Talk:Sema JayHawk

The edit I am making to Sema's article is becasue rotterdamtechno.com is not Sema and Taren's site, it is Taren's site with only one or two examples of things that were made by the two of them. If you go to Rotterdam Techno it will say nothing about Sema on the main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.186.187 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed edits back again, there are far more than "one or two" examples of my work on that website. Mind telling me who you are? You seem to have only edited my wiki thus far. - Sema JayHawk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.73.87.197 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is that as you can see, it's not me. -Ken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.99.250.45 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for restricted editing

The subject of this article has requested it be restricted from editing by people other than themselves. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for asking for the lock was because of one of the sites administrators, Ken Redtail. Though I've known this for awhile, he has recently been exposed here and here that he is nothing but a sexual predator. As long as this user is allowed to be an admin on this website - I ask that my article be locked for my own protection.--Sema JayHawk 21:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm against privately-editable articles in general. I see no reason not to grant full exclusion if that is requested. --Rat 21:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would still like my article to remain on wikifur as it is. I do not want him editing it because of his history. If my article is locked - he will not be able to do it. I am not opposed to having my article on wikifur as I am somewhat well known and my name is featured in several other articles on this site. I am sure you can all understand why I do not want a sexual predator editing my page.--Sema JayHawk 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is true (well, not technically true, since he's an admin...), but nor will anyone else, which is rather unfortunate. Would you be satisfied with an agreement that neither you nor he edit the articles about each other, or recruit others to edit the articles about each other, on penalty of temporary suspension of editing privileges for the person concerned? I think other members of the community might be satisfied with this, as it is fair to both sides. This would not cover edits to the attached discussion pages, as it is unreasonable to prevent either of you from suggesting information you think should be taken into consideration. --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Flaw in your proposal. How do you know if someone has been recruited by the other? Why don't you just lock both articles and be done with it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.217.127.58 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I know you know how sneaky Ken is... he has been known to use alternative user names (such as Aesop_Wildcat and computers to aid in his evil deeds. I've tried coming to similar amends with him, but he never follows through on his end. Ultima can attest to that. He tried getting Ken to stop writing about me in his LJ, and that included taking a certain post out of his journal. We both "agreed" that if neither of us would talk about each other anymore - but if one person went back on the deal - all bets were all. Turns out he never deleted that post, but put it under a friends lock that Arazia and others were still able to see, but not me nor Ultima. So all bets were off.--Sema JayHawk 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone new shows up to edit either article we can insist they identify themselves and explain their motivations. Also, since Ken is an admin and can edit locked articles, locking both would not be an equitable solution. --Rat 22:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I want this sexual predator's adminship taken away. --Sema JayHawk 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)