I waited a few days to do this incase anyone else wanted to get some replies in, and since there were none I decided it was safe to continue and archive a copy of the previous talk page, to remove the needless drama and fussing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banrai (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 April 2006.
Talk:Banrai/Archive1 -- Archive from Sep 2005 to Apr 2006.
I reverted Banrai's deletion of Mix's information because, well, there's a controversy section already and it occured, so it's factual, not vandalism. This isn't much different from the Kacey Miyagami issue, it seems. Spaz Kitty 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that Mix has stalked and harassed me for over a year now, as well as that he has flat out admitted that he is making these edits as a form of 'blackmail' against me, I think it therefor does constitute as vandalisim. Mix's pitiful jab at me is one sided, at best. --Banrai 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mix messaged me earlier this morning and basically confirmed this. All this information was added because Banrai wouldn't let him join one of her LJ comms. He told me that as long as she barred him entry, the information would stay there and when she allowed him entry, he'd retract the information. It's clear then that he's making "personal attacks". Being that some of this IS factual though, I believe the best course is to pare as much of this down to ACTUAL fact and throw the rest to the dogs.--Kendricks Redtail 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, if Banrai cannot prove that she drew several pictures of Mix, then why include that in the article? Why not just say "Banrai allegedly drew several drawings of Mix, while Mix currently claims that she only drew one"? Has anybody ever seen the pictures and verified that Mix received them? Not that I believe Mix's side of the story without any reservations, but Banrai has lied before just as Mix has lied before, so why either of them should be trustworthy enough to put their side of the story as if it were correct and not simply a side to the story baffles me.
There does also appear to be a drama Banrai created reguarding Ridayah. Ridayah is a genuinely kind soul and has been slandered and libeled by Banrai. She claims that he intended to 'texturbate' her but I know he had no intention of doing this. I know that for a fact. Could someone, preferably Ridayah himself, or one of his close friends, be allowed to add that to the Controversy section?
Thanks! - Starblade 23:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- As for Mix's 'side' of the story, if he feels it necessary he can add it to his own page, which diserves a controversy section ihmo.
- As for Ridayah, why would I want to write something about every bad commissioner I've had in my article? You seem to be a good friend of the aforementioned, so I'm sure you'll remember the journal entry he posted where he apoligized to me for all the promiscuous things he said to me, etc. How that is controversy, I do not know. Yes, I reported him to artists beware. And, if you'll also remember several people were glad because no artist deserves to be spoken to like that by a client. It remains one of the worst business transactions I have ever had, and I am glad I chose to refund his money and report the situation in the appropriate place. However, that place is not here. --Banrai | talk (06/06/07) 23.38 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary for everyone to air their grievances out in vivid detail. We are not Encylopedia Dramatica.--Kendricks Redtail 07:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is precicely why we write such dramas in NPOV, because we don't want drama. I have edited the section about Mix to reflect the fact that this drama is unresolved and there is no evidence to rule out either POV. Starblade 05:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not make personal attacks. This includes edit summaries. Thanks. --Douglas Muth 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- If this kind of behaviour persists from both sides, I will lock this article up nice and tight and NO ONE will be able to touch it. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. PERIOD. Not from Mix, not from Starblade, not from Banrai. Continue on the talk page and I may give each of you a time out to cool off. WikiFur is NOT a battleground for revenging perceived slights and wrongs. I don't believe either of you are the innocent victims here, but I believe less that the exaggerations here are necessarily true. Add references, add logs. End of story.--Kendricks Redtail 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- "I am glad I chose to refund his money and report the situation in the appropriate place" Oh, please. You never refunded any money because we never dealt with any money. When I asked for the shirt back, which is what I only bartered with, you told me your dog 'ripped it to shreds' then later state days later that you still had it intact. The only reporting you did was to file an idiotic DCMA against me on LJ for the use of my own custom logo, only to spite me. Everyone knows that I made that logo, even my enemies came to defend me on that. I dunno what makes anyone beleive that you actually drew 13 images for me yet you avidly avoid showing any proof that you did; especially when all that was requested in the trade was a 'character sheet', which after waiting an entire year and asking again, you then blow up at me and claim harrassment. You're just a thief. I have snapshot proof of articles you've written on LJ bashing me, where you've gone back and edited them to clearly only avoid contradiction of more current evidence, and only to save face. I've printed those out, stuck them in a folder, and labeled them 'The Banrai Files'. I don't mind opening that up and scanning them through once more. Dude... seriously... just apologize. Also, refund me for the shirt. $20. I'm sure you can find my paypal some where.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mix (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2012.
Is there any point to the slandering of junkupshowup or is it just to fill up space with drama? It seems like the drama about Banrai's identity theft past is extremely down played where the supposed drama about junkupshowup is very one-sided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 June 2007
- I agree, if you're going to include drama including banrai, include it all equally. Don't try to make her look like an innocent victim. This is what happens when people are the main editor of their own pages, you get biased pages.-- 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- (Edited out my post. I made a mistake; sorry my brain had too much data to take in and I thought you were referring to someone else.) Starblade 05:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- except for the part where both junkupshowup and atamakatjazz (who it was said the sketchbook belonged to) have confirmed that the sketchbook junkupshowup had on the cruise was a shared sketchbook between them since they were dating and living together at the time. Please show proof of the confirmations of junkupshowup's actions. Because Zotcoon and Tigrekat have confirmed actions to the contrary, saying you physically attacked junkupshowup in her hotel room when she had paid for your entire trip leaving junkupshowup to sleep on their floor the last night because you caused such a drama stir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 July 2007
- Lol, what? Sorry, but if things happened that way then why, exactly, did I have to call room security to get her out of the room? Why did her mother come and take all of her things and profusely apologize for her daughter's behavior and argumentativeness? Awfully fishy that she didn't go to her mom's room, as well. --Banrai | talk
Request for exclusion of personal information
Banrai has requested personal exclusion via IRC, as she is attempting to withdraw from the fandom. --GreenReaper(talk) 03:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am against exclusion of this article, all the more so as the subject has been a significant contributor here on WikiFur. -- Sine 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- While I am always in support of her and who she is, because she's one of my best pals, and we should give her her privacy, I don't think it's a good idea to exclude a former featured article (This is prolly a reason why we should less and less do people as featured articles). Let me sit down and have a talk with her and maybe we can come to a solution.--Kendricks Redtail 06:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- As the article currently stands, I am alright with it remaining. I just no longer want any information about me as a person publicly available. Since Banrai is also the name of the character, I am fine letting the page stand to be just about her, the character. Banrai 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't this the same Banrai that has that sick obsession for “Kimberleigh Ann Keister”? The way Banrai obsesses with “Kimberleigh Ann Keister” it’s like she wants a lesbian relationship with her. —The preceding semi-unsigned(*) comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 September 2013 (* = forged signature pretending to be a User)
- Hi there, random anon person. I'm Banrai, aka Andrea. I see that you posted this some time ago, but I'd like to address this personally and dispel this... whatever it is. Mrs. Keister currently has a restraining order issued and is not supposed to be in any contact with me, with instructions included on order of the State of North Carolina to have no contact via the internet, websites, email, IM, or other electronic communication or otherwise. This was issued on March 17, 2014 and is file/reference number is #14 CVD 76 at the McDowell County, NC courthouse. As indicated on the form, Mrs Keister has been found to have been sending threatening emails, creating websites posting personal information including address, photos of home, etc, and has also sent harassing emails to place of work. There are also multiple police reports on file and the McDowell County NC Sheriffs office have printed and digital copies of all prior communication, websites, etc that Mrs. Keister has produced, including her IP addresses. Hopefully that clears some stuff up for you. =) Banrai 19:18, 26 May 2014 (EDT)
The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:04, 1 July 2015 (EDT)