Subbycoon's suit.

===Tora Nightprowler===

Growly is often mistaken for [[Tora Nightprowler]], and vice versa. Tora Nightprowler has gone to [[Midwest FurFest]] many times, but Growly has not yet, though he intends to attend [[Midwest FurFest 2009]]. Growly and Tora Nightprowler were at [[Anthrocon 2009]], and people were still getting confused to see TORA with Tora. Growly was also mixed up with [[Blazger]] while at Anthrocon.

==Past appearances==
TORA has appeared at numerous furry conventions since 2008: [[Further Confusion 2008]] and [[Further Confusion 2009|2009]], [[Califur 4]] and [[Califur 5|5]], [[RainFurrest 2008]] and [[RainFurrest 2009|2009]] (where he helped with [[registration]]), and [[Anthrocon 2008]] and [[Anthrocon 2009|2009]] (where he helped with registration as well).

== Controversy ==
[[Image:TORA-17-year-old-boy.jpg|right|thumb|One of six screen-caps containing the interaction between TORA and the 17 year-old.]]
In 2000, TORA and his now ex-partner were contacted by a teenage boy. According to TORA,<ref>[[User:Almightytora/Statement|Statement by TORA regarding his arrest and conviction]] (24 September 2009)</ref> he sent a nude image of himself to the teen, who solicited TORA for sex but was turned down multiple times due to his age. However, in March 2001, TORA's older partner convinced him that they should meet up with the teen at a hotel. TORA says that while he "refused to do anything," he made the mistake of sleeping in the same room, while his partner had sex with the teen without his knowledge.

Several months later, TORA was shocked to find himself under arrest, facing numerous counts of sexual contact with the 14-year-old.<ref>''[http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/28/local/me-16030 Two Men Accused of Having Sex With Boy, 14]'' - [[Wikipedia:Los Angeles Times|Los Angeles Times]] (28 June 2001)</ref> After months of objections to a guilty plea, he eventually plead "[[Wikipedia:Nolo contendere|no contest]]" to one count of "lewd or lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 years old," serving over two years of a three-year sentence. On his release in April 2004 he spent another three years under [[Wikipedia:Parole|parole]] restrictions, after which he slowly rejoined the fandom.

Tora's criminal past was detailed in a thread on furry [[imageboard]] [[Lulz.net]], with screenshots of AIM chatlogs detailing a sexual conversation between TORA and a 17 year-old boy. In the conversation, Tora states that he "does not mind" about age, and that he would engage in sexual activity with a boy 14 years old - but only if it were legal. After this posting, Lulz.net users discovered additional information, including a listing on meganslaw.ca.gov and the LA Times article detailing his arrest.

A Pastebin entry containing what appears to be a log between Tora (Daniel Llamas) and Dragoneer (Preyfar) was discovered in Google's Cache feature. It can be seen here: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:Hliisr9fAMQJ:pastebin.ca/1577336+furaffinity+amino+troll&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us It shows that the deciding reason for the FurAffinity ban was that Tora engaged in a sexual conversation with a minor via IM messages, after knowing full well that he was 16 years old. It also suggests the reason for Amino's ban from FurAffinity (Posting information regarding Tora's conviction to a journal entry.)

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
{{Contributor|Almightytora}}
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/tora/ TORA] on [[Fur Affinity]]
* [http://almightytora.livejournal.com/ Almightytora] on [[LiveJournal]]
* [http://almightytora.deviantart.com/ Almightytora] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/almightytora Almightytora's videos] on [[YouTube]]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Fursuiters]]
[[Category:Dog characters]]
[[Category:California]]
[[Category:1976 births]]

Talk:TORA

2009-09-24T21:02:23Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:TORA

2009-09-24T20:45:50Z

AshleyAshes:

TORA

2009-09-24T20:34:26Z

AshleyAshes: Undoing vandalism by 75.62.133.154 (Talk)

__NOTOC__[[Image:Califur 2008 Growly.JPG|right|thumb|Growly at [[Califur 4]]]]'''TORA''' (also known as '''Almightytora'''; born 2 June 1976)<ref name="TORALJP">[http://almightytora.livejournal.com/profile Almightytora's profile] on [[LiveJournal]]. Retrieved August 27, 2008</ref> is a [[fursuiter]] who lives in [[Wikipedia:Panorama City, California|Panorama City, California]], U.S.A.<ref name="TORALJP"/> He has been a furry fan since 1999.

==Fursuit==
TORA's [[fursuit]] character is '''Growly''', a [[dog]] based on the [[Pokémon]] "[[Wikipedia:Growlithe|Growlithe]]".<ref>[http://db.fursuit.org/?c=viewsuit&id=1068 Growly] on [[the Fursuit Database]]. Retrieved August 27, 2008</ref> The costume was built by [[Fallimar]] and debuted at [[Further Confusion 2008]], where he appeared in an act in the [[masquerade]]. Since then, Growly has been seen in many convention pictures sporting his trademark peace sign.

Growly wears fully functional glasses, as he is near-sighted in [[real life]]. People often ask if the glasses are real, and are amazed when Growly nods yes. He also wears one of two jerseys with the number 58 on it, which is Growlithe's [[Wikipedia:Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex|Pokédex]] number in the older versions of the game.

==Character and naming confusion==
[[Image:Growly7347.jpg|right|thumb|Growly at [[Further Confusion 2009]], flashing his peace sign]]

===Growly the Tiger===
A common misconception is that Growly is a [[tiger]], as he has stripes on his arms and his jerseys both depict tigers and the name on the back of the jersey says TORA (which means "tiger" in Japanese). When Growly walked around [[Wikipedia:Anime Expo|Anime Expo]] in 2008, many thought he was [[Tony the Tiger]]. This prompted Growly to put "I AM NOT TONY THE TIGER" on his oft-worn LED marquee, causing a few laughs from passersby.

When Penh introduced Growly at the [[Critterlympics]] at [[Further Confusion 2009]] as part of the Rawhide Chews (the dog team), some people were confused. One even said, "That's not a dog!" to which Penh replied, "He's a... he's an honorary dog." <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENV9RD5soME Further Confusion 2009 - Day 4 (Critterlympics Unleashed) Part 1] (2:36 - 2:51)</ref>

===Growly the Bear===
Growly has been confused with [[Growly]] the fursuit maker many times at conventions and at furry get-togethers. To further complicate matters, Growly (the fursuiter) commissioned Growly (the fursuit maker) for a [http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2020636/ badge], which was shown at the [[Prancing Skiltaire]]. When people asked Growly who made the badge, he simply responded, "Growly did." When the person responded back, "You did?", he knew he had confused another person with the Growly names, and simply giggled.

Another common mix-up is when Growly is fursuiting with his best friend [[Subbycoon]]. People commonly ask who made Subby's suit. Subby usually responds "Growly did." They then look at Growly and ask if he made it, which again causes Growly to giggle, as Growly (the fursuit maker) made Subbycoon's suit.

===Tora Nightprowler===
Growly is often mistaken for [[Tora Nightprowler]], and vice versa. Tora Nightprowler has gone to [[Midwest FurFest]] many times, but Growly has not yet, though he intends to attend [[Midwest FurFest 2009]]. Growly and Tora Nightprowler were at [[Anthrocon 2009]], and people were still getting confused to see TORA with Tora. Growly was also mixed up with [[Blazger]] while at Anthrocon.

==Past appearances==
TORA has appeared at numerous furry conventions since 2008: [[Further Confusion 2008]] and [[Further Confusion 2009|2009]], [[Califur 4]] and [[Califur 5|5]], [[RainFurrest 2008]] and [[RainFurrest 2009|2009]] (where he helped with [[registration]]), and [[Anthrocon 2008]] and [[Anthrocon 2009|2009]] (where he helped with registration as well).

== Controversy ==

In 2000, TORA and his now ex-partner were contacted by a teenage boy. According to TORA,<ref>[[User:Almightytora/Statement|Statement by TORA regarding his arrest and conviction]] (24 September 2009)</ref> he sent a nude image of himself to the teen, who solicited TORA for sex but was turned down multiple times due to his age. However, in March 2001, TORA's older partner convinced him that they should meet up with the teen at a hotel. TORA says that while he "refused to do anything," he made the mistake of sleeping in the same room, while his partner had sex with the teen without his knowledge.

Several months later, TORA was shocked to find himself under arrest, facing numerous counts of sexual contact with the 14-year-old.<ref>''[http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/28/local/me-16030 Two Men Accused of Having Sex With Boy, 14]'' - [[Wikipedia:Los Angeles Times|Los Angeles Times]] (28 June 2001)</ref> After months of objections to a guilty plea, he eventually plead "[[Wikipedia:Nolo contendere|no contest]]" to one count of "lewd or lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 years old," serving over two years of a three-year sentence. On his release in April 2004 the conditions of his [[Wikipedia:Parole|parole]] required a further three years without internet use, after which he slowly rejoined the fandom.

The original discovery of Tora's criminal past originated on the furry imageboard [[Lulz.Net]]. A thread was posted, with screenshots of AIM chatlogs detailing a sexual conversation between TORA and an apparently underage boy who was in fact an adult posing as a 17-year-old. In the conversation, Tora states that age does not matter, and would engage in sexual activity with a boy 14 years old if it were legal. {{fact}} After this was posted, users of Lulz.net did research into Tora, discovering both a listing on [meganslaw.ca.gov] and the LA Times article, as well as additional information. The authenticity of the original logs is strengthened by showing an age matching the information from these pages, and the discovery that he is a registered sex offender. It must be noted that if the conversation from the logs had not been a set-up, TORA would have been engaging in illegal activity with a minor over the Internet.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
{{Contributor|Almightytora}}
* [http://almightytora.livejournal.com/ Almightytora] on [[LiveJournal]]
* [http://almightytora.deviantart.com/ Almightytora] on [[deviantART]]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/almightytora Almightytora's videos] on [[YouTube]]
* [http://www.furaffinity.net/user/tora/ TORA] on [[Fur Affinity]]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Fursuiters]]
[[Category:Dog characters]]
[[Category:California]]
[[Category:1976 births]]

Talk:TORA

2009-09-24T08:22:20Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:TORA

2009-09-24T07:51:28Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Michael Hirtes

2009-08-31T01:01:03Z

AshleyAshes:

If he doesn't care what furries think, as claimed by the last couple of vandals, then why even make the effort to change this page? -- [[User:Siege|Siege]] 09:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section ", and wrote a story for ''[[Genus]]'' called ''[[Why Desert Winds Howl]]'', along with artist [[Dean L. Norton]]" as it appears that this story was instead written by a "Riley" ([[Rod O'Riley]]?) and published in ''[[Furrlough]]'' #2-3, 5. Was the contributor thinking of another story? --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike has requested in communication with me that we either obtain proof of the assertion made towards his reputation or remove it. As the original contributor was anonymous, it is not possible to ask them directly. It is hard to defend a statement that is without obvious proof. Can anyone help out in substantiating this further, or should we remove this on grounds of lack of evidence?

Or should we remove it anyway, even if it is true, as he has requested it and asserts that he "just wants to be left alone"? Your thoughts, please. I would like not to have to spend my ''whole'' weekend on this and related topics. :-) --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 06:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:He didn't leave Paul Kidd alone here, but he demands we do it for him?,... Uh, nay. You reap what you sow. [[User:65.91.54.243|65.91.54.243]] 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

::I must admit I feel similarly. My worry with that is that we then have different rules for different people depending on how we feel about them as contributors, which seems a little unprofessional. Not that I'm suggesting that WikiFur is professional as it stands, but it's nice to have something to aspire to . . . --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

:I just spent the past half-hour reviewing posts by and about Mr. Hirtes on Google Groups. I think [http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.furry/browse_thread/thread/4374d39bff4e0aae/e72fa3204da3614f#e72fa3204da3614f this thread shows several examples], and should provide some substantiation to the statements in question.--[[User:DuncanDaHusky|Duncan da Husky]] 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't be mentioning this, but Hirtes' absence from CYD for a while was due to the fact he was banned. I don't recall the reason, apart from maybe he annoyed Mitch. Later, he reregistered under the name "MHirtes" and picked right back up where he left off, being a regular poster today. It should be noted though, that at times (read: often) he annoys even the likes of the other forum members with his tangental and fannish grudges against little known furry artists.

:Yes. He was only banned for a time, though I am not sure if he was aware of that given that he registered another account. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 14:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Word from Mike himself: Perhaps I just decided to start clean with a new account? I'm sure because your hatred of me, your mind will only allow the worst possible explanations, but sometimes the most obvious reasons are the correct ones.

Why "It should be noted though, that at times (read: often) he annoys even the likes of the other forum members with his tangental and fannish grudges against little known furry artists." is even worth being noted at all is kind of hilarious, actually. You mean I'm the only one in the entire history of the Internet to have stated an opinion that someone else has disagreed with? Wow!

Sounds to me like the only real reason to note it at all was just to find something to smear me with, no matter how minor. Things have sunk pretty low for the Anti-Hirtes Hate Squad when the worst accusation said of me lately is "He says things that some people disagree with". lol

It's been several months since I last stopped by here to WF, but it seems the admin has an ongoing grudge and wishes to continue with his hate/smear/stalk campaign, noting every little rumor and tidbit of hearsay he comes across. I guess no matter how long you leave the fandom, there are some who want to continue with their hate. I left furry fandom a long time ago. Perhaps it's time furry fandom did the vice-versa?

I have no doubt that this entry by myself won't last longer than raw fish in the Summer sun, but perhaps in that brief time between when I post this and the admin deletes it to censor the truth (his bias is truly amazing as it is apparent), someone may catch a peek.

== Lulz.net data removal (reason) ==

Removal of Lulz.net mention. Articles on this board 404 too frequently to add this to the article as referenced material, unless somebody saves it - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

== Exclusion request ==
The subject of this page has made a request for exclusion via email. If anyone wishes to object this exclusion, please comment within the next 24 hours. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

: If anything, this article presents Hirtes as being less of a threat to artists than he has actually demonstrated himself to be. I object to this exclusion because it stands as a ligitimate warning to artists who may be comissioned by him. He has previously even boasted about getting all money forcefully refunded from artists by paypal for arbitrary reasons. After this incident, some artists have chosen to decline comissions from Hirtes so as to avoid such threats. This page stands as some protection for artists from being defrauded for work done. I believe, like the Sibe article, it's exclusion would be detrimental to the furry fandom. This isn't just 'drama' afterall, but incidents where money has been taken from artists even after doing the work. I object. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 01:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Hirtes

2009-08-31T01:00:39Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Taryn Lee Zouryx

2009-06-18T23:09:05Z

AshleyAshes: Created page with '== First Person Or Third Person == You really need to pick on perspective for your vanity page and stick with it, Taryn. It's not like we're having difficulty keeping it in the...'

== First Person Or Third Person ==

You really need to pick on perspective for your vanity page and stick with it, Taryn. It's not like we're having difficulty keeping it in the third person for your ED page. Not that complicated.

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-05T07:49:25Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::''I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal.''
:::::::::Oh? Who do you think made the posts necessary to get the babyfurs all stirred-up, perhaps resulting in the rewording of both such terms? Sometimes the most effective response is indirect. '''*grin*''' --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::As a long time friend of Alan's I can definitively say that he did now wear the babyfur label. While his interests were in babyfurs themselves it did not extend far beyond that. In the times I've spent time with him I never experienced any of the fore mentioned behaviors. What I am confused about is your stake in all of this. You seem very intent that it it well know that he was somehow a babyfur. Are you part of our community? After reading your posts and history on here I'm am convinced that you are little more than a troll that pays careful attention to stay inside the rules. Again I ask, what is your stake in this? What do you gain by somehow trying to force an association with the bayfur community and Alan?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is still sufficent information in the content to label him as a babyfur, especially as Babyfur is often used as an umbrella term, even as stated in the babyfur article. Additionally, my motiviations for edits is irrelevent, as we have babyfurs trying to edit this article not in the pursuit of correctness but political convenience shows that 'motivation' isn't necessarily a healthy thing for wiki articles. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Sufficient evidence? What sufficient evidence? Based on a pounced ad? That is hardly proof. Further the burden of proof is upon you to actually show any relation he allegedly has to the community. It is not my job to provide proof contrary to an allegation. If you are so hot to get him tagged as a babyfur then prove he is. Furthermore your motivation is absolutely relevant in the matter. You accuse me of politicking yet hide your motivations. All in all your actions and responces read very much like those of somene simply seeking a rise out of another. Again I will ask, what is your stake in this?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::: I am in agreement with GR's statement here. "Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology." As I stated above as well, there is no indication of him claiming to be a 'fursuiter' but no one is disputing his listed status as a fursuiter. He had a fursuit, he was a furry, he was thusly a fursuiter, weather he claimed the label or not. I believe he fits the criteria of a 'babyfur' as it is largely used within the fandom. Never before have I seen babyfurs make such an out effort to specify what is a babyfur or not. I beliueve that if babyfurs were having this discussion under any other circumstance, there would be babyfurs complaining about such harsh and strict definitions. Agian, I will not go into my motives, I am making a logical argument for the inclusion of facts and am operating within he rules, that is all that matters. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Furthermore I dissagree with the existance off such an umbrella term. Just because someone likes diapers does not make them a babyfur. Under that argument I could allege that fursuiters are all into fursuit sex because there are some of them that are. I think clarification and dismissal of this umbrella term needs to happen.--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::That would be a issue for discussion on Talk:Babyfur, not Talk:Alan T. Panda. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-05T07:48:49Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::''I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal.''
:::::::::Oh? Who do you think made the posts necessary to get the babyfurs all stirred-up, perhaps resulting in the rewording of both such terms? Sometimes the most effective response is indirect. '''*grin*''' --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::As a long time friend of Alan's I can definitively say that he did now wear the babyfur label. While his interests were in babyfurs themselves it did not extend far beyond that. In the times I've spent time with him I never experienced any of the fore mentioned behaviors. What I am confused about is your stake in all of this. You seem very intent that it it well know that he was somehow a babyfur. Are you part of our community? After reading your posts and history on here I'm am convinced that you are little more than a troll that pays careful attention to stay inside the rules. Again I ask, what is your stake in this? What do you gain by somehow trying to force an association with the bayfur community and Alan?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is still sufficent information in the content to label him as a babyfur, especially as Babyfur is often used as an umbrella term, even as stated in the babyfur article. Additionally, my motiviations for edits is irrelevent, as we have babyfurs trying to edit this article not in the pursuit of correctness but political convenience shows that 'motivation' isn't necessarily a healthy thing for wiki articles. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Sufficient evidence? What sufficient evidence? Based on a pounced ad? That is hardly proof. Further the burden of proof is upon you to actually show any relation he allegedly has to the community. It is not my job to provide proof contrary to an allegation. If you are so hot to get him tagged as a babyfur then prove he is. Furthermore your motivation is absolutely relevant in the matter. You accuse me of politicking yet hide your motivations. All in all your actions and responces read very much like those of somene simply seeking a rise out of another. Again I will ask, what is your stake in this?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::: I am in agreement with GR's statement here. "Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology." As I stated above as well, there is no indication of him claiming to be a 'fursuiter' but no one is disputing his listed status as a fursuiter. He had a fursuit, he was a furry, he was thusly a fursuit, weather he claimed the label or not. I believe he fits the criteria of a 'babyfur' as it is largely used within the fandom. Never before have I seen babyfurs make such an out effort to specify what is a babyfur or not. I beliueve that if babyfurs were having this discussion under any other circumstance, there would be babyfurs complaining about such harsh and strict definitions. Agian, I will not go into my motives, I am making a logical argument for the inclusion of facts and am operating within he rules, that is all that matters. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Furthermore I dissagree with the existance off such an umbrella term. Just because someone likes diapers does not make them a babyfur. Under that argument I could allege that fursuiters are all into fursuit sex because there are some of them that are. I think clarification and dismissal of this umbrella term needs to happen.--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::That would be a issue for discussion on Talk:Babyfur, not Talk:Alan T. Panda. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-05T07:48:24Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::''I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal.''
:::::::::Oh? Who do you think made the posts necessary to get the babyfurs all stirred-up, perhaps resulting in the rewording of both such terms? Sometimes the most effective response is indirect. '''*grin*''' --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::As a long time friend of Alan's I can definitively say that he did now wear the babyfur label. While his interests were in babyfurs themselves it did not extend far beyond that. In the times I've spent time with him I never experienced any of the fore mentioned behaviors. What I am confused about is your stake in all of this. You seem very intent that it it well know that he was somehow a babyfur. Are you part of our community? After reading your posts and history on here I'm am convinced that you are little more than a troll that pays careful attention to stay inside the rules. Again I ask, what is your stake in this? What do you gain by somehow trying to force an association with the bayfur community and Alan?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is still sufficent information in the content to label him as a babyfur, especially as Babyfur is often used as an umbrella term, even as stated in the babyfur article. Additionally, my motiviations for edits is irrelevent, as we have babyfurs trying to edit this article not in the pursuit of correctness but political convenience shows that 'motivation' isn't necessarily a healthy thing for wiki articles. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Sufficient evidence? What sufficient evidence? Based on a pounced ad? That is hardly proof. Further the burden of proof is upon you to actually show any relation he allegedly has to the community. It is not my job to provide proof contrary to an allegation. If you are so hot to get him tagged as a babyfur then prove he is. Furthermore your motivation is absolutely relevant in the matter. You accuse me of politicking yet hide your motivations. All in all your actions and responces read very much like those of somene simply seeking a rise out of another. Again I will ask, what is your stake in this?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: I am in agreement with GR's statement here. "Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology." As I stated above as well, there is no indication of him claiming to be a 'fursuiter' but no one is disputing his listed status as a fursuiter. He had a fursuit, he was a furry, he was thusly a fursuit, weather he claimed the label or not. I believe he fits the criteria of a 'babyfur' as it is largely used within the fandom. Never before have I seen babyfurs make such an out effort to specify what is a babyfur or not. I beliueve that if babyfurs were having this discussion under any other circumstance, there would be babyfurs complaining about such harsh and strict definitions. Agian, I will not go into my motives, I am making a logical argument for the inclusion of facts and am operating within he rules, that is all that matters. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Furthermore I dissagree with the existance off such an umbrella term. Just because someone likes diapers does not make them a babyfur. Under that argument I could allege that fursuiters are all into fursuit sex because there are some of them that are. I think clarification and dismissal of this umbrella term needs to happen.--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::That would be a issue for discussion on Talk:Babyfur, not Talk:Alan T. Panda. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-05T07:41:34Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::''I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal.''
:::::::::Oh? Who do you think made the posts necessary to get the babyfurs all stirred-up, perhaps resulting in the rewording of both such terms? Sometimes the most effective response is indirect. '''*grin*''' --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::As a long time friend of Alan's I can definitively say that he did now wear the babyfur label. While his interests were in babyfurs themselves it did not extend far beyond that. In the times I've spent time with him I never experienced any of the fore mentioned behaviors. What I am confused about is your stake in all of this. You seem very intent that it it well know that he was somehow a babyfur. Are you part of our community? After reading your posts and history on here I'm am convinced that you are little more than a troll that pays careful attention to stay inside the rules. Again I ask, what is your stake in this? What do you gain by somehow trying to force an association with the bayfur community and Alan?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is still sufficent information in the content to label him as a babyfur, especially as Babyfur is often used as an umbrella term, even as stated in the babyfur article. Additionally, my motiviations for edits is irrelevent, as we have babyfurs trying to edit this article not in the pursuit of correctness but political convenience shows that 'motivation' isn't necessarily a healthy thing for wiki articles. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Sufficient evidence? What sufficient evidence? Based on a pounced ad? That is hardly proof. Further the burden of proof is upon you to actually show any relation he allegedly has to the community. It is not my job to provide proof contrary to an allegation. If you are so hot to get him tagged as a babyfur then prove he is. Furthermore your motivation is absolutely relevant in the matter. You accuse me of politicking yet hide your motivations. All in all your actions and responces read very much like those of somene simply seeking a rise out of another. Again I will ask, what is your stake in this?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Furthermore I dissagree with the existance off such an umbrella term. Just because someone likes diapers does not make them a babyfur. Under that argument I could allege that fursuiters are all into fursuit sex because there are some of them that are. I think clarification and dismissal of this umbrella term needs to happen.--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

::::That would be a issue for discussion on Talk:Babyfur, not Talk:Alan T. Panda. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-05T06:07:23Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-05T05:50:25Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::''I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal.''
:::::::::Oh? Who do you think made the posts necessary to get the babyfurs all stirred-up, perhaps resulting in the rewording of both such terms? Sometimes the most effective response is indirect. '''*grin*''' --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::As a long time friend of Alan's I can definitively say that he did now wear the babyfur label. While his interests were in babyfurs themselves it did not extend far beyond that. In the times I've spent time with him I never experienced any of the fore mentioned behaviors. What I am confused about is your stake in all of this. You seem very intent that it it well know that he was somehow a babyfur. Are you part of our community? After reading your posts and history on here I'm am convinced that you are little more than a troll that pays careful attention to stay inside the rules. Again I ask, what is your stake in this? What do you gain by somehow trying to force an association with the bayfur community and Alan?--[[User:Therealfoxcub|Therealfoxcub]] 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::There is still sufficent information in the content to label him as a babyfur, especially as Babyfur is often used as an umbrella term, even as stated in the babyfur article. Additionally, my motiviations for edits is irrelevent, as we have babyfurs trying to edit this article not in the pursuit of correctness but political convenience shows that 'motivation' isn't necessarily a healthy thing for wiki articles. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-04T22:54:57Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-04T22:54:15Z

AshleyAshes:

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted [[User:FelixSoftpaw]]'s edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:Rereading the [http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684+%22alan+t.+panda%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile], it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.
:I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --[[User:Quotingmungo|quoting_mungo]] 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:::The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

:::Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

::::I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

::::Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

::::Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. [[User:Skippyfox|skippyfox]] 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

::::In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. [[Special:Contributions/99.241.49.17|99.241.49.17]] 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

:::By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

::::Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

::::It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like [http://www.dutchfurs.com/comment.php?comment.news.665 this] (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

::::However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for ''their'' behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was ''watching'' both {{lj-comm|baby_furs}} and {{lj-comm|babyfur}} - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

:::::You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of {{lj-comm|babyfur}} (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned, {{lj-comm|baby_furs}}, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

:::::Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

::::::Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

::::::::There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- ''[[User:FelixSoftpaw|Natasha Softpaw]]'' ( [[User_talk:FelixSoftpaw|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/FelixSoftpaw|contribs]] ) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. [[User:AshleyAshes|AshleyAshes]] 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-04T22:18:36Z

AshleyAshes:

Talk:Alan T. Panda

2009-06-04T20:34:20Z

AshleyAshes:

Alan T. Panda

2009-06-04T20:20:19Z

AshleyAshes:

'''Alan T. Panda''' (real name '''Alan David Berlin''', also known as '''Furrypanda''' and '''Alan Panda Bear'''; born November 14, 1968)<ref name="AlanTPanda">[http://furrypanda.livejournal.com/profile Alan T. Panda's profile] on [[LiveJournal]]. Retrieved May 30, 2009.</ref> is a [[fursuiter]], [[babyfur]] and "daddyfur/caretaker with a cub side". He lives in [[Wikipedia:Carlisle, Pennsylvania|Carlisle, Pennsylvania]], U.S.A.<ref name="AlanTPanda"/>
{{WikiFurNews|Penn. 'daddyfur' charged with teen contact}}
== Alan T. Panda on Pounced.org ==

Alan T. Panda placed a personal ad titled "Looking for a Babyfur for a Long-Term Committed Relationship" on [[Pounced.org]] which he last modified on April 2, 2009.<ref name="pounced">[http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:1R_Rfmh3IK4J:ww.pounced.org/personals/viewad.php%3F%26hcenc%3D1%26hpad%3D14684 Google's cache of pounced.org ad] from May 17, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009.</ref> He describes himself as a gay "Daddyfur and Caretaker" who is "looking for a babyfur to be my mate and companion in a long-term committed relationship." He states that he "likes to wear diapers at times" and occasionally likes to be babied.<ref name="pounced"/> He states he is looking for a babyfur "who is between the ages of 20 and 25 (we can talk about edging that either direction)" and enjoys being babied although "doesn’t want to be a baby 24/7" and, among other points, "who is willing to relocate".<ref name="pounced"/>

== Controversy ==

On Thursday, May 28, 2009, Berlin was arrested on accusations he propositioned a fifteen-year-old boy over the internet.<ref name="KDKA">[http://kdka.com/politics/Panda.costume.staffer.2.1024045.html "Pa. Senate Aide Allegedly Wanted Sex With Teen"] on the website of Pittsburgh's [[Wikipedia:KDKA-TV|KDKA-TV]] television station. Dated May 29, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009</ref><ref name="PostGaz">[http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09150/973907-455.stm "Orie aide accused of soliciting teen for 'furry' sex"] on the [[Wikipedia:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|Pittsburgh Post-Gazette]]. Dated May 30, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009</ref><ref name="PittsburghChannel">[http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19604318/detail.html "'Shocked, Appalled' McCandless Sen. Fires Staffer Accused Of Seeking Kid Sex"] on thepittsburghchannel.com. Dated May 29, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2009</ref>

According to investigators, Berlin communicated with the boy on seven different days between April 27 and May 25, 2009, in a series of instant messages and online chats.<ref name="PostGaz"/> It is alleged that Berlin discussed dressing up in [[Fursuit|animal costumes]] and engaging in sex with the boy,<ref name="PostGaz"/> and that he proposed traveling to the boy's home and having sex in the backyard and in a shed on his parents' property.<ref name="PostGaz"/> It is also alleged that Berlin offered to arrange a meeting in a hotel room so he could take photographs of the boy and another adult having sex.<ref name="PostGaz"/>

After the boy's parents found sexually explicit messages on his computer,<ref name="PittsburghChannel"/> they contacted the Attorney General's Child Predator Unit,<ref name="PostGaz"/> and forty-eight hours later Berlin was arrested.

Investigators believe that Berlin and the boy met on a [[furry]] internet site.<ref name="PostGaz"/> When Berlin's home was searched, [[wolf]] and [[cat]]-like costumes were found.<ref name="PittsburghChannel"/>

Berlin was arraigned before District Judge George Zozos and taken to the Dauphin County Jail on $250,000 bail.<ref name="PittsburghChannel"/>

=== Politics ===

Some of the messages originated from a computer in the Pennsylvania state senate<ref name="PostGaz"/> where Berlin had worked since 1993,<ref name="PostGaz"/> as an aide to republican senator [[Wikipedia:Jane Orie|Jane Orie]].<ref name="PittsburghChannel"/> Upon hearing of the allegations, Senator Orie suspended Berlin without pay, and he was later fired.<ref name="PittsburghChannel"/>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

* [http://furrypanda.livejournal.com/ Alan T. Panda] on [[LiveJournal]]

{{person-stub}}
[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Fursuiters]]
[[Category:Panda characters]]
[[Category:Pennsylvania]]
[[Category:1968 births]]