::Thankyou for your clarifications. Can you distil this down and add it to the relevant talk page so other editors have the benefit of knowing what needs to be properly sourced? [[User:Wayne Hardman|Wayne Hardman]] ([[User talk:Wayne Hardman|talk]]) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
::Thankyou for your clarifications. Can you distil this down and add it to the relevant talk page so other editors have the benefit of knowing what needs to be properly sourced? [[User:Wayne Hardman|Wayne Hardman]] ([[User talk:Wayne Hardman|talk]]) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I've made a post on the talk page. The process of checking is fairly simple - go through line by line and look for assertions. If the assertion is supported by an existing source, cite it. If not, find a source or modify or remove it. [[Samuel Conway]] and [[furry convention]] are examples I consider to be well-cited. The lede does not need to be fully cited, as it's meant to be a summary; however, the facts within it must be cited somewhere within the article. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] ([[User talk:GreenReaper#top|talk]]) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I've made a post on the talk page. The process of checking is fairly simple - go through line by line and look for assertions. If the assertion is supported by an existing source, cite it. If not, find a source or modify or remove it. [[Samuel Conway]] and [[furry convention]] are examples I consider to be well-cited. The lede does not need to be fully cited, as it's meant to be a summary; however, the facts within it must be cited somewhere within the article. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] ([[User talk:GreenReaper#top|talk]]) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
==Cat==
Your userpage was below the minimum cat quota. But don't worry - I've fixed it for you. [[User:Ceiling Cat|Ceiling Cat]] ([[User talk:Ceiling Cat|talk]]) 00:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: Please do not message or email me eliciting my support for an article unless it's in a topic area I'm already involved in. Thanks! :-) GreenReaper
For your impressively swift and thorough merging and redirecting of smaller convention articles to furry convention, and for building a well-sourced and well-written article around them, I award you this barnstar. Well done. Shimeru08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an art site called Fur Affinity is currently up for deletion. My instinct is that it might be noteworthy, but I lack sufficient experience to say definitively. You seem to know a bit about the subculture, so I thought you might like to offer an opinion. Shimeru07:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for fixing. It's on the current queue and is currently in line for the pictured slot, being the most comprehensive text, as well as offering a pic. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I saw you were helping Argox with his Spanish translation of the article furry convention. While reading (and correcting) the translation, I came across an ambiguous phrase which could be translated to Spanish in two ways with different meanings:
(...) a Dealers Den where art and comic book distributors and other merchants can sell their wares for a fee
So, does it mean that the merchants have to pay a fee to be allowed to sell, or that (as is usually the case) it's the merchants who charge a fee to the buyers?
You have found a phrase that could be explained better in the article. In fact, both meanings are implied here. The Dealers Den is a place where dealers (either professional artists with lots of prints or framed works, or dealers of other people's art/comics/books/T-shirts/plush toys/fashion accessories) may rent a table from the convention, for a price - at Anthrocon, anywhere from $75 for half a table (3 foot by 3 foot) to $525 for a square island (10 foot by 10 foot) [1]. They may then sell to the people who attend the convention.
This contrasts with the Artists' Alley, which usually does not charge artists for space to sell - however, the space is much smaller (see the pictures in the article to compare), there is no guarantee that they will get it if there are too many people (some conventions are starting to sell small badges to get a good place for $10-$20), they must remain there most of the time to keep their place, and they must only sell their own work.
Well, since the second meaning is implied by default, I finally decided to translate only the first one to Spanish. Thank you for your help. --Fibonacci18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
Thank you for your concern. Honestly, I am not too bothered whether or not the template is kept. As noted by another contributor, there are currently no articles which make use of it. There appears to be some confusion about its intended use - the template is intended for the talk page, as an indicator of the original source in compliance with the GFDL. It is not intended to go on the article page as an "advert" like the sister projects templates. While this might actually be a good idea in a few restricted cases (there was a similar one on the furry fandom article in the past) that is not the purpose of this template.
This talk page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons.Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2
If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message.
Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient.
As for "our relationship" - WikiFur is a separate wiki hosted by Wikia. There is no official relationship, although many users contribute to both. I consider WikiFur and Wikipedia (and similarsites) as "friends" who can help one another out - WikiFur provides more detailed coverage of furry fandom topics that Wikipedia would like to avoid, while Wikipedia is great for us to link all those topics which are not relevant to the furry fandom. A good example of this on Wikipedia is furry convention, which directs users who are looking for more information which Wikipedia cannot provide (as it is non-verifiable) to the appropriate WikiFur articles. GreenReaper17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshots of Second Life cannot be released as GFDL or Creative Commons; the copyright belongs to the creators of Second Life. Ral315 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of interest?
GreenReaper, what's your position as an employee of Stardock? I'm concerned about a potential conflict of interest. I'm not very concerned, because a perusal of your talk page indicates you are making good contributions, but I'd still like some details. You can reply here.--KchaseT09:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a software developer involved in R&D for Stardock for one and a half years. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the Stardock newsgroups and IRC networks for around four and a half years, helping people with WindowBlinds and the like. Certainly, there is the potential for a conflict of interest, but hopefully my contributions show that I'm trying to do the same as everyone else here - write informative and interesting articles, rather than advertising or promotional material. That kind of stuff is better suited for Stardock's front page (and for our marketing staff).
Well, I happened upon your work after declining a spam tag at Multiplicity (software). My concern with that and, by extension, other articles is just that they are written NPOV and written on notable products. That wasn't as clear when I happened upon the Multiplicity article, but you just added sources that establish notability pretty strongly. The relevant guidelines here are WP:CORP's section on products and WP:SOFTWARE (only proposed, but still cited sometimes). In any case, your strong contributions make it pretty clear that this is a good place to make an exception to WP:COI (which discourages but doesn't prohibit what you're doing anyway). Thanks for your great contributions to this and other wikis. I hope you keep up the good work.--KchaseT05:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had a feeling it was about that, and decided to act to stem off any confusion about notability. Multiplicity is one of our key products - I don't develop it myself, but I've taken time off other work to help ensure that it works and debug problems (and I'm not normally paid to do quality assurance :-). GreenReaper05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Windows DreamScene, was selected for DYK!
The first and last seem to still be around. TC-128 may well not be - it appears to have been a magazine of some kind. Unfortunately few specific references were given in the interview (from which I am getting these), just the fact that the characters had appeared in or on those publications (for the Sun, in "opinion cartoons"). I have uploaded copies of the orange juice (Sun), carousel gag (Carousel) and (I think) the szechwan (Pern) images mentioned - the last two reflect the severe limitations of the medium at the time. He also mentions the numbering scheme, so it can be determined that the carousel gag was published in the fifth week (29th, 30th or 31st) of July 1988, while the szechwan pepper gag (which "appeared in a fan magazine dedicated to the Pern series") was on the forth week of April 1989, if I have the right strip. I have around 200 strips published in the period September 1987 - January 1990. Given the timing mentioned, I believe that to be about half the complete output, though it's possible I'm way out. GreenReaper09:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently on VfD. Since you had created most of the Stardock related texts your opinion would be useful to hear.
(IMHO all the articles (including Stardock) should be deleted as they are hard to impossible to maintain over long time, their notability is disputable and they form a precedent to include every software product here.) Pavel Vozenilek15:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I happen to believe that all software products should be included here, so I will have to disagree with you on that point. :-) Stardock itself is a leader in desktop customization, and an award-winning turn-based strategy game company, so I highly doubt that the article about it will be deleted. GreenReaper15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that your userpage and userpage talk in the Spanish Wikipedia are in English only. Since many of those editing the Spanish Wikipedia are likely to not understand English, I offer to translate them for you into Spanish also (bilingual). For example:
Hi there! You probably want to look at my English Wikipedia user page, or this one. :-)
¡Hola! Probablemente quiere ver mi página de usuario de Wikipedia en inglés, o este página. :-)
I am writing to inform editors who contributed to the Miss Martindale article that the article has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to weigh in on whether the article should be deleted, by voting here. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you! Joie de Vivre22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for uploading Image:GalacticCivilizationsIIMapViews.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot05:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article IconPackager, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TheRingess (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice photo, thanks for contributing it! It's nice to have a much more recent shot of Evanier, especially in light of his weight loss. — Alan De Smet | Talk02:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for uploading Image:GalacticCivilizationsIILogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot19:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your kind words. Consider it my penance for me moving the WikiProject from Furry to Anthropomorphism and causing all that trouble before. ISD16:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what they say - "There's no problems, only solutions." Figuring out how to get to the right place is just part of the wiki way. At least it showed people cared about the topic. :-) GreenReaper17:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it would be. At least in my understanding, "funny animal" is just a cartooning term - and mostly professional cartooning, at that (or at least people trying to be professional . . .). Furries do not tend to use the term, and many might not ever have heard it. Monkey might be thought of as a talking animal, in the "simulated human" as opposed to the "humanized animal" variety. He is a person who happens to non-human, but has many of the mental aspects of a human - an anthropomorphic character. GreenReaper00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's obvious in that Monkey is not a cartoon character, therefore not a funny animal, but I was just wanting to kind of break the ice for me to ask you, GreenReaper... what do you think of ED's criticism of the furry fandom, and its page on you (which I notice you've edited)?--h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ED doesn't criticize - it points and laughs. There's a difference. :-)
I think it's possible to overrate their influence. ED isn't really a body so much as the sum of the individuals contributing of it. Their actions towards the furry fandom in general have been the metaphorical equivalent of prodding a small animal with a sharp stick, videotaping the result, and publishing the parts that don't make them look bad as a documentary. This works, because a certain proportion of furry fans are pretty sensitive to prodding, but it has become "old meme" over the last few years.
The sad thing is that there's a lot of effort going towards something that's essentially making fun of people's actions. I don't think this is a positive achievement. The furry community actually had something similar called Yiffsnark (originally the VCL/Furry Horrors Wiki), dedicated to making fun of particular artists and their works, but it closed soon after it was founded. I think the owner quickly realized the only people who could be cruller towards furries than members of ED was other furries (some of whom fostered real grudges), and they didn't like the result of all that concentrated hate. Or perhaps their servers just died. Either way, they didn't get very far. The sort of people who build a good wiki will spend far more time writing about things that they love than things that they hate.
That is why ED works the way it does - because the people who write it love drama. But, in focusing on that, they magnify everything that is undesirable about parts of the furry fandom (and all the other groups they cover), as well as promoting stereotypes which they know not to be true. This happens on forums all the time, of course, but a wiki acts as an accretion platform for this stuff. Fortunately, few people take them seriously, but they can still damage the lives of individuals through malicious publication, and they don't really care as long as it's funny. That is hardly specific to furry fandom - we've just been a good target over the years.
ED's page on me is not a very good one. I don't really have much in the way of juicy drama for them to talk about (other than being a furry) so they have to make up stuff - and as drama is only really funny and believable if it's true, it falls a little flat. If I didn't lead WikiFur they wouldn't bother. GreenReaper05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I get the feeling you're looking for a way to introduce a sense of criticism that you felt was missing from the article. The thing is . . . furry fandom is, for most, a hobby. We don't kill puppies. We don't pollute the environment. We do raise quitelargeamounts of money for charity. About the worst thing you can really say about it is "these guys are wasting their time and money and deluding themselves living in a fantasy world" (possibly with ".., ha ha!" at the end). Oh, and apparently we have sex with one another (hey, at least we're getting some ;-) and keep baseball teams up at night. If you want an version of this kind of stuff from a "notable" individual, see WikiFur:Rush Limbaugh, but ultimately I don't think he's any better than ED. He just has a bigger audience. GreenReaper21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something for you
h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h has given you some cigarettes and beer! Cigarettes and beer promote WikiLove and hopefully these will make your day better and let you forget about how stressful editing Wikipedia can be and chill out for a while. Spread the WikiLove by giving cigarettes and beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Give cigarettes and beer to others by adding {{subst:Cigandbeer}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
If you think this "cigarettes and beer" template is a joke, it was created by me in a tongue-in-cheek manner; I'm just testing it to see if other people think it is ridiculous or if it's somewhat better than being awarded a smile, a chocolate bar, or a barnstar.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h12:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WikiLove - crazy as it sounds, I did specifically take that picture with the idea of putting it on Wikipedia. As for the choice of award: I don't think it's ridiculous, but personally dislike smoking and drinking (and don't do either), so it's probably not a good universal choice. Of course, some people dislike barnstars and (possibly) chocolate, too. GreenReaper18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a good universal choice - and I specifically put this on your talk page as I imagined you wouldn't partake in either, just to see what someone thought about it (you're the first person I've given it to who has responded). The reason I think it's kind of silly is because more likely than not, the Wikipedian you are awarding it to doesn't do both, and fairly likely does neither. Unfortunately, I do both.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h19:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as for taking pictures with the purpose of putting them on Wikipedia, I find that difficult to do because it seems that almost everything I can take a picture of has an adequate number of images in the article already. EvenVama Veche, and I took a lot of pictures there last month.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h19:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My intention is to nominate the category for rename or merger or deletion. Currently, my strongest preference would be to delete the category with no prejudice for recreation under a different name (essentially a rename, but without accidentally miscategorising members of the previous category).
Wikipedians by Website is up for deletion, so a rename based on the wikia wiki may not be a good idea, at least at the moment. If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to fold this into the WikiProject.
One: I was/am testing the categories. I needed them to stay like that until the server caught up with itself. WP:AGF, might have been suggestable, or at least you could have asked what I was doing, since (as you can see) I left you a message here, when I surely didn't have to.
I made those edits and I was typing this one up just afterwards, but I was called away to deal with something in WikiFur's IRC. You made your intention clear - you feel the category is inappropriate and you seek its deletion. Removing the category from the template has been a part of previous attempts to delete the category (not necessarily on your part, but in general). It is hard to see because few watch templates - I was, because of the last time people were messing with it - and while I appreciate you posted here, you did not mention that you were making those edits or why. If you had intended to test something, saying what you were testing would have been simple to do - and you still haven't done that. If you were intending to find out what users had separately included the category, there was no need to remove it - you could simply look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Furry Wikipedians and then compared that against Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User furry and Special:Whatlinkshere/User:RingtailedFox/Mobian. See below for additional reasoning for restoring it. Previously-typed text follows.
I thought about this for an hour or so. Ultimately, I disagree with the premise that social groupings with no clear link to collaborative effort is bad for Wikipedia. Quite aside from the fact that I personally used the category to find people for WP:FURRY, I think it is important that members of groups feel they are among friends here. I will explain this more fully on your proposal for Category:LGBT Wikipedians and you may wish to debate it there.
Also, I saw what you did there (and there). A more descriptive edit summary would have been appropriate. I have reverted these edits because the category specifically instructs users to add themselves to the category with the userbox; removing the category from the userbox effectively removes them from the category, which is inappropriate if the category is not yet to be deleted - and as you're well aware, previous attempts to do so have resulted in a keep.
On a personal note, I read this earlier: 'I always find it amazing when it's suggested that I'm a "deletionist"'. But why be surprised if people call you a deletionist if you are the one putting category after category up for deletion? It seems an accurate description. GreenReaper09:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A separate category for WP:FURRY editors might be appropriate except that it is redundant with the list on the WikiProject. If the list grows too large, perhaps a category would be a better method of organization. I would not seek a category for, say, WikiFur editors, as that would be very close to a subset of the same list. GreenReaper09:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you for your opinion, because I was looking for options beyond what I listed above. I remembered that you were involved in the last furry discussion, and thought that you would be someone who might be able to offer such insight.
And calling me a deletionist is like saying that someone who trims the bushes is anti-environment. Or better yet, why are we all called "editors"? Do you think that all anyone does is add text?
Anyway, you've given me some insight into the category's usage, so I do thank you for that. Hope you have a good day. - jc3721:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of the best edits involve adding text rather than deleting it. We are still far from the point where you can go to Wikipedia and expect it to answer all of your questions, and I would like to get there. Besides, these are not articles. I see no particular benefit in decreasing the number of categories of users, in the same way that I can see the benefit of trimming down a bloated article. It does not make Wikipedia significantly faster, it just wastes people's time arguing back and forth over it, and burns out contributors. GreenReaper22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(smile) If you consider this a waste of time, spend some time at WP:CFD : ) - And no, I don't consider it a waste of time, any more than do I consider Wikipedia a waste of time. Yes, "these are not articles", but they're also not userspace.
Also, I wanted to commend you on your comments at WP:UCFD. This may sound like a sideways compliment, but it's not intended that way. It seemed clear by reading your comments that you had read the nomination, and some of the others discussions on the page, before posting. That was appreciated.
I don't see why we can't have a userspace category namespace, if that's the main problem. Talk to the devs. Or maybe I should talk to Wikia devs and see if they can hack one into the codebase. ;-)
As for the compliment, thank you. I thought it worth trying to explain my point of view. I still hope to convince you that such categories are worthwhile (though as a realist I doubt that I will).
I have made a short comment there; much of what I felt has been said already. My view remains the same; they do no particular harm (most users are never likely to see them), and at least a small amount of good - perhaps unquantifiable, perhaps not - just like userboxes. If nothing else, they can make people happier, and that is not an insignificant benefit. That is why people are turning out to protest their removal. GreenReaper22:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! It might actually help that it's a new topic for you, you can look at it with a fresh eye and see the places that need improvement. I moved your nomination for furry convention to "Miscellaneous culture and society" as I figure it's a good mix of both. GreenReaper08:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm into the anime and stuff, but furry is still pretty much new to me. I been looking at the stuff that needed a source check, spellcheck and see what happens. I been looking at werecat last night too, but I just need to pare down the examples they give and see if we could get a free drawing of a werecat. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)13:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to trim the references in fiction to werecat, not sure how that is going. Anyways, I have about 4-5 articles at WP:GAC right now, and some have been there since the beginning of the month. So I really want to wait before I work on more articles for this bounty. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)05:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no rush - there's plenty of time on the bounty. I am a little concerned over its relevance of werecat to the target topic, though, in part due to a comment made in talk (you also removed a reference to Gold Digger, apparently in accordance with that, which suggests against it being a specifically furry topic). I would probably count it, because it was on WP:FURRY's list (if only by accident - I believe it came from a non-furry editor) but you might want to check with RainRat if you intend to try to claim the featured article bounty on it. I'm sorry I did not reply more quickly with this - I was involved with a convention trip this weekend. GreenReaper07:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal about the delay, I do cons myself for anime. I am going down the list of Furry WP's of stuff that needs to be fact checked and verified. I am only removing references is because that is half of the article. I can work on others. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mis-closings
Well, after seeing how incredibly poorly the UCFD was closed, how poorly others were closed, how pointless deletion reviews are, and generally how much power is abused around here and how badly the system is broken, I've decided to post [2] - your comments on it would be appreciated. Bushytails18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone "homosexual" (or more commonly "gay") is not derogatory in and of itself, but if the intent is to insult it can be taken that way. :( JuJube03:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. They actually used more derogatory terms than that, though, and I wanted to distinguish the use of those terms from the use of the technical phrase (and to avoid Wikipedia implying that being gay was a bad thing). GreenReaper03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not leaving a note on your talk page stating that I had reviewed it. It was late last night. I see that several of you have already started (and finished, perhaps?) addressing the issue. Please advise if you would like me to re-review early, or wait the standard seven day period. I am at your service. Mmoyer18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I was watching the page anyway. :-) I did not intend my initial edit to be the complete response to your concerns. In fact I've invited some of my friends to help out. It would probably be a good idea to wait for the complete period to ensure that anyone who is going to contribute does. GreenReaper22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 'bout that. I'll refrain from further such comments; it seems fruitless to engage them in actual coherent debate, is my main consideration in those comments. As this latest fellow indicates, it's not really about the truth, it's about disparaging people. But, I'll lay off. Cheers! Tony Fox(arf!)07:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's mostly that I see it as counterproductive - DissuadeReputation and all that good stuff. They want a name - if you deny it to them, all they have is their comments, which look rather transparent to most regular Wikipedians. I actually think there was something worthwhile out of it this time in terms of art proportion, so it's not time completely wasted. :-) GreenReaper07:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the project page, but I should reiterate that mainstream cartoon animals do not have to be created by or marketed to furry fans in order to be included in WikiProject Furry. That would be like saying Star Wars or Star Trek isn't science fiction because they're mainstream. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals, not just ones created by/marketed to fans. It's ludicrous to assume cartoon animals Warner Brothers/Disney characters shouldn't be included.
Claiming mainstream anthropomorphic animal characters aren't part of furry fandom is a favorite tactic of people just trying to stir up the pot and is as old as Usenet. While your fervor for including all viewpoints is admirable, you should be cautious to not lend credence to people who are just trying to manufacture controversy for it's own sake. If someone says 2+2=4, and someone else says 2+2=6, it doesn't mean 2+2=5. —Ochlophobia (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a disagreement over scope here (also reflected on the project page, which contradicts itself). WP:FURRY says in the lede that it is "a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of furry fandom (fans of anthropomorphic animal characters)." Note that it says quite explicitly that it is about the fandom, and not about the anthropomorphic characters that they are fans of. It is the equivalent of a project specifically on science fiction fandom, as opposed to science fiction. You would expect such a project to concentrate on fanac. Its base category would be Category:Science fiction fandom as opposed to Category:Science fiction.
This does not mean that furry fans are not fans of mainstream anthropomorphic characters - clearly, most are, to a greater or lesser extent. However, from a project standpoint, the topics of mainstream cartoon animals are, in general, pretty well-covered and do not typically require the input of experts, nor are we necessarily the best place to find them. Bugs Bunny does not need us looking after it - there is little we can add that could not be added by anyone. Rowrbrazzle does, because few outside furry fandom are likely to understand its significance or be able to quickly lay hands on the sources to demonstrate its notability.
Now, if Bugs Bunny had had significant fan activity associated with him . . . but that would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. The Lion King is a good example of this - while the content matter itself is not necessarily in the project's purview, the large amount of fan activity is, and as we can make a relevant contribution to that section of article, a notice on the talk page is appropriate. Articles about popular fandom characters (if suitable for Wikipedia) would also fall within the project . . . but that is because they are fan creations (and thus as fandom members we would have particular resources to bring to the table), not because they are anthropomorphic animal characters.
My support for the removal is based on the theory that if such articles are not being materially affected by our project - and I do not believe that they are, nor that that they will be in the near future - then I don't think we shouldn't be putting our marker on them. That's just spamming. GreenReaper (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see the Dealer's Booth thats almost in the center of the picture with the blue cloth? The one with the many, many prints? Would you by chance happen to know the name of the woman who was using that booth?
You see, my roomie had bought some art from her during AC '07. Last night we were finally scanning the art we had bought and when we came to the art she had made, we realized that we had forgotten her name completely!
I was looking through pictures on Wikimedia Commons and found that. It hit me like a ton of bricks when I realized exactly what I was staring at, especially since I have seen that picture a ton of times before AC 07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theyain Riyu (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WindowBlinds_ChristmasTime.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:IconPackager screenshot.jpg)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for uploading Image:IconPackager screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:StardockDesktopPet.jpg)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for uploading Image:StardockDesktopPet.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you think that (official typeset "deviantART") should be (official typeset and incorporated as "deviantART"). Because this is officially how they are incorporated. They use this on their legal documents and contracts. The title appears exactly as deviantART, Inc. --Dan LeveilleTALK04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that is stated sufficiently by the company entry in the infobox, which I previously changed and added the same reference to. I have changed the other instance in that page. GreenReaper (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the furcadia article, I ran through and fixed some last minute, minor (but oh, so important) problems, and nominated it for Good Quality Article. I will continue to keep you updated on its progress. Have a nice day!
That's good news; however be aware that you will probably not get much of the credit for raising the article to good article status, as the changes you made do not appear to be numerous or significant. The actual act of nomination is not part of the reward - it is the raising of the article itself to the required standard that counts. If subsequent issues are raised by the GA reviewers and you take the action to fix them, that may be another matter. GreenReaper (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will continute to look for errors and change them, but the only big problem seems to be that the article goes out into topics not having great importance to the subject itself. Indeed, if the reviewers have any problems, I will revise the article until it is ready, and maybe even featured article. Vistro (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Society screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Society screenshot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WindowBlinds GT3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WindowBlinds GT3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Haha! They are pretty, but it's not very helpful if you don't have former knowledge of them. Not to mention the color scheme is identical for each country. :P -- MacAddct 1984(talk • contribs)18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ChloePolitcalMachine.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect RainRat did not have that in mind for his reward, but I would be willing to give you $50 if your edits led directly to its placement on Wikipedia:Featured lists. Lists are not eligible for GA status, but I feel the effort you would need to expend is roughly equivalent. GreenReaper (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question
You told me you removed my edit on Wikia, and that was like a few years ago. Do you remember what i put down wrong? Just want to refresh my memory. You can view the post on my talk page. :/ --Runeselo (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When using this tag, could you try to provide a more complete description of what you think is wrong on the talk page? It is unclear exactly what facts you think are inappropriately covered using primary sources, especially when an attempt has been made to establish notability through third-party sources. Primary sources are considered sufficient for purely descriptive facts about the subject itself which can easily be confirmed without expert knowledge.
WikiFur depends almost exclusively on wikia.com websites for sources, and lacks detailed third party sources. That is why the primary sources template was added; you may wish to read it and try to add sources published by independent third party sources where possible. If such sources do not exist the article may be (re)listed for deletion under those circumstances. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx)19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been unprotected (at least temporarily). I saw your suggestions on the talk page and I moved the notice, that veterans can go directly to the upload form, to the top of the page as a hatnote.
I've also cleaned up the rest of the page the best I can.
If you'd like to work on the page and need help, I'm available for collaborations.
Thanks for your efforts to get this change made. In other circumstances I would be glad to help further with suggestions or edits, but recent events have taken priority right now. GreenReaper (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After being severely frustrated by Impulse, I made note of the many complaints on the Stardock forums regarding Impulse, and yet you routinely just deleted my notes.
Why are you censoring my comments?
75.35.77.192 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Routinely? I made one edit in relation to your own, and that was to remove your own speculation (original research), and to add a request for a reference to back up the factual claim you made of "an abundance of posts regarding connectivity, install, and update issues with Impulse". The speculation didn't even make sense - the presence of posts on a forum has no effect on the ability of people to download files through a standalone program, as your text suggested.
The 2 articles referenced are NOT written by students from the university of the author. The university's website is the only place where these articles can still be seen from the web, thus the reference.
The claim that this webcomic won 3 "amateur web awards" is accurate, implying that the awards are not major and for amateur webmasters.
The subject of this article is one of the few original comic stories to have been published in singapore, and naturally should be found by anyone looking for 'singapore comics' or 'singapore manga'. The fact that there are no articles existing for these terms shows the drought of the subject matter.
The problem with such redirects is that they mislead the reader. They were looking for an article about such comics, not an example of one. There are also neutrality issues - why should it redirect to the article about your webcomic as opposed to someone else's?
If readers are searching for such things, then the article will come up in the search results once the index has updated - assuming those terms are included in the article and the article exists at the time of reindexing. Redirects should be used for other words or spellings which refer directly to the same topic, or from the name of a topic which is considered non-notable to a section of a more generic topic's article where the first topic is covered (e.g. if Comics in Singapore existed, and it had a section named Webcomics where Anema was mentioned, creating a redirect from the title Anema to Comics in Singapore#Webcomics would have been appropriate).
I'm still a little concerned that the article will fail WP:WEB and be deleted in the future. In case this happens - and because it's relevant to our topic - I've made a copy of this article at WikiFur (which doesn't have such notability requirements). GreenReaper (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much GreenReaper. I'll see what i can do about the Notability guidelines. Need a few days to gather more references and proof. I concur with your views on the redirects. Warm regards. Jkktay (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiFur project namespace
Hello.
I would like to know how did you set up WikiFur, so that the title of the wiki was different from the Project namespace.
Argox has recently created the Spanish edition of WikiFur, and I just noticed that the Project namespace is a little too long - I mean, {{ns:project}} is rendered as Wikifur,_la_enciclopedia_furry instead of just WikiFur. How did you configure WikiFur so that, while the wiki title is that long, the Project namespace is just WikiFur?
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Society (video game), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Society (video game) is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Society (video game), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mr. Reaper. Someone came to my talk page expressing some distress about "hate of furries". If you've got a spare half hour, what you do think about my responses? Warning: may be tl;dr. -kotra (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SoftPaw Magazine
It does exist, however there isn't an article. Since I've only placed an order and not actually got any, I can't write about them. You might like to see them at www.softpawmagazine.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.79.186 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Culture of Pittsburgh
Actually, there aren't any news articles in the citation. Only if you count articles published by the convention itself are there any news things. The external links have some news articles, but mostly, they seem to be a mentioning of the event itself (one is barely longer than 5 lines). Simply being reported on in a city does not make something part of its culture.
Second, the culture of Pittsburgh list would seem to be for
books/movies that take place in the city
things which originated in Pittsburgh
things which are innately part of Pittsburgh lifestyle (e.g. Pittsburgh Steelers)
things which are a major part of Pittsburgh history
Arts and music in the city
As a convention (furry or otherwise) is none of these things, it shouldn't be included in the list. I know you think that I removed it because it's furry-related and I'm incensed that they're associated with my city. Its not a personal thing, but its just something that happens in Pittsburgh. I wouldn't put a dental convention in the Pittsburgh culture section either.Chazerizer (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually have a problem with you making that change as long as you have a reasonable basis for it. You just didn't give any reason in the edit summary the first time around. "Culture of Pittsburgh" was not well-defined at the time of the addition; and a furry convention, unlike a dental convention, revolves around our culture: various forms of art and storytelling. There is a valid distinction between artistic events in Pittsburgh and art originating in Pittsburgh, and if that's what the category is about, so be it. It seems Furry Tales should be in that category, or a subcategory, and so I have added it. GreenReaper (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I wasn't familiar with the work, I took a quick trip in and it definitely fits in the basis of the category. On a seperate note, I think you'd have a hard time defining Anthrocon as an "artistic" event. I would see it more as a gathering of like-minded individuals, though I was definitely a little harsh with the dental comparison. Keep doing that wiki thing, man, we all need to
Sorry there, I'm still quite new to wikipedia and apologize if this is the wrong place to put this! I noticed you were offering rewards to creating articles in relation to the furry fandom (and then marked "good"). I was thinking of perhaps giving this a try and create an article about Ursula Vernon's book, "Nurk: The Strange Surprising Adventures Of A (Somewhat) Brave Shrew". Would this qualify? --Avalik (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the other one offering rewards, for "featured" articles, a slightly higher class than "good" articles. I can't speak for GreenReaper, but after looking at it, it looks like she does identify her work as furry and attend furry conventions, so it would meet the award criteria for a featured furry article, if you could get it that high quality. GreenReaper may have differing criteria for what makes a furry article. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox on the Skyrates article was removed. I decided to add it back asking that it be discussed before it was removed however I was reverted asking that it should be discussed before it was added back. Because I am not going to get into an edit war over it I decided to start a discussion. Considering you added the navbox, would you like to comment? RP9 (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zeta Puppis
You added an "Original research" tag to the article Zeta_Puppis without sufficiently identifying what you consider to be original research on the talk page - Comparisons you claimed are simple mathematic ratios and widely known physics - We do not need to cite the laws of physics! Clarification of your complaints on the appropriate talk page would be welcome. Wayne Hardman (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Within 2 million years, Naos will turn into a Class M5 red supergiant 100 times (1 AU) its current size" is a classic example of a forward-looking statement that requires sourcing, but the problem exists throughout the article, with such things as "Red supergiants such as Betelgeuse are the largest stars" and "Zeta Puppis was formed in the Vela star-forming region". Such assertions may be true, but it should not be necessary for readers to "take this on faith". There should be a source that is making these specific statements, or failing that a footnote explaining the necessary calculations. The assertions otherwise have no authority and become original derivation.
Don't get me wrong. I really like the language used in the article. It effectively communicates the information. But Wikipedia editors have no implicit authority, so the assertions need to be backed up, in such a way that someone like myself - reasonably intelligent, but with no significant domain knowledge - can confirm within a minute or so that they are correct; or at least that someone trustworthy in the field has said they are correct. This is the sort of thing that turns a good article into a Good Article. GreenReaper (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the existing references, it appears that a lot is being drawn from this article. The source appears to have authority, but it should be provided along with information (using something like {{cite web}}), and you should cite it every time that it is being used to back up a fact or assertion, not just the first time. Otherwise, it is unclear which facts it supports, and which it does not. See Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Footnotes for examples of how to do this. GreenReaper (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your clarifications. Can you distil this down and add it to the relevant talk page so other editors have the benefit of knowing what needs to be properly sourced? Wayne Hardman (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a post on the talk page. The process of checking is fairly simple - go through line by line and look for assertions. If the assertion is supported by an existing source, cite it. If not, find a source or modify or remove it. Samuel Conway and furry convention are examples I consider to be well-cited. The lede does not need to be fully cited, as it's meant to be a summary; however, the facts within it must be cited somewhere within the article. GreenReaper (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:GalacticCivilizationsIILogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
