https://en.wikifur.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Te%27TargaWikiFur - User contributions [en]2026-11-01T00:52:16ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.23.16//en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:Te%27TargaUser:Te'Targa2007-08-07T06:35:17Z<p>Te'Targa: Removing all content from page</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/User_talk:Te%27TargaUser talk:Te'Targa2007-08-07T06:34:59Z<p>Te'Targa: Removing all content from page</p>
<hr />
<div></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:BabyfurTalk:Babyfur2005-09-01T21:06:56Z<p>Te'Targa: /* Question */</p>
<hr />
<div><div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;"><br />
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center><br />
*[[/Page 2|Page 2]]<br />
</div><br />
'''I've split this talk page as its displaying the length warning. If you can't find a conversation you were taking part in, please see page two.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Question ==<br />
Just wondering if someone could add me to the bf artist section... Or maybe I'm to much of an unknown to be there?<br />
Also, I didn't think it would be smart to write myself in... :3 -[[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]<br />
<br />
:Don't know enough about the topic to add you, but others might. Please don't remove or rephrase words from people in talk pages unless they are personal attacks on other people. --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 08:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Was that just a general statement or did I do that??? -[[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]<br />
<br />
:::[http://furry.wikicities.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ABabyfur&diff=9529&oldid=9527] Perhaps you have censorware on the computer you were using that removed 'bad' words onload. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:08, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Ah... Sorry about that... Will refrain from doing any editing with that computer in the future... - [[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]<br />
<br />
== NPOV Alledged ==<br />
<br />
Since NPOV is a case by case basis, and Crassus believes that article VII is not NPOV.. I'm going to mark the article NPOV. If an admin sees this and decides that the article should not be marked, please remove it. Thanks. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 12:23, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Again, I ask that the admin please look over the tone and neutrality of the babyfur vs pedophilia section. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:13, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Babyfur and Pedophilia==<br />
<br />
Is this section really necessary? Stating that we are against something that is patently illegal should be a no brainer. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:19, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think it is, because I know a lot of Babyfurs who are tired of the bad rep they've gotten from close-minded people who can't get their understanding of terminologies correct. Most babyfurs that I know are very open-minded and understanding of others. They're just tired of all the crap they've received from hateful, ignorant people. It really reflects on the state of the fandom as a whole. I think most furs can agree that we're all tired of getting a bad rep in mainstream society. Subsections within the fandom are also tired of suffering the same intolerant treatment from other furs. My only beef is that I think the article needs to be clear up a couple legal definition issues.<br />
<br />
:--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:23, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::And I disagree. I don't believe that we need to be throwing the "we're not pedophiles" argument down in front of people. Nor do I believe that pedosexuality has any place in the core definition of babyfur. I'm not saying we have to take the sexuality out of babyfur, but we should not be in the business of running around proactively telling everyone that we are not pedophiles. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference type article, not a sounding board for pro-pedosexuality or anti-pedosexuality. It really doesn't need to be in this article. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I DO agree with you strongly on that last notion. We shouldn't be dealing with having to be pro or anti ANYthing. That's what my whole beef is with the section of the article. The tenor floats about in a defensive posture. It should be neutral. It should simply say what it is, and clear up confusion as to what it's not. It shouldn't look or feel slanted. Slants can be left to HHGttG, not the Intergalactic Encyclopedia, as the repository for all knowledge and wisedom of the universe, so to speak. :)<br />
<br />
::: But also, think of this: We can't even say the word "pedophile" without some people automatically attaching it to (im)moral conduct. Therefore, is it not up to the individual reader to be left to their own understanding on an issue to ultimately be non-biased? Very tough to do. Though, I think it needs to be done. All I'm saying is, reword the thing. I'd do it myself, but I doubt I have teh skills. :)<br />
<br />
:::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:35, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Redcard, the article is not "proactively" mentioning anything about pedophilia. Rather it is '''reactively''' mentioning it, because there already exists the mistaken notion that babyfurs are somehow involved with pedophilia. I believe that it is important to dispel that myth, and that the best way to do it is by mentioning that it is in fact, untrue. --[[User:Dmuth|Dmuth]] 18:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
:::: dmuth, Understood. The problem I had is that it seemed to couple babyfur with pedo by using the conjunction and on top of the contrasting vs below. This would give the cursory glancer the wrong impression and was not in like form to the remainder of the article. Changing it to vs clarifies the contrasting elements within it.[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 19:03, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
: Yes, this part of the article is necessary was included because it's a precieved issue with the general fandom. Like it or not, babyfurs that do engage in sexual ageplay are often labeled as such. This section tries to draw the line between what is done in roleplay and what is done in real life (and what is illegal). -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"...is patently illegal should..." Pedophilia is not illegal. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:27, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Please make your revisions here and not on the main article, especially when a consensus has not been reached. Further, for revisions that change the context of an entire section of an article, you need to properly mark the edit as a major edit. Do not try to sneak major context changing edits in as minor edits. Thanks [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 17:48, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Jello, I know you are wanting to remove the broad generalization. We , however, have reached a consensus at having a condemnation of pedophilia in this article. An acceptable compromise might be to remove the broad generalization of "all " and replace it with "most." But you are not going to remove the entire condemnation because you don't like its whole message.[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 17:56, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Why is that even sentence there? It can't be true. The furry fandom doesn't have a spokesman and it's made up of different people with different opinions who have different ideas of what should be "accepted" or "condoned". The sentence claims that the entire (overall) furry fandom dislikes pedophilia. Where are you getting this? This is the opinion of whoever wrote that section, ''not'' the furry fandom. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
::: Why do you have to condemn pedophilia in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...<br />
::: What statistics have you used to deduce that 'most' of the furry fandom dislikes pedophilia? Do you have a cite? {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: So you are not a fur, and by nature, are not a babyfur. Look, we are babyfurs. We are the ones who have written this article. We will maintain the line as it is in many of our operating statements and codes of conduct. This article was written by consensus. It will NOT be changed by a single person, who is not even represented by the article, deciding that they don't like what it says. I'd rather all references to pedophilia be out entirely, but the consensus did not work that way. Work within the system, please. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:03, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
::::: It doesn't matter if I'm not furry, and it doesn't matter if I'm not babyfur. These are immaterial. I've seen enough of the world to know that not everyone thinks the same about things, and I highly doubt furries are any different. So the concensus said to write it like that? That's like people writing history by a vote, to reflect whatever makes them look good; even if this isn't Wikipedia, WikiFur is intended record factual information. Concensus shouldn't determine fact. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:11, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: WHOA<br />
<br />
:::: whoa whoa whoa whoa.<br />
<br />
:::: ''Why do you have to condemn pedophilia in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...''<br />
<br />
:::: If you're stepping in to provide a defense of the sexual exploitation of children in the name of inclusivity and tolerance, you've ''already'' lost the argument, no rebuttal necessary. End of story. --[[User:Rootdown|Rootdown]] 18:15, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
::::: Gargh, pedophilia isn't the sexual exploition of children. I'm not defending anything, anyway, I'm saying we shouldn't be untruthfully stating all furs hate pedos. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:17, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: I'm sure not *all* do, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of furs would say that engaging in a sexual act with a real child is not the right thing to do. This article will not be used to say that babyfurs are pedo nor will it be used to make it sound like that furs in general accept pedo. Why is it in the article...because many furs equate babyfurs with pedo. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:53, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note to Jellochuu: It seems your definition of pedophilia and pedophile is based on the <i>clinical</i> definition of the terms. However, the <i>connotation</i> of the term as used in society at large is something very, very different from its literal meaning. If your intention is accuracy, and I hope it is, then you will know that what you are writing are coming across with a very different interpretation than what the words you are using literally mean. [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 19:38, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Sex and Babyfurs==<br />
Okay, we've had a lot of furor over this right now. Let me sum how I see that section of the article right now:<br />
*People mistake babyfur activities as being pedophilia. This is not the same thing. I feel the new title edit makes that clear.<br />
*Some babyfurs are interested in sex in babyfur persona, some are not. Of those, some age-play with adults, some age-play with other babyfurs. <br />
*We can't totally say that no babyfur ever is a pedophile, because we just don't know. No one identified as a BF has ever been involved in legal action regarding sexual conduct with a minor.<br />
<br />
I think at this point, we may need a seperate article on Age-play and how it relates to the fandom.<br />
<br />
[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]] 19:16, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't. I think we should simply link to Wikipedia's already very detailed entry on the matter. Ageplay is not a "furry" topic. It has links in that it is a sexual kink, but it in no way deals with "furryness".<br />
<br />
:--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Sorry, but once again I'm going to have to disagree on something that was recently added:<br />
<br />
"Many babfurs do not include a sexual element to their interests."<br />
<br />
First off, there's a typo for "babyfurs". Secondly, just because there is not a sex act being performed in the scene does not mean they aren't receiving sexual gratification from the scene. Many a time, when someone pulls off one of those diapers, you're bound to see evidence that the person's being stimulated mentally. The above statement is phrased in a way that lends to the notion that there is no sexual element involved at all, which is definately not the case. The same goes for pedophilia in many cases. Merely seeing kids playing or acting "boyish/girlish" is enough to be stimulating. (Again, not passing judgement in either AB or BL/GL issues. Simply stating the facts.)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I know quite a few that do not include sexual play in with their babyfur play. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I just said that. Just because there's no actual sexual '''play''' does '''not''' mean there isn't a '''sexual element''' or gratification from the '''non-sexual''' act.<br />
<br />
::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: For some, I'm sure it's just like you are trying to explain, while there is no direct stimuli, there's is mental stimuli. However, realise that being a babyfur and wearing a diaper or doing anything else connected with babyfurs in real lif is not the same thing. There are babyfurs out there that they like roleplaying young characters but would not do anything outside of that roleplay. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::That doesn't mean there isn't a sexual element, though. Sexuality revolves around a much more expansive circle than direct stimulation. Sometimes the very feeling of comfort derived from non-sexual activity can result in stimulation, or at least be conducive toward feeling more sexually inclined and "in-tune" so to speak. I'll give you an example. Suppose someone can't "get it up" unless they're wearing a Marylin Monroe wig. The moment they put that wig on, even if it has nothing to do with sex directly, provides an element which enables them to feel sexually enabled. Diapers and such are a paraphernalia to that degree. Granted, that doesn't include everyone. Nothing is 100%, but I bet you it's the majority of them.<br />
<br />
::::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Passing observation on this discussion - it would seem to be getting a little bit into the abstraction of just what constitutes sexuality, sexual stimulation, feedback, mental states, etc. Which isn't a bad topic or anything. In point of fact, I think more people need education on it, and there are a lot of primitive / simplistic viewpoints floating around, IMHO. One reason why things like furry sexuality in general may be misunderstood or shocking to outsiders at first glance. However, I do wonder how well the abstractions help the issue of trying to describe the issues surrounding the babyfur topic. It's clearly a topic for discussion about it because there have been so many misunderstandings. There is just the practical issue remaining of how to integrate all of this into an encyclopedic entry. <br />
<br />
:::::--{{UT|ToyDragon}}<br />
<br />
::::: For some...yes. But not for all. What babyfur means to you is not necessiarily what babyfur means to others. This article was written in the hopes to cover as many bases as possible. There are babyfurs out there that have no intrest in the sexual ageplay. They just like to play innocent characters. There is '''no''' connection of a diaper and a fetish object to them. To deny that these babyfurs exist is a disservice to them and a misrepresentation of the community. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::The problem that I see in trying to clear off the name of Babyfurs for a clear definition is the fact "Babyfur" is associated tightly with so many other sexual kinks: AD/BL, infantilism, watersports, scat, ageplay, overalls and clothing, baby oil, etc..... I don't see any other way to view it as just an adaptation of the kink, whether it be inherently sexual or not, it's still a kink, with a tail stuck on it. Furryness aside, adult babies for the most part is in fact a sexual element added to their life. Wikipedia's entry on [[Wikipedia:Infantilism]] even mentions this:<br />
<br />
::::::"Some forms of infantilism are purely regressive, without any sexual content. After an individual has reached full maturity, including a fully independent living situation, as well as stabilized in his or her long term sexual role in society, most infantilists report having incorporated certain aspects of sexuality into their infantilism. However, some few adult infantilists report never having done so. Even though some infantilists may never incorporate any aspects of sexuality into their practice, most adult infantilists would agree that their practice of infantilism has minimally had a profound effect on their sexuality, if not having been a direct part of it."<br />
<br />
::::::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 23:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: And this is not Wikipedia, but rather a wikicities site on wikipedia. Why don't you detail fixes instead of just pointing out what's wrong , so that we may discuss fixes instead of your amporphous ideals, and then we can vote on those suggestions? If you're just going to point out what's wrong, you need to leave. You're not contributing to WikiSociety. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 23:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Actually.. we aren't connected to Wikipedia in anyway. Wikicities is privately owned and financed, but respects similar values to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. ;) -[[User:Nidonocu|Nidonocu]] - [[User talk:Nidonocu|talk]] [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 01:47, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
:::::::: Ah.. you are correct. I was thinking that Wales founded Wikipedia under Wikia, but he chose not to. Regardless, according to the wikicity creation policy , we do operate with a tit-for-tat relationship with Wikipedia. Also, it is expected upon reading the wikicities information that Wikisociety still take place in the same manner as it would on a wikipediaproject vs a wikia project. (Which was created thusly to be a commercial entity) [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 02:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: I believe you mean "amorphous". Really now. Don't hold back your real feelings about me. I've contributed to a number of other articles which I openly know more about than this, and for that very reason, I don't even assume to know everything about a subject that I myself have never participated in, but such arrogance to assume that a higher definition can be obtained through individual personal opinion rather than the collective thoughts of the many, plus outside sources like Wikipedia and thefreedictionary.com... that just boggles me blind. I don't dare to add or subtract from this entry simply because I know that I don't know everything about it. But, I do know a little about ageplay matters, and sexuality in general is rather a hobby of mine to study. I know that in the US, we've obtained such a high degree of puritanical BS to make us want to hide and cover up our true natures, which is the direct force behind so much of our conflicting and ambiguous ideals... to me, this entire matter is simply a matter of covering things up and making us "feel" better just because something isn't socially accepted. It's the entire problem we as furs as a whole have. We can't face reality, and that, Red, is more of a hinderance than any "non"-contribution that I could dish out. Sorry for the difference of opinion. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 00:02, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Will you get to the POINT , Crassus? Please? What do you want? We are not going to turn this into a boylove article, so forget about that. Further, the purpose of this article is not to explore the sexuality of babyfur, but to explore babyfur on the whole. So.. will you please tell us what you want or drop it? Yes, you're very clearly into pedophilia, and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints, and yes, you think that , from reading things.. everyone should be allowed to have sex, both pedo and non. Forget what I think of your viewpoints, and just get to the point about what you want to see in this article. The next thing out of your mouth had best not be a diatribe about how evil society is for not letting you have sex with children, and better be something about THIS article. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 00:21, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::Fine. Let me spell it out. Again. (I already did so up there somewhere.) Section VII of the article is biased and it should NOT be biased. Change it.<br />
<br />
::::::::"Yes, you're very clearly into pedophilia, and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints"<br />
<br />
:::::::: You say that like it's a bad thing to be open minded and not a bigot. And no, I'm not "into pedophilia". That's stupid. Pedophilia is a modern clinical term coined in the 1800's by some victorian know-it-all shrink dude for a biased point of view during the height of the anti-child-labor movement as part of the backlash to the industrial revolution. During the 20th century it got taken a step further and it got turned not only from a term for a paraphilia, but also a blurred connotation for child rape and molestation, which is NOT part of the equation. Think of it this way: It would be like forcing someone into a diaper who doesn't want to have one. It's not consentual. Rape is rape, no matter the age. So, no. I am '''not''' into pedophilia. Sorry. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 05:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Section VII is staying the way it is until someone proposes a change and that changes gets voted on. Simply saying change it is not helpful since it does not offer us something to change it to. So, again, please make a suggestion or leave. You're not even a babyfur, Crassus, why the hell is this bothering you so much? The babyfurs by and large seem okay with it. (Oh, and by the way, we're allowed to be biased here. NPOV is not strictly enforced here. You might want to read the wikifur policy. Please also note that it says to consult an admin, and so far two admins have looked this page over and think its just fine..)[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 12:04, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::'''HOW''' is section VII bias? All I seem to be getting from you and this conversation is you [Crassus] wanting to remove the section that says not all babyfurs get sexual stimulation from it. If that's all you want, I've already told you, many times, that it's not true. I know a few that do not cross that line. I also know a few babyfurs that do not even get involved in real life with it, all they do is roleplay young characters on a muck or such. I can see your confusion as the first line of the article states that a babyfur is an ab/dl furry. They do make up a chunk of the general babyfur population, but not all of them. Again, that's not always true and I corrected that. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Also, to the both of you, please stop the personal attacks. This is '''NOT''' the place for them. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Revisions==<br />
<br />
How do we offer proposed revisions for the entry? --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:36, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
:Well, one possibility is simply write out the text that you have in mind and put it right here. --[[User:DuncanDaHusky|Duncan da Husky]] 18:37, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I had a good talk with a friend of mine who is a babyfur, and has given me some insight into things. I'm going to see what people think.<br />
<br />
A babyfur = A fur who labels themself as someone who fits into the babyfur ideals. Those ideals mean any or all of the following:<br />
<br />
*Might or might not be into infantilism, AB/DL, or any range of various sexual interests at any varying degree.<br />
*Ageplaying an extremely young age: birth through pre-schooler age.<br />
*Might find their play sexual.<br />
*Might find the age they roleplay sexual.<br />
*Might find diapers and other paraphernilia sexual. They may wear diapers for whatever reason, whether it be for fun, to feel emotionally comforting, to be enabled sexually, or for medical conditions.<br />
*Might not find any of the play sexual, but enjoys it on a level.<br />
*Might talk funny ICly.<br />
*Might talk funny OOCly.<br />
*Might be a pedosexual, might not be.<br />
*Might RP, might not. Might RP RL, some only online.<br />
<br />
More to come as I think of it. At this point, I'm really confused as to how we can define something that no one really agrees upon. I guess just to offer different definitions. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 00:26, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Everything you've said in this is already in the article somewhere...or am I missing something? -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 21:53, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Isn't this a tad broad? "any range of various sexual interests at any varying degree." Then "but enjoys it on a level." What does that mean? It is NOT necesarily a sexual enjoyment, unless you think everything is sexual, then food is sexual too, and movies, and biking... I think that statement is redundant. If they didn't enjoy it (they suffered it?) they wouldn't do it, would they? --[[user:Tundu|Tundu]] 00:53, Aug 31 2005 (UTC)</div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/Talk:BabyfurTalk:Babyfur2005-09-01T07:44:58Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div><div style="float:right; border:2px solid #bbbbbb; width:150px;"><br />
<center>'''Discussion Pages'''</center><br />
*[[/Page 2|Page 2]]<br />
</div><br />
'''I've split this talk page as its displaying the length warning. If you can't find a conversation you were taking part in, please see page two.'''<br />
<br />
== Question ==<br />
Just wondering if someone could add me to the bf artist section... Or maybe I'm to much of an unknown to be there?<br />
Also, I didn't think it would be smart to write myself in... :3 -[[Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]<br />
<br />
== NPOV Alledged ==<br />
<br />
Since NPOV is a case by case basis, and Crassus believes that article VII is not NPOV.. I'm going to mark the article NPOV. If an admin sees this and decides that the article should not be marked, please remove it. Thanks. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 12:23, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Again, I ask that the admin please look over the tone and neutrality of the babyfur vs section. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:13, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Babyfur and ==<br />
<br />
Is this section really necessary? Stating that we are against something that is patently illegal should be a no brainer. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:19, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think it is, because I know a lot of Babyfurs who are tired of the bad rep they've gotten from close-minded people who can't get their understanding of terminologies correct. Most babyfurs that I know are very open-minded and understanding of others. They're just tired of all the crap they've received from hateful, ignorant people. It really reflects on the state of the fandom as a whole. I think most furs can agree that we're all tired of getting a bad rep in mainstream society. Subsections within the fandom are also tired of suffering the same intolerant treatment from other furs. My only beef is that I think the article needs to be clear up a couple legal definition issues.<br />
<br />
:--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:23, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::And I disagree. I don't believe that we need to be throwing the "we're not s" argument down in front of people. Nor do I believe that pedo has any place in the core definition of babyfur. I'm not saying we have to take the out of babyfur, but we should not be in the business of running around proactively telling everyone that we are not s. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference type article, not a sounding board for pro-pedo or anti-pedo . It really doesn't need to be in this article. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I DO agree with you strongly on that last notion. We shouldn't be dealing with having to be pro or anti ANYthing. That's what my whole beef is with the section of the article. The tenor floats about in a defensive posture. It should be neutral. It should simply say what it is, and clear up confusion as to what it's not. It shouldn't look or feel slanted. Slants can be left to HHGttG, not the Intergalactic Encyclopedia, as the repository for all knowledge and wisedom of the universe, so to speak. :)<br />
<br />
::: But also, think of this: We can't even say the word " " without some people automatically attaching it to (im)moral conduct. Therefore, is it not up to the individual reader to be left to their own understanding on an issue to ultimately be non-biased? Very tough to do. Though, I think it needs to be done. All I'm saying is, reword the thing. I'd do it myself, but I doubt I have teh skills. :)<br />
<br />
:::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:35, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Redcard, the article is not "proactively" mentioning anything about . Rather it is '''reactively''' mentioning it, because there already exists the mistaken notion that babyfurs are somehow involved with . I believe that it is important to dispel that myth, and that the best way to do it is by mentioning that it is in fact, untrue. --[[User:Dmuth|Dmuth]] 18:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
:::: dmuth, Understood. The problem I had is that it seemed to couple babyfur with pedo by using the conjunction and on top of the contrasting vs below. This would give the cursory glancer the wrong impression and was not in like form to the remainder of the article. Changing it to vs clarifies the contrasting elements within it.[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 19:03, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
: Yes, this part of the article is necessary was included because it's a precieved issue with the general fandom. Like it or not, babyfurs that do engage in sexual ageplay are often labeled as such. This section tries to draw the line between what is done in roleplay and what is done in real life (and what is illegal). -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
"...is patently illegal should..." is not illegal. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:27, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Please make your revisions here and not on the main article, especially when a consensus has not been reached. Further, for revisions that change the context of an entire section of an article, you need to properly mark the edit as a major edit. Do not try to sneak major context changing edits in as minor edits. Thanks [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 17:48, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Jello, I know you are wanting to remove the broad generalization. We , however, have reached a consensus at having a condemnation of in this article. An acceptable compromise might be to remove the broad generalization of "all " and replace it with "most." But you are not going to remove the entire condemnation because you don't like its whole message.[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 17:56, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: Why is that even sentence there? It can't be true. The furry fandom doesn't have a spokesman and it's made up of different people with different opinions who have different ideas of what should be "accepted" or "condoned". The sentence claims that the entire (overall) furry fandom dislikes . Where are you getting this? This is the opinion of whoever wrote that section, ''not'' the furry fandom. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
::: Why do you have to condemn in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...<br />
::: What statistics have you used to deduce that 'most' of the furry fandom dislikes ? Do you have a cite? {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 17:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: So you are not a fur, and by nature, are not a babyfur. Look, we are babyfurs. We are the ones who have written this article. We will maintain the line as it is in many of our operating statements and codes of conduct. This article was written by consensus. It will NOT be changed by a single person, who is not even represented by the article, deciding that they don't like what it says. I'd rather all references to be out entirely, but the consensus did not work that way. Work within the system, please. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 18:03, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
::::: It doesn't matter if I'm not furry, and it doesn't matter if I'm not babyfur. These are immaterial. I've seen enough of the world to know that not everyone thinks the same about things, and I highly doubt furries are any different. So the concensus said to write it like that? That's like people writing history by a vote, to reflect whatever makes them look good; even if this isn't Wikipedia, WikiFur is intended record factual information. Concensus shouldn't determine fact. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:11, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: WHOA<br />
<br />
:::: whoa whoa whoa whoa.<br />
<br />
:::: ''Why do you have to condemn in the article? I'm not a furry, but I would have thought the fandom would be a bit more open-minded...''<br />
<br />
:::: If you're stepping in to provide a defense of the exploitation of children in the name of inclusivity and tolerance, you've ''already'' lost the argument, no rebuttal necessary. End of story. --[[User:Rootdown|Rootdown]] 18:15, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
::::: Gargh, isn't the exploition of children. I'm not defending anything, anyway, I'm saying we shouldn't be untruthfully stating all furs hate pedos. {{User:Jellochuu/s}} 18:17, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: I'm sure not *all* do, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of furs would say that engaging in a sexual act with a real child is not the right thing to do. This article will not be used to say that babyfurs are pedo nor will it be used to make it sound like that furs in general accept pedo. Why is it in the article...because many furs equate babyfurs with pedo. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 18:53, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Note to Jellochuu: It seems your definition of and is based on the <i>clinical</i> definition of the terms. However, the <i>connotation</i> of the term as used in society at large is something very, very different from its literal meaning. If your intention is accuracy, and I hope it is, then you will know that what you are writing are coming across with a very different interpretation than what the words you are using literally mean. [[User:Almafeta|Almafeta]] 19:38, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== and Babyfurs==<br />
Okay, we've had a lot of furor over this right now. Let me sum how I see that section of the article right now:<br />
*People mistake babyfur activities as being . This is not the same thing. I feel the new title edit makes that clear.<br />
*Some babyfurs are interested in sex in babyfur persona, some are not. Of those, some age-play with adults, some age-play with other babyfurs. <br />
*We can't totally say that no babyfur ever is a , because we just don't know. No one identified as a BF has ever been involved in legal action regarding conduct with a minor.<br />
<br />
I think at this point, we may need a seperate article on Age-play and how it relates to the fandom.<br />
<br />
[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]] 19:16, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I don't. I think we should simply link to Wikipedia's already very detailed entry on the matter. Ageplay is not a "furry" topic. It has links in that it is a kink, but it in no way deals with "furryness".<br />
<br />
:--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:26, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
Sorry, but once again I'm going to have to disagree on something that was recently added:<br />
<br />
"Many babfurs do not include a element to their interests."<br />
<br />
First off, there's a typo for "babyfurs". Secondly, just because there is not a sex act being performed in the scene does not mean they aren't receiving gratification from the scene. Many a time, when someone pulls off one of those diapers, you're bound to see evidence that the person's being stimulated mentally. The above statement is phrased in a way that lends to the notion that there is no element involved at all, which is definately not the case. The same goes for in many cases. Merely seeing kids playing or acting "boyish/girlish" is enough to be stimulating. (Again, not passing judgement in either AB or BL/GL issues. Simply stating the facts.)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:42, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I know quite a few that do not include play in with their babyfur play. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:50, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I just said that. Just because there's no actual '''play''' does '''not''' mean there isn't a ''' element''' or gratification from the '''non-sexual''' act.<br />
<br />
::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: For some, I'm sure it's just like you are trying to explain, while there is no direct stimuli, there's is mental stimuli. However, realise that being a babyfur and wearing a diaper or doing anything else connected with babyfurs in real lif is not the same thing. There are babyfurs out there that they like roleplaying young characters but would not do anything outside of that roleplay. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 19:58, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::That doesn't mean there isn't a element, though. revolves around a much more expansive circle than direct stimulation. Sometimes the very feeling of comfort derived from non-sexual activity can result in stimulation, or at least be conducive toward feeling more sexually inclined and "in-tune" so to speak. I'll give you an example. Suppose someone can't "get it up" unless they're wearing a Marylin Monroe wig. The moment they put that wig on, even if it has nothing to do with sex directly, provides an element which enables them to feel sexually enabled. Diapers and such are a paraphernalia to that degree. Granted, that doesn't include everyone. Nothing is 100%, but I bet you it's the majority of them.<br />
<br />
::::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 19:52, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::Passing observation on this discussion - it would seem to be getting a little bit into the abstraction of just what constitutes , sexual stimulation, feedback, mental states, etc. Which isn't a bad topic or anything. In point of fact, I think more people need education on it, and there are a lot of primitive / simplistic viewpoints floating around, IMHO. One reason why things like furry in general may be misunderstood or shocking to outsiders at first glance. However, I do wonder how well the abstractions help the issue of trying to describe the issues surrounding the babyfur topic. It's clearly a topic for discussion about it because there have been so many misunderstandings. There is just the practical issue remaining of how to integrate all of this into an encyclopedic entry. <br />
<br />
:::::--{{UT|ToyDragon}}<br />
<br />
::::: For some...yes. But not for all. What babyfur means to you is not necessiarily what babyfur means to others. This article was written in the hopes to cover as many bases as possible. There are babyfurs out there that have no intrest in the sexual ageplay. They just like to play innocent characters. There is '''no''' connection of a diaper and a object to them. To deny that these babyfurs exist is a disservice to them and a misrepresentation of the community. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 20:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::The problem that I see in trying to clear off the name of Babyfurs for a clear definition is the fact "Babyfur" is associated tightly with so many other kinks: AD/BL, infantilism, water , scat, ageplay, overalls and clothing, baby oil, etc..... I don't see any other way to view it as just an adaptation of the kink, whether it be inherently or not, it's still a kink, with a tail stuck on it. Furryness aside, adult babies for the most part is in fact a element added to their life. Wikipedia's entry on [[Wikipedia:Infantilism]] even mentions this:<br />
<br />
::::::"Some forms of infantilism are purely regressive, without any content. After an individual has reached full maturity, including a fully independent living situation, as well as stabilized in his or her long term role in society, most infantilists report having incorporated certain aspects of into their infantilism. However, some few adult infantilists report never having done so. Even though some infantilists may never incorporate any aspects of into their practice, most adult infantilists would agree that their practice of infantilism has minimally had a profound effect on their , if not having been a direct part of it."<br />
<br />
::::::--[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 23:05, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: And this is not Wikipedia, but rather a wikicities site on wikipedia. Why don't you detail fixes instead of just pointing out what's wrong , so that we may discuss fixes instead of your amporphous ideals, and then we can vote on those suggestions? If you're just going to point out what's wrong, you need to leave. You're not contributing to WikiSociety. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 23:12, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Actually.. we aren't connected to Wikipedia in anyway. Wikicities is privately owned and financed, but respects similar values to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. ;) -[[User:Nidonocu|Nidonocu]] - [[User talk:Nidonocu|talk]] [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 01:47, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
:::::::: Ah.. you are correct. I was thinking that Wales founded Wikipedia under Wikia, but he chose not to. Regardless, according to the wikicity creation policy , we do operate with a tit-for-tat relationship with Wikipedia. Also, it is expected upon reading the wikicities information that Wikisociety still take place in the same manner as it would on a wikipediaproject vs a wikia project. (Which was created thusly to be a commercial entity) [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 02:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::: I believe you mean "amorphous". Really now. Don't hold back your real feelings about me. I've contributed to a number of other articles which I openly know more about than this, and for that very reason, I don't even assume to know everything about a subject that I myself have never participated in, but such arrogance to assume that a higher definition can be obtained through individual personal opinion rather than the collective thoughts of the many, plus outside sources like Wikipedia and thefreedictionary.com... that just boggles me blind. I don't dare to add or subtract from this entry simply because I know that I don't know everything about it. But, I do know a little about ageplay matters, and in general is rather a hobby of mine to study. I know that in the US, we've obtained such a high degree of puritanical BS to make us want to hide and cover up our true natures, which is the direct force behind so much of our conflicting and ambiguous ideals... to me, this entire matter is simply a matter of covering things up and making us "feel" better just because something isn't socially accepted. It's the entire problem we as furs as a whole have. We can't face reality, and that, Red, is more of a hinderance than any "non"-contribution that I could dish out. Sorry for the difference of opinion. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 00:02, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::Will you get to the POINT , Crassus? Please? What do you want? We are not going to turn this into a boylove article, so forget about that. Further, the purpose of this article is not to explore the of babyfur, but to explore babyfur on the whole. So.. will you please tell us what you want or drop it? Yes, you're very clearly into , and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints, and yes, you think that , from reading things.. everyone should be allowed to , both pedo and non. Forget what I think of your viewpoints, and just get to the point about what you want to see in this article. The next thing out of your mouth had best not be a diatribe about how evil society is for not letting you with children, and better be something about THIS article. [[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 00:21, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::Fine. Let me spell it out. Again. (I already did so up there somewhere.) Section VII of the article is biased and it should NOT be biased. Change it.<br />
<br />
::::::::"Yes, you're very clearly into , and yes, you do not like the "puritanical" viewpoints"<br />
<br />
:::::::: You say that like it's a bad thing to be open minded and not a bigot. And no, I'm not "into ". That's stupid. is a modern clinical term coined in the 1800's by some victorian know-it-all shrink dude for a biased point of view during the height of the anti-child-labor movement as part of the backlash to the industrial revolution. During the 20th century it got taken a step further and it got turned not only from a term for a paraphilia, but also a blurred connotation for child rape and molestation, which is NOT part of the equation. Think of it this way: It would be like forcing someone into a diaper who doesn't want to have one. It's not consentual. Rape is rape, no matter the age. So, no. I am '''not''' into . Sorry. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 05:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Section VII is staying the way it is until someone proposes a change and that changes gets voted on. Simply saying change it is not helpful since it does not offer us something to change it to. So, again, please make a suggestion or leave. You're not even a babyfur, Crassus, why the hell is this bothering you so much? The babyfurs by and large seem okay with it. (Oh, and by the way, we're allowed to be biased here. NPOV is not strictly enforced here. You might want to read the wikifur policy. Please also note that it says to consult an admin, and so far two admins have looked this page over and think its just fine..)[[User:Redcard|Redcard]] 12:04, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
::::::::::'''HOW''' is section VII bias? All I seem to be getting from you and this conversation is you [Crassus] wanting to remove the section that says not all babyfurs get sexual stimulation from it. If that's all you want, I've already told you, many times, that it's not true. I know a few that do not cross that line. I also know a few babyfurs that do not even get involved in real life with it, all they do is roleplay young characters on a muck or such. I can see your confusion as the first line of the article states that a babyfur is an ab/dl furry. They do make up a chunk of the general babyfur population, but not all of them. Again, that's not always true and I corrected that. <br />
<br />
::::::::::Also, to the both of you, please stop the personal attacks. This is '''NOT''' the place for them. -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 13:57, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Revisions==<br />
<br />
How do we offer proposed revisions for the entry? --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 18:36, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
:Well, one possibility is simply write out the text that you have in mind and put it right here. --[[User:DuncanDaHusky|Duncan da Husky]] 18:37, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I had a good talk with a friend of mine who is a babyfur, and has given me some insight into things. I'm going to see what people think.<br />
<br />
A babyfur = A fur who labels themself as someone who fits into the babyfur ideals. Those ideals mean any or all of the following:<br />
<br />
*Might or might not be into infantilism, AB/DL, or any range of various interests at any varying degree.<br />
*Ageplaying an extremely young age: birth through pre-schooler age.<br />
*Might find their play .<br />
*Might find the age they roleplay .<br />
*Might find diapers and other paraphernilia . They may wear diapers for whatever reason, whether it be for fun, to feel emotionally comforting, to be enabled sexually, or for medical conditions.<br />
*Might not find any of the play , but enjoys it on a level.<br />
*Might talk funny ICly.<br />
*Might talk funny OOCly.<br />
*Might be a pedosexual, might not be.<br />
*Might RP, might not. Might RP RL, some only online.<br />
<br />
More to come as I think of it. At this point, I'm really confused as to how we can define something that no one really agrees upon. I guess just to offer different definitions. --[[User:Crassus|Crassus]] 00:26, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Everything you've said in this is already in the article somewhere...or am I missing something? -- [[User:Rama|Rama]] 21:53, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Isn't this a tad broad? "any range of various interests at any varying degree." Then "but enjoys it on a level." What does that mean? It is NOT necesarily a enjoyment, unless you think everything is sexual, then food is sexual too, and , and biking... I think that statement is redundant. If they didn't enjoy it (they suffered it?) they wouldn't do it, would they? --[[user:Tundu|Tundu]] 00:53, Aug 31 2005 (UTC)</div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:Logo_ideasWikiFur:Logo ideas2005-08-28T00:23:38Z<p>Te'Targa: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>''As there have been no submissions for a few days, I'm adding MelSkunk's for now. '''The logo competition is still open''', and you may both submit and vote on logos below.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 02:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
''I've also added Seth's, since we needed a search logo.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 19:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[WikiFur]] needs a '''logo'''. It should be 135x155 pixels (or potentially a little shorter), and it should try to communicate both "wiki" and "furry" in some way, potentially including part or all of the name "WikiFur".<br />
<br />
Have a look at some of the [[Wikicities:Image:Logocollection.png|existing logos]] for some good (and bad) examples. As you can see, simpler is potentially better - any text should at least be discernable at 1/3 size.<br />
<br />
To submit an image, you need to [[Special:Userlogin|login]], then [[Special:Upload|upload your image]] and add your submissions here by editing the page to add <nowiki>[[Image:YourImageName.png]]</nowiki>. 24-bit PNG is the preferred format - if it needs to be smaller, it can be reduced later.<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
<br />
''Don't be shy, add something!''<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
* '''[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]''': [[Image:Wikifurmel-s-1.png]]<br />
:''Just because this is being used as a placeholder, doesn't mean you shouldn't enter. '''Be bold!''' I'd be happy to see more!'' - [[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]<br />
* '''[[User:Sethtriggs|Seth C Triggs]]''': [[Image:wikifurlogoseth.png]]<br />
: I like the existing logo very much. But this is just a narrow format one. - --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
* '''[[User:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]''': [[Image:te_wl1.png]]<br />
: Just thought I'd take a stab at it... -[[user:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]] Aka J.E.D.. (( What happened?? The transparancy disapeared.. ))<br />
::Transparency is working fine, it won't though if you use Internet Explorer. View with Firefox, Opera or another non-microsoft browser. ;) -[[User:Nidonocu|Nidonocu]] - [[User talk:Nidonocu|talk]] [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 00:20, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
Doh! Should have known that. Thanks... -[[User:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]<br />
<br />
== Voting ==<br />
<br />
If you have a favourite logo, vote for it here!<br />
<br />
=== MelSkunk ===<br />
*I love this picture! --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] 17:40, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
*I think MelSkunk's logo is very, very nice and colorful too! --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:40, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<!-- === . . . === --></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:Te%27TargaUser:Te'Targa2005-08-27T23:54:42Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div>A Swedish fur, Wicca and an artist to boot...<br />
<br />
[[Image:te_newest.jpg]]</div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:Te%27TargaUser:Te'Targa2005-08-27T23:50:22Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div>A Swedish fur, Wicca and an artist to boot...<br />
<br />
[[Image:te_newest.jpg]]<br />
[[Category:Artists]]</div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:Logo_ideasWikiFur:Logo ideas2005-08-27T23:47:26Z<p>Te'Targa: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>''As there have been no submissions for a few days, I'm adding MelSkunk's for now. '''The logo competition is still open''', and you may both submit and vote on logos below.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 02:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
''I've also added Seth's, since we needed a search logo.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 19:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[WikiFur]] needs a '''logo'''. It should be 135x155 pixels (or potentially a little shorter), and it should try to communicate both "wiki" and "furry" in some way, potentially including part or all of the name "WikiFur".<br />
<br />
Have a look at some of the [[Wikicities:Image:Logocollection.png|existing logos]] for some good (and bad) examples. As you can see, simpler is potentially better - any text should at least be discernable at 1/3 size.<br />
<br />
To submit an image, you need to [[Special:Userlogin|login]], then [[Special:Upload|upload your image]] and add your submissions here by editing the page to add <nowiki>[[Image:YourImageName.png]]</nowiki>. 24-bit PNG is the preferred format - if it needs to be smaller, it can be reduced later.<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
<br />
''Don't be shy, add something!''<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
* '''[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]''': [[Image:Wikifurmel-s-1.png]]<br />
:''Just because this is being used as a placeholder, doesn't mean you shouldn't enter. '''Be bold!''' I'd be happy to see more!'' - [[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]<br />
* '''[[User:Sethtriggs|Seth C Triggs]]''': [[Image:wikifurlogoseth.png]]<br />
: I like the existing logo very much. But this is just a narrow format one. - --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
* '''[[User:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]''': [[Image:te_wl1.png]]<br />
: Just thought I'd take a stab at it... -[[user:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]] Aka J.E.D.. (( What happened?? The transparancy disapeared.. ))<br />
<br />
== Voting ==<br />
<br />
If you have a favourite logo, vote for it here!<br />
<br />
=== MelSkunk ===<br />
*I love this picture! --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] 17:40, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
*I think MelSkunk's logo is very, very nice and colorful too! --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:40, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<!-- === . . . === --></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:Logo_ideasWikiFur:Logo ideas2005-08-27T23:47:03Z<p>Te'Targa: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>''As there have been no submissions for a few days, I'm adding MelSkunk's for now. '''The logo competition is still open''', and you may both submit and vote on logos below.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 02:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
''I've also added Seth's, since we needed a search logo.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 19:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[WikiFur]] needs a '''logo'''. It should be 135x155 pixels (or potentially a little shorter), and it should try to communicate both "wiki" and "furry" in some way, potentially including part or all of the name "WikiFur".<br />
<br />
Have a look at some of the [[Wikicities:Image:Logocollection.png|existing logos]] for some good (and bad) examples. As you can see, simpler is potentially better - any text should at least be discernable at 1/3 size.<br />
<br />
To submit an image, you need to [[Special:Userlogin|login]], then [[Special:Upload|upload your image]] and add your submissions here by editing the page to add <nowiki>[[Image:YourImageName.png]]</nowiki>. 24-bit PNG is the preferred format - if it needs to be smaller, it can be reduced later.<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
<br />
''Don't be shy, add something!''<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
* '''[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]''': [[Image:Wikifurmel-s-1.png]]<br />
:''Just because this is being used as a placeholder, doesn't mean you shouldn't enter. '''Be bold!''' I'd be happy to see more!'' - [[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]<br />
* '''[[User:Sethtriggs|Seth C Triggs]]''': [[Image:wikifurlogoseth.png]]<br />
: I like the existing logo very much. But this is just a narrow format one. - --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
* '''[[User:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]''': [[Image:te_wl1.png]]<br />
: Just thought I'd take a stab at it... -[[user:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]] Aka J.E.D.. (( What happened?? The transperancy disapeared.. ))<br />
<br />
== Voting ==<br />
<br />
If you have a favourite logo, vote for it here!<br />
<br />
=== MelSkunk ===<br />
*I love this picture! --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] 17:40, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
*I think MelSkunk's logo is very, very nice and colorful too! --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:40, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<!-- === . . . === --></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:Te%27TargaUser:Te'Targa2005-08-27T05:29:00Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div>A Swedish fur, Wicca and an artist to boot...<br />
<br />
[[Image:te_newest.jpg]]</div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/User:Te%27TargaUser:Te'Targa2005-08-27T05:00:40Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div>A Swedish fur and an artist to boot...</div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur:Logo_ideasWikiFur:Logo ideas2005-08-27T04:40:08Z<p>Te'Targa: /* Submissions */</p>
<hr />
<div>''As there have been no submissions for a few days, I'm adding MelSkunk's for now. '''The logo competition is still open''', and you may both submit and vote on logos below.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 02:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<br />
''I've also added Seth's, since we needed a search logo.'' --{{UT|GreenReaper}} 19:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
[[WikiFur]] needs a '''logo'''. It should be 135x155 pixels (or potentially a little shorter), and it should try to communicate both "wiki" and "furry" in some way, potentially including part or all of the name "WikiFur".<br />
<br />
Have a look at some of the [[Wikicities:Image:Logocollection.png|existing logos]] for some good (and bad) examples. As you can see, simpler is potentially better - any text should at least be discernable at 1/3 size.<br />
<br />
To submit an image, you need to [[Special:Userlogin|login]], then [[Special:Upload|upload your image]] and add your submissions here by editing the page to add <nowiki>[[Image:YourImageName.png]]</nowiki>. 24-bit PNG is the preferred format - if it needs to be smaller, it can be reduced later.<br />
<br />
== Submissions ==<br />
<br />
''Don't be shy, add something!''<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
* '''[[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]''': [[Image:Wikifurmel-s-1.png]]<br />
:''Just because this is being used as a placeholder, doesn't mean you shouldn't enter. '''Be bold!''' I'd be happy to see more!'' - [[User:MelSkunk|MelSkunk]]<br />
* '''[[User:Sethtriggs|Seth C Triggs]]''': [[Image:wikifurlogoseth.png]]<br />
: I like the existing logo very much. But this is just a narrow format one. - --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:39, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
* '''[[User:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]]''': [[Image:te_wl1.png]]<br />
: Just thought I'd take a stab at it... -[[user:Te'Targa|Te'Targa]] Aka J.E.D..<br />
<br />
== Voting ==<br />
<br />
If you have a favourite logo, vote for it here!<br />
<br />
=== MelSkunk ===<br />
*I love this picture! --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] 17:40, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
*I think MelSkunk's logo is very, very nice and colorful too! --[[User:Sethtriggs|Sethtriggs]] 03:40, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)<br />
<!-- === . . . === --></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/File:Te_wl1.pngFile:Te wl1.png2005-08-27T04:30:45Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Te'Targa//en.wikifur.com/wiki/Category:PeopleCategory:People2005-08-27T03:32:14Z<p>Te'Targa: </p>
<hr />
<div>This category contains articles and sub-categories about '''People''' connected to the [[Furry Fandom]].<br />
__NOEDITSECTION__ __NOTOC__<br />
==About this Category==<br />
Know about someone? Write a page and add it to this category! In general, it is best to use the name by which people go in the community - either a nickname or their real name. Be as specific as possible, to avoid nickname collisions.<br />
<br />
If both nickname and real name are publicly used, write the nickname and use a redirect (<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[NickName]]</nowiki> on its own) to point the real name to it. It's probably not a good idea to link a real name to a person that only goes by their nickname, even if you know it. Some people prefer to be anonymous - please respect that! :-)<br />
<br />
If you are listed here but do not wish to be, please [[WikiFur:Policy/Exclusion|read this]].<br />
<br />
If people fit in a subcategory like [[:Category:Artists|Artists]], please put them in the People category ''and'' the subcategory, so we can have a complete list of people. This probably shouldn't apply to lower-down layers, so if someone is well known as a [[:Category:Comic artists|comic artist]], don't put them in Artists as well.<br />
<br />
== People to add ==<br />
<br />
If you can think of someone that deserves writing about, add them in here, and maybe someone will. Don't let that stop '''you''' writing about someone, including yourself!<br />
<br />
'''Please note''': Make sure that people have <nowiki>[[Category:People]]</nowiki> somewhere, and characters have <nowiki>[[Category:Characters]]</nowiki>, so they'll show up in those respective categories. Adding/categorising characters/people won't remove them from this list, so please remember to do so yourself.<br />
<br />
{| width="100%"<br />
|- valign="top"<br />
||<br />
===# & A-E===<br />
* [[ANTIcarrot]]<br />
* [[Assinio]] / [[Kevin Duane]]<br />
* [[Astoreth]] / [[William Hass]]<br />
* [[AtamaKatJazz]]<br />
* [[Atara]]<br />
* [[Big Blue Fox]]<br />
* [[Black Paw]]<br />
* [[Captain Packrat]]<br />
* [[Catswhisker]] / [[Tawana Gilroy]]<br />
* [[Chris Dunn]]<br />
* [[Chris Foxx]]<br />
* [[Chuck Melville]]<br />
* [[Claire Benedikt]]<br />
* [[Concolor]] / [[Clint McInnes]]<br />
* [[Custer Winston]]<br />
* [[Daria McGrain]]<br />
* [[Deal Whitley]]<br />
* [[Diogu]]<br />
* [[Drew Maxwell]]<br />
* [[Drybone]]<br />
* [[Ed Zolna]]<br />
* [[Edd Vick]]<br />
* [[ElectroPaw]]<br />
* [[Elf Sternberg]]<br />
* [[Evil T. Rex]]<br />
||<br />
===F-L===<br />
* [[Faora Meridian]]<br />
* [[Firefoxbc]]<br />
* [[Fjordwolf]]<br />
* [[Flinthoof]] / [[Dan Canaan]]<br />
* [[Fred Patten]]<br />
* [[Furplay]] / [[Mike Hirtes]]<br />
* [[furrykef]]<br />
* [[Gary Akins, Jr.]]<br />
* [[Gene Catlow]] / [[Albert Temple]]<br />
* [[Genom]] / [[Studded-Muzzle]]<br />
* [[Graytail]]<br />
* [[Green Monkey]]<br />
* [[Gre7g Luterman]]<br />
* [[Grizz593]]<br />
* [[Haystack]]<br />
* [[Hikaru Katayamma]]<br />
* [[Ian R Soulfox]]<br />
* [[Inuki]]<br />
* [[Jacent]]<br />
* [[James Donaldson]]<br />
* [[Jeff Ferris]]<br />
* [[JJCoolJ]]<br />
* [[K'has]] / [[Mel White]]<br />
* [[Kamida]]<br />
* [[Kayngi]]<br />
* [[Ken Fletcher]]<br />
* [[Kimberly Keister]]<br />
* [[Kimya]]<br />
* [[Kratsminsch]]<br />
||<br />
===M-R===<br />
* [[Martin Dudman]]<br />
* [[Mauser]] / [[Rich Chandler]]<br />
* [[Michel Mephit]]<br />
* [[Mike 'yote]]<br />
* [[Miu]]<br />
* [[MooglePower]] / [[Ian "The Fox" Martyn]]<br />
* [[Nduli]]<br />
* [[Noogy]] / [[Dean Dodrill]]<br />
* [[Paul Blair]]<br />
* [[Perro]]<br />
* [[PeterCat]]<br />
* [[Posicat]]<br />
* [[Potoroo]]<br />
* [[puma]]<br />
* [[Quasi Skunk]]<br />
* [[Rajan]]<br />
* [[Random]] / [[Mark Loggins]]<br />
* [[Runtt]]<br />
||<br />
===S-Z===<br />
* [[Sayh]]<br />
* [[Scrapegoat]]<br />
* [[Sean Rabbitt]]<br />
* [[Sebastian]]<br />
* [[Shane Nelson]]<br />
* [[Shortwave da Husky]]<br />
* [[Shy Matsi Lupine]]<br />
* [[Silverblue]]<br />
* [[Skippyfox]]<br />
* [[Snap E. Tiger]]<br />
* [[Spiked Punch]]<br />
* [[Steven Stadnicki]]<br />
* [[Stickdevil]]<br />
* [[Stukafox]] / [[Mike Bebee]]<br />
* [[Tambako]]<br />
* [[Te'Targa]]<br />
* [[Tiado]]<br />
* [[Tofur]] / [[Rod O'Riley]] / [[Rod Stansfield]]<br />
* [[Tokala Husky]]<br />
* [[TVDave]]<br />
* [[Vawlkee]] / [[Robert Bear]] / [[Robert (Bob) Hill]]<br />
* [[Vitae]]<br />
* [[Walksfar]] / [[Gary Bell]]<br />
* [[Wendell Washer]]<br />
* [[William Blackfox]] / [[Mark Wallace]]<br />
* [[Wookiee]]<br />
* [[Yakeo]]<br />
* [[Yami_Griffin]]<br />
* [[Ysengrin Blackpaw]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Community]]<br />
For more pages in this category, click here:</div>Te'Targa