<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://en.wikifur.com/w/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://en.wikifur.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=StarfoxACEFOX</id>
		<title>WikiFur - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://en.wikifur.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=StarfoxACEFOX"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/StarfoxACEFOX"/>
		<updated>2026-10-12T04:22:18Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.23.16</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>//en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:Foxler_Nightfire</id>
		<title>Talk:Foxler Nightfire</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:Foxler_Nightfire"/>
				<updated>2017-04-25T09:52:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;StarfoxACEFOX: Out of context&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Exclusion request==&lt;br /&gt;
The subject of this article has requested [[WikiFur:Personal exclusion|personal exclusion]]. They'd prefer that the entire article be removed, and gave the following reasons for doing so (somewhat translated by me):&lt;br /&gt;
* The information may present a safety risk to themselves and others associated with them, potentially leading to violence within the community.&lt;br /&gt;
* Some information has been presented out of context (in a way which they believe is derogatory to them).&lt;br /&gt;
* The presence of the article leads to perpetuation of political behaviour in furry fandom, which they believe may destroy the fandom.&lt;br /&gt;
* As the subject has no criminal record, they are not a risk to the safety of the community, and so it is unjustified to refuse exclusion, or to share personal information about them in general.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours, giving your reasons for doing so. --[[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]]&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;([[User talk:GreenReaper|talk]])&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 08:44, 24 April 2017 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:'''Object'''.&lt;br /&gt;
* The personally identifying information that is usually considered sensitive (name, city) was made publicly available by the subject himself in interviews with mainstream news sources, such as [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/even-furries-are-fighting-fascists ''Vice''] and [http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/does-the-furry-community-have-a-nazi-problem-w476466 ''Rolling Stone'' magazine].&lt;br /&gt;
* If the information is out of context, the subject can remedy this by specifying what is out of context, adding the context to the article himself, or work with editors to ensure it is added.&lt;br /&gt;
* The Burned Furs believing sexual perversion/lifestylers/etc. were overrunning or would ruin the fandom would not be reason to exclude articles about [[Lifestylers]], [[furry porn]], [[vore]], etc. WikiFur is not a news source (anymore). And WikiFur shouldn't promote any behavior or action from readers.&lt;br /&gt;
* I disagree with the need for a criminal conviction when things such as kissing dogs, viewing dogs sexually, and cybering with a 13 year old is all information provided by the subject himself; the danger is still there to furries who may have or be children or have dogs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:--[[User:Equivamp|Equivamp]] - &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User talk:Equivamp|talk]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 14:17, 24 April 2017 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:'''Object'''.&lt;br /&gt;
* As mentioned by Equivamp, the subject has already made plenty of sensitive information publicly available. At the most, the sensitive information should be removed rather than full exclusion.&lt;br /&gt;
* If the article is presented in such a way that is perceived to be derogatory, the article can be edited in order to be neutral.&lt;br /&gt;
* n/c.&lt;br /&gt;
* In my opinion admitting to crimes, especially as nonchalantly as he has done, shows that they are just as much of a risk to the community as somebody who has been convicted of a crime.&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:V. CA|V. CA]] ([[User talk:V. CA|talk]]) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:'''Object'''.&lt;br /&gt;
* On out of context information that is defamatory regarding past history with in legal terms. Subject regarding child grooming with past relationship http://starfoxacefox.livejournal.com/9871.html Post dated back 2005 both parties x &amp;amp; y were both minors (underage) at the time of the statement. Dose not meet the criteria of &amp;quot;Grooming&amp;quot; with in state of Colorado Rev. Statute 18-3-306 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* On out of context information that is defamatory regarding past history with in legal terms. Subject regarding violating the age of consent with past relationship http://imgur.com/w5NHZRS &amp;amp; http://imgur.com/rxt2l1Y Post dated back 2011 both parties x &amp;amp; y subject was within the age of consent at the time of the statement. Dose not meet the criteria of &amp;quot;violating the age of consent&amp;quot; with in state of North Carolina § 14?27.7A&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* On out of context information that is defamatory regarding past history with in terms. Subject regarding bestiality claims, which has no evidence that determines this definition of bestiality. Statement should be change to Zoophilia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:--[[User:starfoxACEFOX|starfoxACEFOX]] - &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[[User talk:starfoxACEFOX|talk]]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 3:50, 25 April 2017 (MST)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>StarfoxACEFOX</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>