WikiFur - User contributions [en]

Talk:Wolfee Darkfang

2010-03-28T18:18:34Z

Paxilrose:

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (March 2008 - March 2010)
</div>
'''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.'''

==Wolfee Lies==
(This is of course directed towards administration, of course. We all know Wolfee/Tamias' response)

We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum. Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest, and everything was posted here until a moderator ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag. I completely understand not wanting unsavory factoids litter the hugbox that is WikiFur, but do understand the difference between "We debunked them cuz they were lies!" and "We didn't allow it because it contributed to a negative atmosphere". be aware this was a ''very'' widespread event regarding this individuals and many furries, not merely "fake contributors", will verify Wolfee did lie about his involvement, did later admit to doing so, and does attack people that call him out on these events when they're brought up later.

These events have led to Wolfees at best mixed (at on average far, '''far''' worse) reputation in his chosen community, and as such should not be exempt from being discussed on what touts itself as a comprehensive wiki on all things and people furry. As I'll point out again, as with Sibe, eventually some individuals are going to gain such a negative reputation to the point where ''some'' reference of it will be acknowledged. This does not make it "obsessive trolling/hating/etc", that's what happens when someone willingly involves themselves in as much drama.

All it takes is one talk to the administration of FurAffinity forums and it becomes clear that Wolfee's talk of "super organized elaborate troll conspiracy that is all totally lies that were super duper debunked" is more than a just tad exaggerated, to a point where he maintains [http://blog.wolfeedarkfang.com/?p=48 the entire forum is full of anti-furries because they disagree with his manner of handling himself]. Understand that people can have negative opinions of people ''and'' solid proof to back them up and it should it get to such a point people will bring it up. Aggressive revisionism and sanitizing every negative comment is not a professional way to handle dissent.

Everyone's favorite, --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

:Wow your still going on about this? You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you? Do you even think most furries care? And why do you need to make a new paxilrose account? You already had one here. You even have a page on yourself last time i checked. I smell impostor. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

:::(Legit account) - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::* You silly fellow, the conversation had continued obviously in my absence. Look above, friend, you'll see a huge issue of controversy was the very matter I addressed. A tad late (2 weeks or so) to the party for sure, but I see no reason for that to be of any significance considering it's still an obvious hot-button issue. As a result, I'll address your issues in order:

::*"You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you?"
::This is actually what the privious comment was about, namely presenting said evidence and it's swift removal for reasons I can only conclude to be cronyism. Several examples were brought forth and a dialogue was requested, both were soundly ignored without much justification other than "I do not want them here", but on the contrary you're apparently able to go on about "Oh yeah we found them out a long time ago it was hackers and I ended up looking awesome" as though you have it set in stone without having to show anything to back it. Either due to Admins genuinely not believing what I bring to the table or whether they're extending this site to you as a heaven to be rid of your reputation out of a courtesy to someone they deem to have it rough,I'm not sure, and is what I'm asking about.

::*"Do you even think most furries care?"
::Now see this is a loaded question, since again, as I've pointed out, when furries disagree with you and your methods, in your mind, they evidently ''cease being furries'' altogether. Your blog pretty explains as much, unless of course theres an alternate meaning to that post you'd care to share. As FurAffinitys forums prove, to me and you, apparently there is a significant amount of furries that think this is true relevant. Going by your history and usual defense mechanisms, however, you're more than willing to toss these out the window in order to keep up an appearance of "furries V. haters", even 'ol Zhael up there has been a victim of this logic of yours. So that's a pretty irrelevant point.

::It's really not about whether or not it was you there on BeastForum, we have proof and an admission from you. What I'm inquiring about is when is it ok to bring up well known grievences with so called "famous furries", when is it legitimate to narrate one side of an issue without evidence (since you and yours are apparently touting this "faked and hacked" account as Word of God and basing this on nothing other than "C'mon dood, it's '''trolls'''!", why other evidence can be tossed out without much acknowledgement and the opposition deemed "trolls and obsessive harrassers", and the explanation as to how management here deems what is appropriate and what is not. Once more, I'll point to the Sibe article. Pretty damning stuff there, no? But why is it acceptable to advertise his misdeeds and not your own? There's tangible evidence of it (whether or not you want to argue it's authenticity or not is another matter, it exists and backs up what I'm saying. You've brought up almost nothing as far as your "truth" about hackers and false Admins go), other furries are well aware of the goings on (again, whether you believe them to be "real furries" or not is besides the point), so why is one relevant and the other is not? For what it's worth, I recall you bringing up that one or more Admins here are personal friends of yours from SecondLife, so I have a feeling that and that alone is the reason you're free to re-write history as you deem fit and bully children into quietly accepting it. At the same time, as far as "fake contributors and obvious trolls" go, I find it only appropriate to counter you and your comrades version of "the truth" and bring up a rebuttal that not only me, but a significant number of your beloved '''furries''' consider factual and relevant. I find that much is only fair.

::Same old account, btw. Even the Admins will verify that much. Then again who knows, right?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica a more suited place to slander people on? The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that? Its not like Wolfee is the President of the United States. He's just some common Joe nobody that the world could care less about. Yet you seem to think that Wolfee is some scandalous celebrity rip for tabloid picking. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::"The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that?"

::::* This reasoning is based around the rational that there are people out there deliberatly lying in order to attack him, which ''would'' be ill spirited and inappropriate. However, you ignore the fact this did happen, and so is a completely different issue. You know it happened, you know there are '''furries''' that know it happened, such as our boy above. Yet you always stress it as a "furry V. troll" issue and try to paint it as something that affects ''all'' furries is it's let to be aired. But that brings us back to my other point, what of the furries that don't believe you? Why are they less credible? What makes Wolfee and you more important or noteworthy that such attacks should be considered heinous character assassination?

::::There's a difference between continuously hounding someone who has never done anything to anyone and trying to bring them down for shits and giggles, it's quite another to report on and argue on what both furries and 3rd party observers deem relevant history. You can argue the methods are dirty and committed in ill will, but when you argue "This '''never''' happened, we totally annihilated that and if you don't believe us crawl back to the hole you came from" and then bring nothing to support this other than "They are assholes, that's how you know they are making it up", you're outright lying.

::::There's a difference between "omg they're lying!" and bringing up an unflattering history. We both know this is something old Wolfee here would definitely like to forget, but lying and intimidation to push a story you can't back and that few believes is not the way to handle this. Fur Affinity forums should have a been lesson in trying to twist arms of your fellow furry in order to look good in front of them, and in the end only makes you look bad. Admitting you were embarrassed by a bullying asshole (yours truly) is bad, but threatening and trying to force a revisionist history (with again, nothing to back you up) makes you look like you have something you desperately need to hide. And do you remember who comes a'knocking when people cause a scene to hide something embarrassing?

::::You can whine "No, you just hate furries and hate us because we are super awesome furries" all you want, but as you can see this reputation of Woflees is only getting worse and worse and his reaction is only digging the whole faster and faster. Painting yourselves as an eternal victims only works for so long, I suggested an alternate approach before your "mixed" reputation in the furry world continues to deteriorate. I'm gonna go shoot the shit with those guys on FAF for a bit.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Rather then repeat myself for the 1 zillionth time, Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUyX6I04Xg]... Nuff Said. Don't go away mad, just go away... --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::The thing that some of you do not understand is the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources and therefore is not a reliable information and thus should not be placed here on Wikifur. Yet there seems to be an outright drive to make the Beastforum angle a part of Wolfee's article. That is the point I am making here. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::* Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUyX6I04Xg]... Nuff Said.

:::::::You do understand why people will hear you say "Well I said it was mine but they're pissing me off again so fuck it I take it back" and not necessarily believe it, right? You seem like you can't understand why anyone could ''ever'' question that reasoning. And on that note, if you said it was yours then take it back, what good was your word in the first place? You can apparently take back and change facts on a whim, how does this make you a reliable narrator?

:::::::"the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources"

:::::::And there we go. You didn't '''prove''' it was "beyond a shadow of a doubt false", as you've been claiming. You're saying you don't believe there's ever anyway anyone could possibly prove it wasn't. A valid point, but there's a world of difference between those two statements.

:::::::Furthermore, why shouldn't be be part of the article? It is how Wolfee gained his furry "fame", for the most part. Whether or not it's something you want and something WikiFur might let you get away with sanitizing, it shouldn't come as a ''complete'' shock that people (many of these people being furries) think it's relevant enough for a mention. Wolfees's infamy came as a direct result of BeastForum and his subsequent counter-trolling shenanigians, and noting that is at least worthy of a healthy debate, especially given this is an entire wiki based on furry facts and history.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 01:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::::You can ramble on and on all you want about how you wish your beast forum propaganda would be posted on my wikifur page but it will never be here because it's not true. There is never going to be the possibility of it staying here. Keep it on ED where that kind of slander is allowed. This has been argued for the past 2 years and both sides seem to repeat themselves and regurgitate the same points at each other. It's way beyond old, and damn annoying. I left the furry drama on youtube to get away from this nonsense yet you people feel compelled to keep attacking me knowing full well that it will get my goat. I find it odd how a lot of trolls claim they wish i would go away, and i was even hacked once, yet the moment i try to leave under my own will, all of a sudden i got every troll and their granny coming after me. You guys really need to make up your minds. Keep the beast forum lies to yourself for crying out loud. And as for trying to make it look like i have a bad rep with the fandom, i call bullshit.

::::::::Most furries either don't know me, or don't care. There are a lot who like me, but the only ones i know of who dislike me are your little insane paxilrose possy over on FAF who swallow down your lies and propaganda like the koolaid it is. These people cannot think for themselves and have to be lead on a string. They don't even put any effort into thinking otherwise in fear of being labeled a wolfee supporter. This is even worse then when cidsilverwing calls everybody heretics for not immediately taking his side on something. We can sit here and argue till we are blue in the face, but afterwords i will still stand by my points, and so will you so lets just cut the crap and stop this already. And don't tell me that if i stop, it wont bother me. I'm not leaving this page till i know for sure you have or until a admin steps in and puts a stop to this. BTW You still haven't told me why your on a new account. Either that or it got drowned out by the flood of lies you told of which i skipped most of. If the case is that you got banned, why are you still here? An admin should do something about that if it's the case, Amirite?. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, ''just said'' cannot be proven one way or another.
:::::::::*Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
:::::::::*kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.:

:::::::::Just give it a rest. The beast forum angle is not proven facts meriting an addition to Wikifur. But then again I quess I'm wasting my time trying to tell you this esp. when you seem to flatly refuse to listen and realize this. That's no suprise to me whatsoever becuase you seem to dismiss what the actual subject of this article is trying to tell you and instead go by what amounts to hearsay unproven facts and BS said by other internet trolls. Wiki's like this one does not nor should not go by hearsay, they should go by information back by solid undisputed facts. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

== ... ==

*[[Sibe|Oh ok, so negative background history is never appropriate for WikiFur whether they are cited or not and at no times should ever be written, especially if it's against the will of the subject.]] Gotcha.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

== An so ==

In this conversation, Wolfee Darkfang;

* Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, ''just said'' cannot be proven one way or another.
* Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
* kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.

All of which I said you'd do, all of which you'll deny doing, all of which you'll claim never happened. See? That's what I'm talking about.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:"We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum.(A) Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest,(B) and everything was posted here until a moderator(B) ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag(C)."

:(A) Could you post the admission?,... (B) You known this how?,... (C) How you read that from the actions of the moderators, and why would the moderators care?,...
:For a "Zoophile, why does his ID/name/handle doesn't appear anywhere else?,... Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him,... Most Zoophiles don't care about who they are, why wouldn't he,... Why try to label him with such fury, has he been uncouth towards you or your friends?,...
:Finally, who would you believe?,...
:- [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:: (A) Any way I can link it privately? I'm sure he's forgotten about it and I'd rather you see it before he's able to pull it.
:: (B) Was on my own page, which was deleted due to me "not actually being a furry and a troll". I'm unsure if i can view deleted pages, if you could it was one the Paxil Rose page.
:: (C) Based on Wolfees admission that he is close with a moderator or moderators here, coupled with the fact the entire page was pulled "because he's a troll". This fits in nicely with him having a friend do him a favor, if not it's a ''very'' nice coincidence given the blog he posted promising he have exactly what happened done.

::"For a "Zoophile... your friends?"

::As brought up before, the zoophilia was a catalyst for other, more infamous behaviors and actions, including FurryOps "counter trolling" forum and the FAF vendetta (basically trolling and attacking others all for the sake of "proving I'm not a zoophile"). In addition to being the kicking point to the actions that later garnered him his "fame", this is his rational for slandering me and "fellow trolls and brainwashed sheeple" (aka anyone that doesn't believe his "massive hacker attack" alibi) as, if he's to be believed, genuinely psychotic people who are out to attack some random nobody for no reason and keep it up for years and years. However, this "lunatics out to get me" theory loses quite a bit of that punch when it's understood that there are no hordes of anti-furry maniacs fabricating evidence, but merely a group of people bringing up cited history based on his own actions. While you can argue that's anal as all hell, it's certainly not the obsessive, vicious gang of thugs out to ruin a good, decent mans reputation as he'd like you to believe. By allowing him to continue to spout this anecdotes and actually feeding into them (as you've done), I don't see much of a difference between what you say I'm trying to do and what he's been doing the entire time; ruining peoples names based on lies. If his concerns on the matter are valid, why not those of the opposition?

::"Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him"

::For what it's worth, he did befriend several notable, open zoophiles during the incident. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::And of the "lunatics out to get me", there is not a single Zoophile that would out him?,... - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: ''I'm'' the alleged lunatic. Also, if he's ''befriended'' them, why would they out him "to the trolls"? What sense would that make? He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him, what difference would it make if a fellow zoophile did the same? You do see what I'm getting at with this, no?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::This is becoming more obfuscating with every post - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::I call bullshit on what pax just said "He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him". I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are. I have talked to a lot of furries about Furaffinity Forums and a lot of people like to stay clear of that place because of the idiocy and bitter hatred over there. Other then what i refer to as the insane paxilrose possy, i don't know of anyone else i have said this about. Except voltagecontrolled but he was exposed as a troll anyway and he has been trolling furries every since so he was a wolf in sheeps clothing anyway. From my perspective paxilrose and his followers are the ones committing this act when they choose to label anybody who does not agree with them a wolfee supporter. Check back in the archives of this very talk page for proof of that, by our past encounters with Zhael trying to claim that arcticfox was a wolfee follower just for not agreeing with him. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::::**"This is becoming more obfuscating with every post"

::::::::If he's their friend, they won't out him if he doesn't want them to.
::::::::"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
::::::::"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
::::::::'''"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."'''

::::::::And there we go. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Hi, I'm a cohort of Paxilrose's and a witness to the entire drama, so I'd like a word in (Wolfee called in long-time tag-team partner Tamias, so I think it's reasonable I join in). I'm not going to argue for or against the validity of BeastForum, because frankly it's mostly irrelevant, as whether or not it's real (I think it is) is minor compared to the drama that was caused by it simply existing. What BF and many other miscalculations of Wolfee Darkfang have caused is drama, drama which has been around for over 2 years and has had many people involved. I don't know, perhaps they'll deny it, but I can personally claim that this drama has had a huge impact on the online life of Wolfee Darkfang, enough to warrant a comprehensive cataloguing on WikiFur. The opposition may deny the validity of certain details of the drama, but they can't understate it's size and significance. Many people have been involved in it over it's course, it has spanned several websites, it has forged friendships and mateships (as in the case of the above Wolfee Darkfang and Tamias), it has inspired people to set aside their differences and rise up as one on both sides. This was quite a big deal, and not just for Wolfee. As unflattering as it may be, sweeping the existence of this drama under the rug does not do justice to everyone else in the furry fandom affected by it, and those who may be affected by it still. We're not here to destroy anyone's reputation, we're here to give access to information for those who may yet have the pleasure of encountering Wolfee or his associates. They deserve to know that he was accused of being a zoophile, and that he took a series of increasingly ill-conceived steps to deny it, they deserve to know that he was run off of FAF for reasons so and so so they may make up their own minds. We're not trying to silence the opposition, we're trying to make sure the opposing party doesn't do it themselves. [[User:Brazen|Brazen]] 08:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::The furry/troll drama that erupted on youtube has indeed had a significant impact on Wolfee Darkfang, to which is already acknowledged in this article. It is true that Wolfee Darkfang had been accused by anti-furry trolls of having a Beast Forum account. However this does not negate the point that the Beast Forum account accusations are highly contested. As I have explained further up this page there are factored at play that cast serious doubt to the authenticity of evidence supporting the claim . Given that Paxilrose is a known internet troll who has been harassing and insulting Wolfee Darkfang on the Fur Affinity forums and Youtube for the past two years, the motives behind his persistent efforts to include the Beast Forum claims on to Wolfee Darkfang's article are questionable at best. Since there is insufficient evidence supporting the Beast Forum claim, adding this information would serve no purpose other than spurring undue suspicion and speculation over a claim that cannot be proven as fact. Therefore the addition of the beast forum claims would add a negative bias to this article and therefore should not be added.

::::::::::--[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 08:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::And you don't think excluding mention of BF will add a positive bias to the article? Contested or not, true or not BF was the focal point of the drama for almost a year. Without mentioning it or what came out of it your entire perspective on the conflict comes down to (and as far as I can tell, is) "Wolfee Darkfang is so awesome and charitable and great he helped furries everywhere and that's why trolls are attacking him". You may not have realised it yet if you're still maintaining this belief, but this POV is actually very biased towards Wolfee, to an extent that you guys would/have/are appearing arrogant to the many people who come in contact with you and who might have otherwise taken your side. I say this as your longtime friend, but more importantly, as somebody who has been dealing with this sort of thing since before coming to the internet, a lot of the time when you blame Paxilrose's supernatural e-hypnosis abilities for having furries turn on you it's actually the way you guys present Wolfee as a martyr character that turns them off. You're not doing yourself any favors by striving for having an article with absolutely no negative connotations as anybody can look at the article history and see that the stuff about Wolfee Darkfang is largely written by the man himself or the guy he e-sleeps with, and so dismiss the whole thing as positive bias. You'd be much better of portraying Wolfee as a flawed character by admitting "Yeah, you know, there was a BF account and I guess it did look pretty bad, the trolls did find some nasty evidence and I guess I did kind of fuck up a lot in trying to defend myself, but whatever, that's in the past".

:::::::::::Ultimately though, I don't think it's just up to you what's written in the article. The entire premise of unbiased documentation revolves around articles like these not being the subject of manipulation only at the hands of one given party. You guys want a flattering article, we want a scrupulous detailing of unflattering events to be included also. Both sides have a sizeable following so both sides should have a say.[[User:Brazen|Brazen]] 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"You guys want a flattering article, we want a scrupulous detailing of unflattering events to be included also." ...And there lies a caveat,... Unless the data is so furry worthy/know (Thumbles the dragon, Michael Hirtes, Sibe), a normal fur may select to omit certain information from their article, including up to, yes, Zoophilia.
No, is not to keep Wikifur tidy, or ass kissing friendly, is because that's somebody's personal article, and, as long as it doesn't affect the fandom, he or she may select that option (most common use to omit data, personal name, location, sexual orientation, sexual preference, mate's name, place of work, and on) - This is not the WWF, but this the outcome - Spirou 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

:Who ever the bastard that hijacked my account for 30 minutes: (A) FAIL, and (B) FAIL some more,... you had Wolfee Darkfang article and all of Wikifur under your fingertips, and you just taunted me by email, giving my roomie enough time to brute force back into my account. And by the theme of the emails, I now what side I should pay not attention to. But now back to the regular edits in progress - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 17:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

::I'm taking a break from this,... another Admin is welcomed to this mess,... I wouldn't recommended - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 17:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

::* inb4 "Oh God Paxilrose is hacking WikiFur admins when will the madness stop?!" without anything resembling proof to back that up.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 18:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfee Darkfang

2010-03-25T03:55:13Z

Paxilrose:

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (March 2008 - March 2010)
</div>
'''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.'''

==Wolfee Lies==
(This is of course directed towards administration, of course. We all know Wolfee/Tamias' response)

We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum. Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest, and everything was posted here until a moderator ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag. I completely understand not wanting unsavory factoids litter the hugbox that is WikiFur, but do understand the difference between "We debunked them cuz they were lies!" and "We didn't allow it because it contributed to a negative atmosphere". be aware this was a ''very'' widespread event regarding this individuals and many furries, not merely "fake contributors", will verify Wolfee did lie about his involvement, did later admit to doing so, and does attack people that call him out on these events when they're brought up later.

These events have led to Wolfees at best mixed (at on average far, '''far''' worse) reputation in his chosen community, and as such should not be exempt from being discussed on what touts itself as a comprehensive wiki on all things and people furry. As I'll point out again, as with Sibe, eventually some individuals are going to gain such a negative reputation to the point where ''some'' reference of it will be acknowledged. This does not make it "obsessive trolling/hating/etc", that's what happens when someone willingly involves themselves in as much drama.

All it takes is one talk to the administration of FurAffinity forums and it becomes clear that Wolfee's talk of "super organized elaborate troll conspiracy that is all totally lies that were super duper debunked" is more than a just tad exaggerated, to a point where he maintains [http://blog.wolfeedarkfang.com/?p=48 the entire forum is full of anti-furries because they disagree with his manner of handling himself]. Understand that people can have negative opinions of people ''and'' solid proof to back them up and it should it get to such a point people will bring it up. Aggressive revisionism and sanitizing every negative comment is not a professional way to handle dissent.

Everyone's favorite, --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

:Wow your still going on about this? You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you? Do you even think most furries care? And why do you need to make a new paxilrose account? You already had one here. You even have a page on yourself last time i checked. I smell impostor. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

:::(Legit account) - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::* You silly fellow, the conversation had continued obviously in my absence. Look above, friend, you'll see a huge issue of controversy was the very matter I addressed. A tad late (2 weeks or so) to the party for sure, but I see no reason for that to be of any significance considering it's still an obvious hot-button issue. As a result, I'll address your issues in order:

::*"You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you?"
::This is actually what the privious comment was about, namely presenting said evidence and it's swift removal for reasons I can only conclude to be cronyism. Several examples were brought forth and a dialogue was requested, both were soundly ignored without much justification other than "I do not want them here", but on the contrary you're apparently able to go on about "Oh yeah we found them out a long time ago it was hackers and I ended up looking awesome" as though you have it set in stone without having to show anything to back it. Either due to Admins genuinely not believing what I bring to the table or whether they're extending this site to you as a heaven to be rid of your reputation out of a courtesy to someone they deem to have it rough,I'm not sure, and is what I'm asking about.

::*"Do you even think most furries care?"
::Now see this is a loaded question, since again, as I've pointed out, when furries disagree with you and your methods, in your mind, they evidently ''cease being furries'' altogether. Your blog pretty explains as much, unless of course theres an alternate meaning to that post you'd care to share. As FurAffinitys forums prove, to me and you, apparently there is a significant amount of furries that think this is true relevant. Going by your history and usual defense mechanisms, however, you're more than willing to toss these out the window in order to keep up an appearance of "furries V. haters", even 'ol Zhael up there has been a victim of this logic of yours. So that's a pretty irrelevant point.

::It's really not about whether or not it was you there on BeastForum, we have proof and an admission from you. What I'm inquiring about is when is it ok to bring up well known grievences with so called "famous furries", when is it legitimate to narrate one side of an issue without evidence (since you and yours are apparently touting this "faked and hacked" account as Word of God and basing this on nothing other than "C'mon dood, it's '''trolls'''!", why other evidence can be tossed out without much acknowledgement and the opposition deemed "trolls and obsessive harrassers", and the explanation as to how management here deems what is appropriate and what is not. Once more, I'll point to the Sibe article. Pretty damning stuff there, no? But why is it acceptable to advertise his misdeeds and not your own? There's tangible evidence of it (whether or not you want to argue it's authenticity or not is another matter, it exists and backs up what I'm saying. You've brought up almost nothing as far as your "truth" about hackers and false Admins go), other furries are well aware of the goings on (again, whether you believe them to be "real furries" or not is besides the point), so why is one relevant and the other is not? For what it's worth, I recall you bringing up that one or more Admins here are personal friends of yours from SecondLife, so I have a feeling that and that alone is the reason you're free to re-write history as you deem fit and bully children into quietly accepting it. At the same time, as far as "fake contributors and obvious trolls" go, I find it only appropriate to counter you and your comrades version of "the truth" and bring up a rebuttal that not only me, but a significant number of your beloved '''furries''' consider factual and relevant. I find that much is only fair.

::Same old account, btw. Even the Admins will verify that much. Then again who knows, right?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica a more suited place to slander people on? The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that? Its not like Wolfee is the President of the United States. He's just some common Joe nobody that the world could care less about. Yet you seem to think that Wolfee is some scandalous celebrity rip for tabloid picking. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::"The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that?"

::::* This reasoning is based around the rational that there are people out there deliberatly lying in order to attack him, which ''would'' be ill spirited and inappropriate. However, you ignore the fact this did happen, and so is a completely different issue. You know it happened, you know there are '''furries''' that know it happened, such as our boy above. Yet you always stress it as a "furry V. troll" issue and try to paint it as something that affects ''all'' furries is it's let to be aired. But that brings us back to my other point, what of the furries that don't believe you? Why are they less credible? What makes Wolfee and you more important or noteworthy that such attacks should be considered heinous character assassination?

::::There's a difference between continuously hounding someone who has never done anything to anyone and trying to bring them down for shits and giggles, it's quite another to report on and argue on what both furries and 3rd party observers deem relevant history. You can argue the methods are dirty and committed in ill will, but when you argue "This '''never''' happened, we totally annihilated that and if you don't believe us crawl back to the hole you came from" and then bring nothing to support this other than "They are assholes, that's how you know they are making it up", you're outright lying.

::::There's a difference between "omg they're lying!" and bringing up an unflattering history. We both know this is something old Wolfee here would definitely like to forget, but lying and intimidation to push a story you can't back and that few believes is not the way to handle this. Fur Affinity forums should have a been lesson in trying to twist arms of your fellow furry in order to look good in front of them, and in the end only makes you look bad. Admitting you were embarrassed by a bullying asshole (yours truly) is bad, but threatening and trying to force a revisionist history (with again, nothing to back you up) makes you look like you have something you desperately need to hide. And do you remember who comes a'knocking when people cause a scene to hide something embarrassing?

::::You can whine "No, you just hate furries and hate us because we are super awesome furries" all you want, but as you can see this reputation of Woflees is only getting worse and worse and his reaction is only digging the whole faster and faster. Painting yourselves as an eternal victims only works for so long, I suggested an alternate approach before your "mixed" reputation in the furry world continues to deteriorate. I'm gonna go shoot the shit with those guys on FAF for a bit.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Rather then repeat myself for the 1 zillionth time, Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUyX6I04Xg]... Nuff Said. Don't go away mad, just go away... --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::The thing that some of you do not understand is the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources and therefore is not a reliable information and thus should not be placed here on Wikifur. Yet there seems to be an outright drive to make the Beastforum angle a part of Wolfee's article. That is the point I am making here. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::* Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUyX6I04Xg]... Nuff Said.

:::::::You do understand why people will hear you say "Well I said it was mine but they're pissing me off again so fuck it I take it back" and not necessarily believe it, right? You seem like you can't understand why anyone could ''ever'' question that reasoning. And on that note, if you said it was yours then take it back, what good was your word in the first place? You can apparently take back and change facts on a whim, how does this make you a reliable narrator?

:::::::"the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources"

:::::::And there we go. You didn't '''prove''' it was "beyond a shadow of a doubt false", as you've been claiming. You're saying you don't believe there's ever anyway anyone could possibly prove it wasn't. A valid point, but there's a world of difference between those two statements.

:::::::Furthermore, why shouldn't be be part of the article? It is how Wolfee gained his furry "fame", for the most part. Whether or not it's something you want and something WikiFur might let you get away with sanitizing, it shouldn't come as a ''complete'' shock that people (many of these people being furries) think it's relevant enough for a mention. Wolfees's infamy came as a direct result of BeastForum and his subsequent counter-trolling shenanigians, and noting that is at least worthy of a healthy debate, especially given this is an entire wiki based on furry facts and history.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 01:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::::You can ramble on and on all you want about how you wish your beast forum propaganda would be posted on my wikifur page but it will never be here because it's not true. There is never going to be the possibility of it staying here. Keep it on ED where that kind of slander is allowed. This has been argued for the past 2 years and both sides seem to repeat themselves and regurgitate the same points at each other. It's way beyond old, and damn annoying. I left the furry drama on youtube to get away from this nonsense yet you people feel compelled to keep attacking me knowing full well that it will get my goat. I find it odd how a lot of trolls claim they wish i would go away, and i was even hacked once, yet the moment i try to leave under my own will, all of a sudden i got every troll and their granny coming after me. You guys really need to make up your minds. Keep the beast forum lies to yourself for crying out loud. And as for trying to make it look like i have a bad rep with the fandom, i call bullshit.

::::::::Most furries either don't know me, or don't care. There are a lot who like me, but the only ones i know of who dislike me are your little insane paxilrose possy over on FAF who swallow down your lies and propaganda like the koolaid it is. These people cannot think for themselves and have to be lead on a string. They don't even put any effort into thinking otherwise in fear of being labeled a wolfee supporter. This is even worse then when cidsilverwing calls everybody heretics for not immediately taking his side on something. We can sit here and argue till we are blue in the face, but afterwords i will still stand by my points, and so will you so lets just cut the crap and stop this already. And don't tell me that if i stop, it wont bother me. I'm not leaving this page till i know for sure you have or until a admin steps in and puts a stop to this. BTW You still haven't told me why your on a new account. Either that or it got drowned out by the flood of lies you told of which i skipped most of. If the case is that you got banned, why are you still here? An admin should do something about that if it's the case, Amirite?. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, ''just said'' cannot be proven one way or another.
:::::::::*Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
:::::::::*kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.:

:::::::::Just give it a rest. The beast forum angle is not proven facts meriting an addition to Wikifur. But then again I quess I'm wasting my time trying to tell you this esp. when you seem to flatly refuse to listen and realize this. That's no suprise to me whatsoever becuase you seem to dismiss what the actual subject of this article is trying to tell you and instead go by what amounts to hearsay unproven facts and BS said by other internet trolls. Wiki's like this one does not nor should not go by hearsay, they should go by information back by solid undisputed facts. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::*[[Sibe|Oh ok, so negative background history is never appropriate for WikiFur whether they are cited or not and at no times should ever be written, especially if it's against the will of the subject.]] Gotcha.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In this conversation, Wolfee Darkfang;

* Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, ''just said'' cannot be proven one way or another.
* Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
* kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.

All of which I said you'd do, all of which you'll deny doing, all of which you'll claim never happened. See? That's what I'm talking about.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:"We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum.(A) Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest,(B) and everything was posted here until a moderator(B) ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag(C)."

:(A) Could you post the admission?,... (B) You known this how?,... (C) How you read that from the actions of the moderators, and why would the moderators care?,...
:For a "Zoophile, why does his ID/name/handle doesn't appear anywhere else?,... Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him,... Most Zoophiles don't care about who they are, why wouldn't he,... Why try to label him with such fury, has he been uncouth towards you or your friends?,...
:Finally, who would you believe?,...
:- [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:: (A) Any way I can link it privately? I'm sure he's forgotten about it and I'd rather you see it before he's able to pull it.
:: (B) Was on my own page, which was deleted due to me "not actually being a furry and a troll". I'm unsure if i can view deleted pages, if you could it was one the Paxil Rose page.
:: (C) Based on Wolfees admission that he is close with a moderator or moderators here, coupled with the fact the entire page was pulled "because he's a troll". This fits in nicely with him having a friend do him a favor, if not it's a ''very'' nice coincidence given the blog he posted promising he have exactly what happened done.

::"For a "Zoophile... your friends?"

::As brought up before, the zoophilia was a catalyst for other, more infamous behaviors and actions, including FurryOps "counter trolling" forum and the FAF vendetta (basically trolling and attacking others all for the sake of "proving I'm not a zoophile"). In addition to being the kicking point to the actions that later garnered him his "fame", this is his rational for slandering me and "fellow trolls and brainwashed sheeple" (aka anyone that doesn't believe his "massive hacker attack" alibi) as, if he's to be believed, genuinely psychotic people who are out to attack some random nobody for no reason and keep it up for years and years. However, this "lunatics out to get me" theory loses quite a bit of that punch when it's understood that there are no hordes of anti-furry maniacs fabricating evidence, but merely a group of people bringing up cited history based on his own actions. While you can argue that's anal as all hell, it's certainly not the obsessive, vicious gang of thugs out to ruin a good, decent mans reputation as he'd like you to believe. By allowing him to continue to spout this anecdotes and actually feeding into them (as you've done), I don't see much of a difference between what you say I'm trying to do and what he's been doing the entire time; ruining peoples names based on lies. If his concerns on the matter are valid, why not those of the opposition?

::"Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him"

::For what it's worth, he did befriend several notable, open zoophiles during the incident. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::And of the "lunatics out to get me", there is not a single Zoophile that would out him?,... - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: ''I'm'' the alleged lunatic. Also, if he's ''befriended'' them, why would they out him "to the trolls"? What sense would that make? He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him, what difference would it make if a fellow zoophile did the same? You do see what I'm getting at with this, no?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::This is becoming more obfuscating with every post - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I call bullshit on what pax just said "He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him". I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are. I have talked to a lot of furries about Furaffinity Forums and a lot of people like to stay clear of that place because of the idiocy and bitter hatred over there. Other then what i refer to as the insane paxilrose possy, i don't know of anyone else i have said this about. Except voltagecontrolled but he was exposed as a troll anyway and he has been trolling furries every since so he was a wolf in sheeps clothing anyway. From my perspective paxilrose and his followers are the ones committing this act when they choose to label anybody who does not agree with them a wolfee supporter. Check back in the archives of this very talk page for proof of that, by our past encounters with Zhael trying to claim that arcticfox was a wolfee follower just for not agreeing with him.

--[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::**"This is becoming more obfuscating with every post"

If he's their friend, they won't out him if he doesn't want them to.

:"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
:"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
:'''"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."'''

And there we go. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Wolfee Darkfang

2010-03-25T03:53:22Z

Paxilrose:

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (March 2008 - March 2010)
</div>
'''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.'''

==Wolfee Lies==
(This is of course directed towards administration, of course. We all know Wolfee/Tamias' response)

We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum. Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest, and everything was posted here until a moderator ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag. I completely understand not wanting unsavory factoids litter the hugbox that is WikiFur, but do understand the difference between "We debunked them cuz they were lies!" and "We didn't allow it because it contributed to a negative atmosphere". be aware this was a ''very'' widespread event regarding this individuals and many furries, not merely "fake contributors", will verify Wolfee did lie about his involvement, did later admit to doing so, and does attack people that call him out on these events when they're brought up later.

These events have led to Wolfees at best mixed (at on average far, '''far''' worse) reputation in his chosen community, and as such should not be exempt from being discussed on what touts itself as a comprehensive wiki on all things and people furry. As I'll point out again, as with Sibe, eventually some individuals are going to gain such a negative reputation to the point where ''some'' reference of it will be acknowledged. This does not make it "obsessive trolling/hating/etc", that's what happens when someone willingly involves themselves in as much drama.

All it takes is one talk to the administration of FurAffinity forums and it becomes clear that Wolfee's talk of "super organized elaborate troll conspiracy that is all totally lies that were super duper debunked" is more than a just tad exaggerated, to a point where he maintains [http://blog.wolfeedarkfang.com/?p=48 the entire forum is full of anti-furries because they disagree with his manner of handling himself]. Understand that people can have negative opinions of people ''and'' solid proof to back them up and it should it get to such a point people will bring it up. Aggressive revisionism and sanitizing every negative comment is not a professional way to handle dissent.

Everyone's favorite, --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

:Wow your still going on about this? You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you? Do you even think most furries care? And why do you need to make a new paxilrose account? You already had one here. You even have a page on yourself last time i checked. I smell impostor. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 21:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

:::(Legit account) - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::* You silly fellow, the conversation had continued obviously in my absence. Look above, friend, you'll see a huge issue of controversy was the very matter I addressed. A tad late (2 weeks or so) to the party for sure, but I see no reason for that to be of any significance considering it's still an obvious hot-button issue. As a result, I'll address your issues in order:

::*"You actually think anyone here is gonna believe you?"
::This is actually what the privious comment was about, namely presenting said evidence and it's swift removal for reasons I can only conclude to be cronyism. Several examples were brought forth and a dialogue was requested, both were soundly ignored without much justification other than "I do not want them here", but on the contrary you're apparently able to go on about "Oh yeah we found them out a long time ago it was hackers and I ended up looking awesome" as though you have it set in stone without having to show anything to back it. Either due to Admins genuinely not believing what I bring to the table or whether they're extending this site to you as a heaven to be rid of your reputation out of a courtesy to someone they deem to have it rough,I'm not sure, and is what I'm asking about.

::*"Do you even think most furries care?"
::Now see this is a loaded question, since again, as I've pointed out, when furries disagree with you and your methods, in your mind, they evidently ''cease being furries'' altogether. Your blog pretty explains as much, unless of course theres an alternate meaning to that post you'd care to share. As FurAffinitys forums prove, to me and you, apparently there is a significant amount of furries that think this is true relevant. Going by your history and usual defense mechanisms, however, you're more than willing to toss these out the window in order to keep up an appearance of "furries V. haters", even 'ol Zhael up there has been a victim of this logic of yours. So that's a pretty irrelevant point.

::It's really not about whether or not it was you there on BeastForum, we have proof and an admission from you. What I'm inquiring about is when is it ok to bring up well known grievences with so called "famous furries", when is it legitimate to narrate one side of an issue without evidence (since you and yours are apparently touting this "faked and hacked" account as Word of God and basing this on nothing other than "C'mon dood, it's '''trolls'''!", why other evidence can be tossed out without much acknowledgement and the opposition deemed "trolls and obsessive harrassers", and the explanation as to how management here deems what is appropriate and what is not. Once more, I'll point to the Sibe article. Pretty damning stuff there, no? But why is it acceptable to advertise his misdeeds and not your own? There's tangible evidence of it (whether or not you want to argue it's authenticity or not is another matter, it exists and backs up what I'm saying. You've brought up almost nothing as far as your "truth" about hackers and false Admins go), other furries are well aware of the goings on (again, whether you believe them to be "real furries" or not is besides the point), so why is one relevant and the other is not? For what it's worth, I recall you bringing up that one or more Admins here are personal friends of yours from SecondLife, so I have a feeling that and that alone is the reason you're free to re-write history as you deem fit and bully children into quietly accepting it. At the same time, as far as "fake contributors and obvious trolls" go, I find it only appropriate to counter you and your comrades version of "the truth" and bring up a rebuttal that not only me, but a significant number of your beloved '''furries''' consider factual and relevant. I find that much is only fair.

::Same old account, btw. Even the Admins will verify that much. Then again who knows, right?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 00:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica a more suited place to slander people on? The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that? Its not like Wolfee is the President of the United States. He's just some common Joe nobody that the world could care less about. Yet you seem to think that Wolfee is some scandalous celebrity rip for tabloid picking. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::"The only reason a few of you seem to be so hard press to shine a negative light on Wolfee Darkfang are insidious motives to ruin Wolfee's credibility. If that is the case. What satisfaction do you hope to gain from that?"

::::* This reasoning is based around the rational that there are people out there deliberatly lying in order to attack him, which ''would'' be ill spirited and inappropriate. However, you ignore the fact this did happen, and so is a completely different issue. You know it happened, you know there are '''furries''' that know it happened, such as our boy above. Yet you always stress it as a "furry V. troll" issue and try to paint it as something that affects ''all'' furries is it's let to be aired. But that brings us back to my other point, what of the furries that don't believe you? Why are they less credible? What makes Wolfee and you more important or noteworthy that such attacks should be considered heinous character assassination?

::::There's a difference between continuously hounding someone who has never done anything to anyone and trying to bring them down for shits and giggles, it's quite another to report on and argue on what both furries and 3rd party observers deem relevant history. You can argue the methods are dirty and committed in ill will, but when you argue "This '''never''' happened, we totally annihilated that and if you don't believe us crawl back to the hole you came from" and then bring nothing to support this other than "They are assholes, that's how you know they are making it up", you're outright lying.

::::There's a difference between "omg they're lying!" and bringing up an unflattering history. We both know this is something old Wolfee here would definitely like to forget, but lying and intimidation to push a story you can't back and that few believes is not the way to handle this. Fur Affinity forums should have a been lesson in trying to twist arms of your fellow furry in order to look good in front of them, and in the end only makes you look bad. Admitting you were embarrassed by a bullying asshole (yours truly) is bad, but threatening and trying to force a revisionist history (with again, nothing to back you up) makes you look like you have something you desperately need to hide. And do you remember who comes a'knocking when people cause a scene to hide something embarrassing?

::::You can whine "No, you just hate furries and hate us because we are super awesome furries" all you want, but as you can see this reputation of Woflees is only getting worse and worse and his reaction is only digging the whole faster and faster. Painting yourselves as an eternal victims only works for so long, I suggested an alternate approach before your "mixed" reputation in the furry world continues to deteriorate. I'm gonna go shoot the shit with those guys on FAF for a bit.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::Rather then repeat myself for the 1 zillionth time, Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUyX6I04Xg]... Nuff Said. Don't go away mad, just go away... --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 01:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::The thing that some of you do not understand is the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources and therefore is not a reliable information and thus should not be placed here on Wikifur. Yet there seems to be an outright drive to make the Beastforum angle a part of Wolfee's article. That is the point I am making here. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 01:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::* Here is a link to the video i made a long time ago to address this issue. --> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzUyX6I04Xg]... Nuff Said.

:::::::You do understand why people will hear you say "Well I said it was mine but they're pissing me off again so fuck it I take it back" and not necessarily believe it, right? You seem like you can't understand why anyone could ''ever'' question that reasoning. And on that note, if you said it was yours then take it back, what good was your word in the first place? You can apparently take back and change facts on a whim, how does this make you a reliable narrator?

:::::::"the Beatforum angle is contested and unproven resources"

:::::::And there we go. You didn't '''prove''' it was "beyond a shadow of a doubt false", as you've been claiming. You're saying you don't believe there's ever anyway anyone could possibly prove it wasn't. A valid point, but there's a world of difference between those two statements.

:::::::Furthermore, why shouldn't be be part of the article? It is how Wolfee gained his furry "fame", for the most part. Whether or not it's something you want and something WikiFur might let you get away with sanitizing, it shouldn't come as a ''complete'' shock that people (many of these people being furries) think it's relevant enough for a mention. Wolfees's infamy came as a direct result of BeastForum and his subsequent counter-trolling shenanigians, and noting that is at least worthy of a healthy debate, especially given this is an entire wiki based on furry facts and history.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 01:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::::You can ramble on and on all you want about how you wish your beast forum propaganda would be posted on my wikifur page but it will never be here because it's not true. There is never going to be the possibility of it staying here. Keep it on ED where that kind of slander is allowed. This has been argued for the past 2 years and both sides seem to repeat themselves and regurgitate the same points at each other. It's way beyond old, and damn annoying. I left the furry drama on youtube to get away from this nonsense yet you people feel compelled to keep attacking me knowing full well that it will get my goat. I find it odd how a lot of trolls claim they wish i would go away, and i was even hacked once, yet the moment i try to leave under my own will, all of a sudden i got every troll and their granny coming after me. You guys really need to make up your minds. Keep the beast forum lies to yourself for crying out loud. And as for trying to make it look like i have a bad rep with the fandom, i call bullshit.

::::::::Most furries either don't know me, or don't care. There are a lot who like me, but the only ones i know of who dislike me are your little insane paxilrose possy over on FAF who swallow down your lies and propaganda like the koolaid it is. These people cannot think for themselves and have to be lead on a string. They don't even put any effort into thinking otherwise in fear of being labeled a wolfee supporter. This is even worse then when cidsilverwing calls everybody heretics for not immediately taking his side on something. We can sit here and argue till we are blue in the face, but afterwords i will still stand by my points, and so will you so lets just cut the crap and stop this already. And don't tell me that if i stop, it wont bother me. I'm not leaving this page till i know for sure you have or until a admin steps in and puts a stop to this. BTW You still haven't told me why your on a new account. Either that or it got drowned out by the flood of lies you told of which i skipped most of. If the case is that you got banned, why are you still here? An admin should do something about that if it's the case, Amirite?. --[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, ''just said'' cannot be proven one way or another.
:::::::::*Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
:::::::::*kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.:

:::::::::Just give it a rest. The beast forum angle is not proven facts meriting an addition to Wikifur. But then again I quess I'm wasting my time trying to tell you this esp. when you seem to flatly refuse to listen and realize this. That's no suprise to me whatsoever becuase you seem to dismiss what the actual subject of this article is trying to tell you and instead go by what amounts to hearsay unproven facts and BS said by other internet trolls. Wiki's like this one does not nor should not go by hearsay, they should go by information back by solid undisputed facts. --[[User:Tamiasthechipmunk|Tamiasthechipmunk]] 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:::*[[Sibe|Oh ok, so negative background history is never appropriate for WikiFur whether they are cited or not and at no times should ever be written, especially if it's against the will of the subject.]] Gotcha.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In this conversation, Wolfee Darkfang;

* Just claimed he proved somethign Tamias, his super best friend and someone who totally wouldn't lie about such a thing, ''just said'' cannot be proven one way or another.
* Lashed out at furries that disagreed with him, calling them brainwashed.
* kept up a story of me being banned and on a new account, despite having a)no proof (a shock!) and b) being told that he can contact an Admin to confirm this is the same account. He chose to continue to lash and use this as ammunition that I am lying.

All of which I said you'd do, all of which you'll deny doing, all of which you'll claim never happened. See? That's what I'm talking about.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 02:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:"We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum.(A) Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest,(B) and everything was posted here until a moderator(B) ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag(C)."

:(A) Could you post the admission?,... (B) You known this how?,... (C) How you read that from the actions of the moderators, and why would the moderators care?,...
:For a "Zoophile, why does his ID/name/handle doesn't appear anywhere else?,... Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him,... Most Zoophiles don't care about who they are, why wouldn't he,... Why try to label him with such fury, has he been uncouth towards you or your friends?,...
:Finally, who would you believe?,...
:- [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 02:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

:: (A) Any way I can link it privately? I'm sure he's forgotten about it and I'd rather you see it before he's able to pull it.
:: (B) Was on my own page, which was deleted due to me "not actually being a furry and a troll". I'm unsure if i can view deleted pages, if you could it was one the Paxil Rose page.
:: (C) Based on Wolfees admission that he is close with a moderator or moderators here, coupled with the fact the entire page was pulled "because he's a troll". This fits in nicely with him having a friend do him a favor, if not it's a ''very'' nice coincidence given the blog he posted promising he have exactly what happened done.

::"For a "Zoophile... your friends?"

::As brought up before, the zoophilia was a catalyst for other, more infamous behaviors and actions, including FurryOps "counter trolling" forum and the FAF vendetta (basically trolling and attacking others all for the sake of "proving I'm not a zoophile"). In addition to being the kicking point to the actions that later garnered him his "fame", this is his rational for slandering me and "fellow trolls and brainwashed sheeple" (aka anyone that doesn't believe his "massive hacker attack" alibi) as, if he's to be believed, genuinely psychotic people who are out to attack some random nobody for no reason and keep it up for years and years. However, this "lunatics out to get me" theory loses quite a bit of that punch when it's understood that there are no hordes of anti-furry maniacs fabricating evidence, but merely a group of people bringing up cited history based on his own actions. While you can argue that's anal as all hell, it's certainly not the obsessive, vicious gang of thugs out to ruin a good, decent mans reputation as he'd like you to believe. By allowing him to continue to spout this anecdotes and actually feeding into them (as you've done), I don't see much of a difference between what you say I'm trying to do and what he's been doing the entire time; ruining peoples names based on lies. If his concerns on the matter are valid, why not those of the opposition?

::"Why doesn't other Zoophiles out him"

::For what it's worth, he did befriend several notable, open zoophiles during the incident. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::And of the "lunatics out to get me", there is not a single Zoophile that would out him?,... - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::: ''I'm'' the alleged lunatic. Also, if he's ''befriended'' them, why would they out him "to the trolls"? What sense would that make? He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him, what difference would it make if a fellow zoophile did the same? You do see what I'm getting at with this, no?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::::::This is becoming more obfuscating with every post - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I call bullshit on what pax just said "He already says furries that call him a liar are part of a grand conspiracy against him". I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are. I have talked to a lot of furries about Furaffinity Forums and a lot of people like to stay clear of that place because of the idiocy and bitter hatred over there. Other then what i refer to as the insane paxilrose possy, i don't know of anyone else i have said this about. Except voltagecontrolled but he was exposed as a troll anyway and he has been trolling furries every since so he was a wolf in sheeps clothing anyway. From my perspective paxilrose and his followers are the ones committing this act when they choose to label anybody who does not agree with them a wolfee supporter. Check back in the archives of this very talk page for proof of that, by our past encounters with Zhael trying to claim that arcticfox was a wolfee follower just for not agreeing with him.

--[[User:Wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] 03:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

::"This is becoming more obfuscating with every post"

If he's their friend, they won't out him if he doesn't want them to.

"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."
"I only call the followers of paxilrose on FAF, brainwashed rejects because that is what they are."

And there we go. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Spirou

2010-03-25T03:41:37Z

2010-03-25T00:57:40Z

Paxilrose: /* Wolfee Lies */

Talk:Wolfee Darkfang

2010-03-25T00:38:42Z

Paxilrose: wolfee part

User talk:Spirou

2010-03-24T20:42:43Z

Paxilrose: /* At any rate */

<div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;">
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center>
*[[/Archive1|Archive 1]] (August 2005 - October 2006)
*[[/Archive2|Archive 2]] (October 2006 - January 2007)
*[[/Archive3|Archive 3]] (January 2007 - September 2007)
*[[/Archive4|Archive 4]] (September 2007 - February 2008)
*[[/Archive5|Archive 5]] (February 2008 - September 2009)
</div>
'''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.'''

I would like to know why my page was moved with a (fursona) addition. That page is more about a real person than it is a fursona. I would like it moved back. [[User:Sergeant|Sergeant]] 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

==Dktorzi==
I'm not too sure from what I can tell that the recent edits to [[Dktorzi]] by [[Special:Contributions/85.244.74.203|User:85.244.74.203]] were vandalism. It appears to me they could have easily been someone (possibly Dktorzi himself) removing outdated info from the article. Or maybe not - the edits do look a little questionable (such as removal of the FA link), but in cases like that we should assume good faith and respond accordingly without being too quick to treat it as if it were overt vandalism. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 17:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

:I did, as you already suggested, checked to make sure it could have been in good faith. It was indeed the FA link removal and the non-response to my edit that could indicate that the edit was not kosher. Could still be wrong still, though - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

==Merge==

What was the need to merge those articles, huh? [[User:Fangusu|Fangusu]] 03:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

:Like with [[Madagascar]]'s [[Madagascar (characters, penguins)|penguins]] characters, is better for readers if a group of main characters taken from a large article like [[Alvin and the Chipmunks]] continue to stay grouped for easy access, instead to split them in multiple single articles all over the Wiki - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

== Request For Review ==
Once again, the [[Popping]] [[Forum:Popping_%28Under_revision%29 | draft page]] is ready for review. In the continued interest of not wasting everyone's time, it'd be really peachy if one of the Admins could finally resolve this long-neglected issue no later than October 24 2009, 11:59 PM EDT —[[User:Xydexx|Xydexx]] 19:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

== AuroraBorealia Wikifur entry ==

The alias is supposed to be one word. I'd prefer if it stayed that way.
:Fix'd. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :3

== To GreenReaper ==

Sry for the block =( wrong open window at the time Xp - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
:It gave the watchers in #wikifur-edits some amusement. :-) --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

== Interested in stamps ==

Hello. I saw about the stamps and I am interested in that idea. Perhaps even user based ones too.
[[User:Arcticfoxslash|Slash V. Lagopus]] 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
:The prices are a bit on the expensive side (unless bought in bulk), while service of the ones contacted left much to desire on personal support [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

==Undoing Edits==

Good sir you seem to be undoing edits of mine. Considering I only act after conducting research and describe my actions I'm curious as to why you revert my changes.--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:Explanation posted on the article edited's talk page - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 03:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

:: Just now caught it. Cheers. --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

== Welcome templates ==

Just a reminder when welcoming users - the <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki> template should only be used if the user has registered. For unregistered IP users, the <nowiki>{{anon-welcome}}</nowiki> template should be used instead. --[[User:Mwalimu|mwalimu]] 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
:Ah, got it. Danke =) [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
::I'm fixing this for you. --[[User:Rat|Rat]] 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Thank you =D [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 15:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

== Exclusion request ==

I would like to have my profile "Sirkillme" removed from WikiFur.
I tried to clear out my profile myself earlier tonight and it was restored instead.
Please remove my profile.

Thanks

== Mozdoc ==

I would like an explaination as to why there are now links to my DeadJournal and Flikr photo sharing page on my WikiFur page. I wish to have these removed since I want to distance myself from the furry fandom and leave it. I'm sick of all this fucking bullshit on WikiFur. Please edit these links out.

:"''I would like an explaination as to why there are now links to my DeadJournal and Flikr photo sharing page on my WikiFur page''" Because they were posted by typing the addresses down,... "''Please edit these links out.''" *sigh* Those are public links that anybody can post on any article, not subject to any privacy law. Happy new Year - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 01:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since GreenReaper is being a complete fucking DICK and refusing to even unban me from WikiFur so I can edit my own fucking article he's forcing me to ask you to do it for me.

Remove the following links off my page for the following reasons.

1) Artist does not exist and neither does my character picture
6) Page does not exist
7) All posts by me have been removed and I no longer use Tapestries
8) Message board messages no longer exist
9) Page does not exist
13) I'm banned from FA. There's nothing there to see.
16) Message board no longer exists
17) I only see three comments on this picture. None of them are from me.

Take care of this, GreenReaper is being a fucking dick and not letting me do it myself.

--Mozdoc

==Dolphins/bonobos==
Hi Spirou, 
Are you sure that [http://en.wikifur.com/w/index.php?title=Dolphin&curid=4738&diff=282855&oldid=282783 this edit that you reverted] was vandalism? As a species, [[Wikipedia:Bonobo|bonobos]] are known to be promiscuous, so the anonymous edit by 173.87.163.35 was probably a legitimate attempt to add to the article.--[[User:Higgs Raccoon|Higgs Raccoon]] 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Will revert if so; I Wikipedia it, but I must have misspelled it, so I got no hits. My bad - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 15:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

== Blanking ==

Hi Spirou, I hope I'm doing this right; just delete this edit if this isn't where I'm supposed to post it...Anyways, this was in my message inbox: "Do you have a reason to be blanking this sites, if so, please redirect the blanked page to the appropriate article [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)". Yes, I was blanking some pages (since I didn't know how to delete them) that were supposed to be merged into other ones that I had created. They had been originally merged, but then another user separated the articles, and Wikifur staff put a note on them that they should be merged, so I was just re-doing it (again). But I wasn't logged in when I fixed it, and thus it probably looked like a hack, although it wasn't. :P

~Swandog

== Pain ==

Not best to patrol/edit a Wiki with broken bones,... irritability factor goes uo to 1000%. Yes, thanks. caught the the Condom reference instead of Mozdoc. I knew it wasn't him, just somebody that thought "This is gonna be so swell!",... Kind o anticlimactic end. Where is my Codeine shake?,... [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 19:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::Hmm, maybe I should wait until the codeine wears off and all this badgers go home.... hey! put that iPhone down, and I said no more of you on the ceiling, it's uncouth and quite rude!. You, stop poking my broken bone, or we will have badger souffle tonite >=( [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:::Just keep [http://www.weebls-stuff.com/songs/badgers/ watching this] and I guarantee they won't go away even after it wears off. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]]) 22:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

::::Oops Thought I rolled it back, my bad [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== Request for anonymity. ==

I have recently made a substantial edit to a fur's Wiki, here, and would like to request anonymity for it. I'm wondering whom I can talk to, and my email is tck6206@gmail.com

Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from someone soon on this.

:Which fur please have you made it to, please (Terrence Kennedy‎?), and if so, I need to brush about acceptance of Gmail accounts. Sorry for the delay - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]]

::No, [[Jaspian]] article,... sorry in that case, no on both requests - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 16:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== GreenReaper and request ==

Could you disregard the Terrence request by user [[72.177.139.205]]?. The same user, 72.177.139.205, seems to have a problem with user [[Jaspian]], which makes the request not valid or serious imho - [[User:Spirou|Spirou]] 16:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

== Miu/Michael Vega redirect ==

Er, just FYI, when I said on the Michael Vega talk page that I had created it before noticing his note re: real name, and that I wasn't sure if that page should be there and it should be deleted if not - I meant the actual Michael Vega page, not the talk page itself. =) --[[User:Silvermink|Silvermink]] 08:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

==A con, you say?==
"using Paxilrose rose (fake cons) as back-up is something we have learned not to use here at this wiki."

Someone posts negative information about a buddy of yours and this is a fake, eh?--[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

==At any rate==

I wrote you a little something. I doubt you'll be looking on the clusterfuck that is the Wolfee Darkfang discussion page, so I'll just copypasta it here for you. A response is appreciated, since I'd love to give a chance to defend myself as long you find it appropriate to describe me as a "fake con" an as an example of not do handle business here, especially considering the opposition is basically getting able to more or less make the case "trolls faked everything but we debunked it easily" and have it accepted as canon based on '''far''' less evidence than I offered.
--------------------------------------

(This is of course directed towards administration, of course. We all know Wolfee/Tamias' response)

We have him '''admitting''' to the BeastForum. Nothing was "debunked" in the slightest, and everything was posted here until a moderator ripped it off, apparently upset that Dear Noble Wolfee may indeed actually be a lying scumbag. I completely understand not wanting unsavory factoids litter the hugbox that is WikiFur, but do understand the difference between "We debunked them cuz they were lies!" and "We didn't allow it because it contributed to a negative atmosphere". be aware this was a ''very'' widespread event regarding this individuals and many furries, not merely "fake contributors", will verify Wolfee did lie about his involvement, did later admit to doing so, and does attack people that call him out on these events when they're brought up later.

These events have led to Wolfees at best mixed (at on average far, '''far''' worse) reputation in his chosen community, and as such should not be exempt from being discussed on what touts itself as a comprehensive wiki on all things and people furry. As I'll point out again, as with Sibe, eventually some individuals are going to gain such a negative reputation to the point where ''some'' reference of it will be acknowledged. This does not make it "obsessive trolling/hating/etc", that's what happens when someone willingly involves themselves in as much drama.

All it takes is one talk to the administration of FurAffinity forums and it becomes clear that Wolfee's talk of "super organized elaborate troll conspiracy that is all totally lies that were super duper debunked" is more than a just tad exaggerated, to a point where he maintains [http://blog.wolfeedarkfang.com/?p=48 the entire forum is full of anti-furries because they disagree with his manner of handling himself]. Understand that people can have negative opinions of people ''and'' solid proof to back them up and it should it get to such a point people will bring it up. Aggressive revisionism and sanitizing every negative comment is not a professional way to handle dissent.

Everyone's favorite, --[[User:Paxilrose|Paxilrose]] 20:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

2009-11-07T02:26:33Z

Paxilrose: According to research, the "Second Life Furry" logo doesn't actually exist. Removed for being false; not citing sources

{{cleanup}}
[[Image:YiffyYaffleRanger.png|right|thumb|160px|Yiffy Yaffle, Wolfee Darkfang]]

'''Wolfee Darkfang''' is the player of '''Yiffy Yaffle''' in [[Second Life]].

==Second Life==
October 2004 [[User:wolfeedarkfang|wolfeedarkfang]] found [[Second Life]], where she created the account [[Yiffy Yaffle]]. She became a builder and scripter rather quickly. She created many things which can be found throughout the grid. She created a open source vendor system, which helps new residents sell their creations and learn from the codes. She's very active in the community and forums.

January 2005 she was given the tasks of Head Security Administrator and a Builder for the popular [[Second Life]] [[furry]]-themed Island Simulation [[The Forest]]. She was in charge of keeping peace, by making sure troublemakers don't harm the residents or visitors. She made a side task of managing a [[Furry Art Museum]] in the western side of the island, which contains artwork from various artists in the Furry Fandom. This artwork can rate from G to XXX but is tasteful.

In May of 2006 she moved along with the other administrators of The Forest to manage a new sim named [[Serenity Woods]] located in the [[Fur Valleys]].

==External links==
* [http://www.wolfeedarkfang.com/ The Purple Wolf Punk] - home page

[[Category:People]][[Category:Artists]][[Category:Wolf characters]][[Category:Second Life characters]]

{{Supporter}}

Talk:Paxil rose

2009-06-27T13:40:43Z

Paxilrose:

Talk:Paxil rose

2009-06-27T13:40:12Z

Paxilrose: