Talk:Ozzy Furocity

Bias Edits

These bias edits are why Wikipedia doesn't allow people to edit articles about themselves like Leon does here. Furocity was not a part of TFP because it didn't exist when Leon was at TFP. When leon left TFP no one followed him besides his admins. A general poll of the Austrialian community within tfp returned "leon is kind of a jerk" to but it in nice words. Please stop editing it to look like TFP is some monster that everyone had to run away from.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.91.39.224 (talk • contribs) .

Bias edits? To be honest the article is quite generous and mostly on topic and whilst you accuse me of writing an article about Ozzy Furocity as if I'm doing something wrong yourself and Sekh are doing the same thing with the TFP article, WikiFur is not Wikipedia and therefor has different rules and customs, if you think that it is the same on any level you must be new here so I'll excuse you.

OzFur was at one point, a chunk of TFP that broke away, that is a fact, the original admins and a large chunk players playing whilst it was TFP AU (of which I'm sure I can get many to comment here) broke away from TFP, some players followed and some did not but it does not change the fact that myself, the mods and regulars who did break away were once a part of TFP and they didn't do it for no reason. Furthermore the servers being used to host OzFur are the exact same as when they were being used for TFP, just because the name changed doesn’t mean people stopped coming.

Regarding your quasi poll, making an unverified assertion that I am a jerk amounts to a personal attack, which is against WikiFur policy, further attacks of these sort will be reported to site administrators. I assert that if people felt as strongly as you suggest, odds are Ozzy Furocity wouldn't be 2x the size of TFP as it is now which casts even further doubt on your accusations. I am not portraying TFP being some monster, I am outlining clear cut facts and when TFP Administration persist in tampering with Ozzy Furocity operations like some jealous brat such as but not limited to emailing a bogus complaint to our upstream server host (which is company I work for so it went nowhere) because we "spend all out time attacking other steam groups" (Which is patent bullshit), editing our article with a clear COI, making personal attacks against myself in the public domain etc you have to understand that this is the way people will perceive you.

So when you are done attacking myself and my community, I invite you to waltz back over to your article and continue to copy paste the Ozzy Furocity content, filling in the blanks as you go. Leon Hunter 04:31, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

PS: Atheistic is a word, Austin. It's in several dictionaries and Google returns over 4.3 million results for the word. [1][2][3] If you would like further lessons in the English language I would be more than happy to give them to you. Leon Hunter 04:37, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

Referencing

Seeing as Spirou has concerns over the referencing of the article, I am starting this section so that he might explain which assertions lack direct references and or reliable. Leon Hunter (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

They were listed with and tags, the same ones you just pasted a general ref link on top. Is this explanation clear enough which statements need to be referenced more directly?. - Spirou (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

No. There's an automated assumption on your part that the reference supplied in those cases does not substantiate the statement, which is patently fallacious. So. I challenge you to give a specific statement in the article along with a ref that does not substantiate the statement. Leon Hunter (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

For instance, "Prior to founding Ozzy Furocity, Leon Hunter operated several Australian Team Fortress 2 servers for The Furry Pound." was unreferenced. I included a reference to the TFP newsletter that included a large section dedicated to announcing the addition of the Australian servers and who was running them. The date of the article makes clear that it was prior to the community being founded. And yet Spirou decides for reasons unclear to remove perfectly good citations for an otherwise uncited assertion, then has the audacity to slap an {{unref}} template on the article. Well yes, if we have an individual running around removing references than of course we might have a referencing problem with the article - the the issue does not lie with the article but rather the individual who can't be bothered reading references prior to removing them. Leon Hunter (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

"There's an automated assumption on your part that the reference supplied in those cases does not substantiate the statement, which is patently fallacious". Wrong. By the book then:

• (A) The However, the relationship began to sour a little over a month later due irreconcilable differences at an administrative level reference url did not address anything about the prior mentioned paragraph, just that because of some problems on an administrative level we will be removing TFP10 and TFP11 from our server list. and tags have been added back.
• (B) It is the official gaming community for the International Yiff Center. The reference url does not indicate anything as such. Their post on IYC Steam page has the paragraph Our friends at Ozzy Furocity which does not indicate officiality. Connectivity/friendship/association, yes, but not what the article paragraph implies.
• (C ) About being more precise on choosing the proper reference url: The search url posted does not redirect to any data that substantiates the claim of In August 2011, Ozzy Furocity became the largest furry community on Steam. According to the reference url, it would give the reader the notion that the FurAffinity Gamers - Public group (13,469 members in this group) is actually the largest furry community on Steam. The link was fixed to cover the initial assertion.
• (D) ...you forgot to ref the Vs Saxton Hale Remake, which it still had a not covered external link and a tag. No problems. I bothered to cover both points. Your welcome. Hope these explanations help. - Spirou (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

• (A) It doesn’t require an astounding level of deductive capability to tell that if the Australian servers were removed (Those being TFP10 and TFP 11) due to issues at an administrative level, then the relationship has soured at some point between those servers being added and the point at which that journal was made – to the point where things could not be resolved. However, as this is deduction is beyond the capability of yourself and others, I will source or create an alternative avenue of citation.

• (B) I will source or create an alternative avenue of citation.

• (C) I will source or create an alternative avenue of citation.

• (D) I would have thought the existence of a Wiki, hosted by Ozzy Furocity, dedicated to the subject matter, which included a description of the Vs Saxton Hale Remake – That being: “A closed-source Team Fortress 2 modification created and maintained by Ozzy Furocity.” Would have been more than sufficient to substantiate this point. Hence why I included that citation for the entire statement of “Ozzy Furocity created the Vs Saxton Hale Remake, a closed-source modification for Team Fortress 2.”- You might notice that the citation applies to the whole sentence, not just “Ozzy Furocity created the Vs Saxton Hale Remake”- Though upon review I can see that you already conceded the validity of the citation by virtue of restoring it, albeit in a different place that doesn’t quite make sense to me. (That being, why you one throw in a citation midsentence as opposed to at the end of the sentence when the citation in question validates the entire sentence not just part of it)

In any case, it would appear that the four citation issues raised are now resolved by virtue of my recent edit(s). Hence I have removed the {{unref}} tag accordingly. Leon Hunter (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

"In any case, it would appear that the four citation issues raised are now resolved by virtue of my recent edit(s)". No, they don't. Creating an only one hour old, locked personal entry just repeating verbatim the non-referenced paragraphs in the article is not a reference link. (A) Reworded so it doesn't longer require a and/or tag. (B) No. Again, your own personal entry saying so a reference does not make. Reworded and referenced to remove need for tag. (C ) It had been referenced last night. Revert deletion, reinstate valid Steam reference URL. (D) Paragraph was not completely referenced or clear. Referenced and linked last night, no further action required on it. - Spirou (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

The information I have available to me suggests that an official page on the community's wiki, no matter how old, is an acceptable reference for whatever assertions are contained within it. However, seeing as the {{unref}} tag was not restored, I couldn't care less at this point. Leon Hunter (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Using an official page to quickly back your own unref assertions being disputed is not a valid source of references (non-partiality, NPOV), specially if it fails on the primary point of actually "referencing". Point is moot has the article has been reworded and referenced properly that the need of the {{unref}} template and {{citation}}/{{cn}} tags are no longer needed. - Spirou (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Three out of four of the originally "unreferenced" statements could only have been referenced as a result of a written account originating directly or indirectly from an involved party anyway. For instance, my running of servers for The Furry Pound could only be verified with any shred of integrity by either The Furry Pound and/or myself - no one else would have any authority to speak on that matter. Same goes for the way that it ended, any explanation of how things ended would ultimately find its source being a directly involved party. The same goes for the creation of the Vs Saxton Hale Remake, I doubt anyone else is in position to comment on who made it other than the creator hence, a first-hand written account (In the form of a documentation wiki on this occasion) is being used. Thus, your invoking of NPOV is looking extremely feckless on this occasion and I would suggest that the only person disputing the assertions was a person who had no evidence to be disputing those assertions in the first place - It's not like you had alternative references which shed doubt on the assertions in the article. So do not make it sound like there was a dispute because the disputing party was non-existent or otherwise possessed no credible knowledge of the subject matter. To use a metaphor, my cousin believes the sun is simply a torch in the sky and that all this talk of planets flying around is nonsense. Of course no one takes him seriously and nor should they, as for the assertions of a benighted individual are meaningless. Take that as you will. Leon Hunter (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Mod List

Including the list of Moderators is, in my view, superfluous to the benefit of the article for a number of reasons. The first and most obvious being that Ozzy Furocity add and remove Moderators on a regular basis and hence including such information will only serve to ensure that information contained in the article is constantly out of date. Furthermore, none of the Moderators have articles. The two that supposedly do are articles which are not actually about those individuals but rather are similarly named people. Lastly, I would note that the Fur Affinity article does not include moderation level in the Info Box. Hence I see little reason to do so here. Leon Hunter (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

• "The first and most obvious being that Ozzy Furocity add and remove Moderators on a regular basis and hence including such information will only serve to ensure that information contained in the article is constantly out of date." Welcome to a Wiki, a living document that allows collaborative modification, extension, or deletion of its content and structure in real time. Case in point, your edits on the Admin section. It changes, it gets edited; same applies to the Mod section.
• "Furthermore, none of the Moderators have articles. " Two, and if they are not the actual individuals, edit them to reflect,... and the rest are red linked for, possible, future articles.
• "Lastly, I would note that the Fur Affinity article does not include moderation level in the Info Box. Hence I see little reason to do so here." Correct, it's in the article itself in case of Fur Affinity. Some websites on Wikifur have their staff listed the infobox itself, some, as FA, on the main page. - Hope these explanations clarify the partial revert - Spirou (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2015 (EDT)

The two articles are about individuals - Just not the individuals who happen to be Ozzy Furocity moderators, hence you've got a nice disambiguation problem there. But tell you what, your services might be put to better use on The Furry Pound article. Quite alot of and statements there for you to deal with. With that being said I look forward to seeing you being the first volunteer to keep our moderator section up to date seeing as your continued insistence that it remain against the very article subject's wishes. Leon Hunter (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

First, Leon, lose the attitude tout suite. I haven't acted like a j*rkwad towards you, you could have the modicum of basic social human interaction to do the same. "With that being said I look forward to seeing you being the first volunteer to keep our moderator section up to date seeing as your continued insistence that it remain against the very article subject's wishes." ...Hmm, no problem, if any mod listed wishes to have an article on Wikifur, the red link will provide them a way to do so, if not, they can be easily excluded to protect their privacy wishes. People can see who is working on this project, while exclusion can offer the mods anonymity. And two, Leon, please refrain on telling anybody what they should with anything, hmmkay?. Nite - Spirou (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

I've taken the liberty to remove the incorrect links, seeing as no one has done that. Also, perhaps a break from the article until the smoke clears? Crashdoom (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

External Links

Spirou has implied that there is some established order to the External Links section via his edit summary in revision 451756. Specifically, "Ext links (personal page->art archives->social media (I.e. Twitter)->misc->other non-furry (I.e. YouTube, Steam, Soundcloud)"

I was unable to find any established guidelines or policies which dictate such an order for the External Links section. In the absence of such guidelines I cannot help but feel that relevance to the topic matter should be the primary sort factor. In this case, the article is about a Steam Community; Steam obviously being one its primary mediums. Twitter, in this context, is a satellite medium outside of the primary scope of the community to which the article is about.

Whilst the order suggested by Spirou would work well for an individual or an artist, it is important to note that Ozzy Furocity is neither of these things. Instead, It is a games community and hence some extrapolation is needed to gain a common sense outcome. I would assert that if an artist's art gallery should be the 2nd order link (behind personal pages of course) in Spirou's system of external linking, than surely a gaming community's community page should be the 2nd link as it is tantamount to an art archive for an artist - It's what the subject of the article actually does. Leon Hunter (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

No action taken on change. Let it stand as it is not worth the edit warring/continuous explanation on "why". - Spirou (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2015 (EDT)