Talk:Pokémon World MUCK

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Pokémon World MUCK is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the WikiFur community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

About recent edits[edit]

An anonymous IP addy, whom I assume to be Shalla, has been editing the article to reinstate the advertisement-reading descriptions of the wizards as well as the following: "Shalla - Co-Assistant headwiz/Person who does not like braindead halfwits deleting her writing. Go sit on broken glass whomever decided to delete this section, I don't give half a shit if you think it 'Sounded like an Ad' To reiterate, Go fuck yourself." Spaz Kitty 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To whomever keeps removing the little wizard blurbs for "reading like an advertisement":

Of course it reads like an advertisement, you jackass. This is a community website. The idea of Wikifur trying to aspire to the same standards as a legitimate reference body is hilarious. Go outside and get a girlfriend, you self-important retard. -- Not Shalla

I'm not male, and I have a boyfriend, thanks. ;) However, the advertisement template has been removed, after the article was edited to a neutral point of view. If you have further issues with this article, address it with an administrator.
To the admins; a new edit: "Whomever keeps deleting the updates needs to knock it off. It's not funny. You may think you're SO cute, but it's juvanile, and uncalled for."
To the editor: I'd say adding such edits is more juvenile than reverting them - but hey, that's just my opinion. ;)
Spaz Kitty 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Get a life. I hope your parents die. Oh and guess what, you're not an administrator, you choad-sucking little toadie. So how about you mind your own stupid business. Why don't you peel your pasty ass off the screen for a minute and go outside for a walk, if you can stop shoveling food into your mouth long enough, you ham beast. Get cancer.
-- Not Shalla again
SpazKitty may not be an admin, but I am. And you are out of line. I think it's time you took a "time out" from this Wiki. --Douglas Muth 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just doing a public service. I think Spaz is entitled to know what a turbo-felching little nut hanger she is. It sure didn't take her long to go tongue-shoveling the grit out of your asshole when she couldn't take the heat anymore, did it. P.S. keep banning me, it gets me off.

This is Shalla. You're damned right it's me. The page, as it was, won best featured article a feww months back. It isn't an ad, it's a descriptoion of the staff duties, and a little about each. And, I don't intend to stop. I don't consider myself a troublemaker, I consider your rulings to be unjustified.

I didn't add the advertisement template. An administrator did. Spaz Kitty 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
*Shalla* Well, I'm not happy with it, but, I guess I understand. You'll get no more hostility on this subject from me.

This is Shalla again. I don't want to get into an argument or flamewar, or anything like that. I'm just a little defensive when that stuff I wrote got deleted. Who wouldn't? If this keeps up the way it's going, someone's going to eventually use the terms 'Nazi', 'Thought police', or something like that. All I'm saying is, we WON featured article the way I had it, I think, and Now, I'm told it's not good? I'm getting mixed messages. BUT, I'm not going to force the point. Maybe, if we want to actually say what we want to say about our site, we should just get a regular webpage, or something, and not depend on a place where the rules inspire such inflammatory nonesne. To all the people defending me, Thanks, but I think it's just making it worse. To the admin and staff of Wikifur: This is your site. If you decide something, there's no way for me to get around it. More power to you, and I wish you luck. Just don't count on retaining any actually creative people in writing these boards, as we tend to get a bit protective of our works. --

Look this is kinda silly, the wiz descriptions were put in by a head who was proud of her team, thought they did a good job. What would have been nice is a blurb about what you found to be an advertisement or what sources were supposed to be referenced (re: 05:16, 27 February 2006 Sine (?Staff - Advert template. I'd say stick a source on or prune.) ) and then suggestions on correcting it. There's been a lot of unneeded flaming and trolling on this page and it's not doing the conversation any good. So, can we hear some suggestions on ways to preserve the descriptions of the staff yet keep it from being considered an advertisement? --Phoex
Hi there, Shalla - GreenReaper here. I tend to be the one who chooses the featured articles, usually based on quality of writing and layout, appropriate artwork (ascii art in this case), etc. I felt this was an excellent short article. However, someone else also felt that the section about the staff sounded too much like an advertisement - or, perhaps more accurately, that it was an example of puff phrases, which are not particularly encyclopedic, and which tend to be removed from the separate WikiFur articles about people as well.
These are both valid viewpoints, and just because an article is featured does not mean that it is perfect, certainly not in the eyes of all of our contributors. "Too much like an advert" is not "no good" - it just means someone thinks it could be better in that respect. The challenge of writing a really good article is in making something that and which satisfies all or most of the people editing the article while remaining interesting to read. I know this is hard if it's your writing that people are criticizing, but please try not to take it personally. :-)
You are indeed correct that if you want to say exactly what you want to say about your site and your users, no more and no less, then you should get a web page and do that. We welcome your contributions here as well, but understand that this is a community effort, and that sometimes people will have differing opinions about how an article should sound. I would say that most regular contributors think articles should not particularly praise one person or another, as that is expressing an opinion, which is not something that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to give.
If anything, we should merely talk about other people's opinions of the staff, attributing such opinions to them so that it is clear that we are not saying it. Better yet, we could talk about the staff's actual achievements! Actions speak louder than words, after all, and are generally more objective - you can think that Uncle Kage is great, or that he is overrated, but it is hard to deny that he has been a driving force behind Anthrocon's success due to his documented presence as chairman of the convention. "Person X manages A and B and helps Y with C" may not sound quite as lively as "Thank X. A lot. And when you're done, thank him again," but it is far more concise and informative, as well as being something everyone can agree with. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you wanted examples, I've had a stab at it. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalla Again. Sounds good to me. I'll start fresh in the morning, and try to make it fun to read, but not all.... ummmm is there a word for it? Too... glittery?

If you can add to what's there now, that'd be great. To be honest, if you really want to improve the article, I'd suggest adding something about the history of the MUCK as well. Right now, we know what it is, but it's been running for two years - surely there are some interesting stories behind that? Or maybe you can think of something else, like the major areas or social groups of the MUCK? --GreenReaper(talk) 08:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

((Shalla)) How do I do the name/Timestamp, please? Anyway, it's a lot harder to make it fun to read without my usual writing style, but, it's doable. Here's hoping the final project is both ascceptable, and still not a dry read.

You can perform the date/time stamp short cut by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your post. -- DeVandalizer 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Addresses:
  • Founder:
  • Ran from/to:

Regarding this template, more specifically the second line, is it "Founder(s,)" "Creator(s,)" "Admin(s,)" or "Administrator(s)"? Spirou 08:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add that this is regarding all entries using this template, not just this article. there are so many variations now, I just want to be clear which one to use Spirou 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would guess that the best thing to use is whatever the site has. WikiFur has a founder and several other administrators. Others might only have Administrators, or they might be called something else on the site. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)