Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 3

message: First of all, about the section calling people trolls, the fact is that calling someone a troll is most common method of trolling now.  Secondly, wikifur does a lot better job dealing with anti-furries (as they call them), try to use their articles "monolithic antifurry conspiracy", anti-furries, or fursecution as examples.  DyslexicEditor 06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on that anti-furry movement section someone added 

message: The section, as it has been created, is not about criticism.  It is describing the trolls of the furry community and falsely glorifying them as being somehow more significant than the trolls of any other community.  I have attempted to paint them in as neutral and non-condemning a light as possible.  However, dancing around the idea that a troll is for some reason not a troll just because the people being attacked are furries is not impartial  - let alone factual.  The link to the troll page is there in accordance with the Wikipedia tradition of linking to relevant pages.  The troll page is the Wikipedia entry on this type of activity.  The link is not there to be impartial or condemning.  It is simply an explanation of the individuals you have created this section to describe.  If you are not willing to describe these individuals honestly and in an impartial manner, I suggest you remove the section entirely.  Furries are an internet community.  The fact that any internet community has trolls is a given assumption.  There is no impartial reason for pointing out that the furry community also has trolls and trying to falsely justify it by calling them something other than trolls.  Furthermore, an actual criticism section would be redundant, since other sections have already described the aspects of the furry community that are the focus of criticism. Dr. Righteous 12:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you don't explain why you're reverting every edit I make, even when I fix redundant words, so stop doing it! DyslexicEditor 12:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If your edits are reverted, it is because they are incorrect, not impartial, or irrelevant to the subject.  That is the way of Wikipedia. Dr. Righteous 13:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll up, they claim that about you.  Edits also get reverted when they're correct, impartial, and relevant by someone who is POV-pushing, as others accuse you of.  Scroll up.  DyslexicEditor 13:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The anti-furry section 

message: Okay, I think we've been patient enough with all the recent vandalism going on and the article at this point goes way beyond the scope of what furry fandom is about. I'm sure folks are having a good laugh at our expense, but as I've said before I'd like to see Wikipedia remain a source of useful information.
Unfortunately, I don't have the copious free time these guys do. I, y'know, work for a living, so I'll clearly always lose in a battle against, say, unemployed Encyclopaedia Dramatica users who sit huddled in their dark, cramped basements smashing away on their keyboards making other people's lives miserable instead of improving their own. 
In the meantime, I'm trimming back the garbage folks have been adding to this article because they think singling out furries for their puerile little games is funny. I don't see the articles on anime or science fiction putting up with this nonsense, and neither should we. Heck, the Something Awful article doesn't even mention how they told William Freund where to buy ammo before he went on a shooting spree and killed himself last year. I dunno, maybe there should be.
Personally, I'd be happy if this made the recreational harassment community finally take a good hard look at themselves and take the opportunity to find a new hobby and actually do something constructive with their lives.
I'm totally serious here. I know how they think being nice to people is lame and their cynical hipster friends will probably disown them for it, but I think they'll ultimately find the grass is greener over on this side and I promise I won't laugh at them if they gave it a try. -=)—Xydexx 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which I support and I realize you're frustrated, just watch the civility and keep it to discussing the content. Don't sink to their level. --Crossmr 03:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what else to do. One would think after the John Seigenthaler, Sr. controversy Wikipedia would've found a better way to deal with vandalism of pages other than having editors waste time in a war of attrition with folks who have nothing to lose by making editors waste their time. It's beyond frustrating. —Xydexx 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just apply the rules and policies. Editors who constantly make edits that violate rules and policies, and go against concensus can and will be blocked.--Crossmr 04:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: could you provide some links? I just saw this on Noticeboard tonight and came over. --Crossmr 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough Already. 

message: Crossmr, I explained already that citations were given where they were requested and that one editor decided to delete the sections regardless, or had other issues with the sections but failed to ask for citations or changed to what they had problems with as is due process.  This is borderline vandalism, you can't excuse it by claiming wp:v is being violated where it is not.  And as aside this is not my own contributions either, I'm merely restoring the work of other Wikipedians, so the burden of providing sources is actually on them and by looking through the edit history they seem to have done just that.  Can we please now agree to restore these sections which actually should not have been removed in the first place? - 81.178.225.214 04:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other wikis can't be used as citiations, so yes WP:V is being violated. Its a non-negotiable policy. The other information didn't contain a source and until a source is provided it can't be re-added because its disputed for lack of source. Re-adding content in the middle of a dispute without source is vandalism. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet the relevant part: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources--Crossmr 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that particular edit you mentioned ("furvert") and you'll notice I didn't revert it when reinstating the rest of the deleted sections.  What exactly do you mean by "the other information [that] didn't contain a source"?  The sections in question ("Internet criticisms" and "erotic content controversy") had multiple citations and more were added after requests were made.  Which makes your accusation of re-adding content during a discussion without a source moot - as sources were included, and actually I didn't realise a discussion was taking place at the point of editing.  And again, if you'll check the edit history, the reasons given for the deletion were "Non-encyclopedic, non-notable material deleted" , there was no mention of a lack of a source. - 81.178.225.214 05:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That addresses the two additions here . In this addition  nothing is sourced. The one external link is an example, and not a source for any information. There isn't even a source to justify the claim made about that page. In this re-addition  we have first paragraph, no citation, external link is an example, second paragraph is an archived copy of a tripod page, this is not a reliable source.The 2nd paragraph cites two googlegroup links which are not usable for citation, this link  provides no usable information, the last paragraph cites a livejournal community, which isn't usable as a source. Nothing in any of that re-added material contains a credible source per the guidelines. Most of the external links are "see also" or not provided as a source for any of the information in the content.--Crossmr 05:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is also another problem with the material. One its not sourced, two some of it doens't seem particularly notable 3 or 4 paragraphs on a group that at its height contained 57 members out of a large online community? That's not notable and not encyclopedic. WP:NOT wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. While a given topic may be notable, not every piece of trivia and information ever recorded about that topic is necessarily notable.--Crossmr 05:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think adding sources and tracking down citations for material which is non-notable and non-encyclopedic in the first place is a good use of editors' time. —Xydexx 13:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting of entire sections. 

message: If someone had no idea what furries were, and this article was their sole reference, they would think that the furry "fandom" had no sexual connotations at all whatsoever.  In fact, the opposite is the case.  As I have mentioned several times, a google image search for furry art results in mostly explicit images.  How is it possible that something supposedly so benign as furry art be almost composed of pictures of large breasted cheetahs and huge-penised horses?  This article is in serious need of a rewrite.  The furries are trying to hide the truth about their disgusting fetish from the world by disguising it as a "lifestyle".  We all know better. 68.69.194.125 05:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's right, and girls exist solely to be subjects of pornography  and boys purely for pedophiles . You have no point here and its obvious from your tone you're trying to push PoV. --Crossmr 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but there are definitely POV editors from the other side of the debate trying to whitewash the article also.  I think a lot of the problem is due to redirecting "furry" and "furries" here, when it's actually a much broader term and cover a variety of activities that's impossible to agree on.  Personally I think it would make more sense to have a "furries" article and then include the furry fandom as a major section of than article, which would also allow for including fursuiters, plushophiles and the like without tarnishing or offending the fandom by erroneously accusing them of such activities. - 81.178.225.214 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and as long as the material can be properly cited and written. I have no issue with that. But the citations have to credible and no opinions and theories can be put forth without them. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth, again per WP:V--Crossmr 05:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can only interpret these rules so rigidly when dealing with more obscure or esoteric articles such as this.  For example you criticised the inclusion of a LiveJournal as a source, when the source was simply there as evidence that the LiveJournal community existed.  It's cases like this that WP:Ignore_all_rules is for. - 81.178.225.214 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore all rules cannot be applied to WP:V. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Nothing can ignore WP:V. And yes, Livejournal can be provided as "see also" or "this community can be found here". But that is all it can be used for. That doesn't support the rest of the information provided about the group. You can't just cite one piece of it, then write whatever you want after that because you have one source for one piece of information.--Crossmr 05:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously suggesting that you can't use the group itself as a citation for information regarding that group?  That's a primary source - you can't get any more verifiable. - 81.178.225.214 05:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. Its not a primary source per wikipedia guidelines. If you walked into Bill Gates' office and he told you tommorrow he was selling Microsoft to Steve Jobs for $5 and a hand shake, you couldn't add the information to wikipedia, even though it came from the horse's mouth. The information has to come from credible sources. Thats why the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth.--Crossmr 06:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My imagesearch was done with safesearch on and it still brought back explicit images, whereas you had to disable safesearch, which suggest that the whole point of furry art is to give furries something to masturbate to.  Also, every edit that is made by a non-furry is instantly reverted by a member of the furry horde, irregardless of whether it is relevant or sourced.  This article is completely POV and is written from a pro-furry perspective.  There are several opinions stated on this article as facts and many is used instead of some.  This article must be rewritten with a NPOV. 
Oh, and are you saying that he made the LJ group up and forged the website? Because that's retarded.
68.69.194.125 06:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I said per the policies and guidelines posts made to livejournal cannot be used as a source. I never said that livejournal was forged. --Crossmr 06:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: and your moderate search returns the same results as no filtering. Try searching with full safe search on and you'll see the difference. There is more nudity in the girl art, than the furry art, again you have no point. --Crossmr 06:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  safe on its barely different. Every edit thats being made with non-credible references is currently being reverted. Provide credible sources per guidelines and policies and it will stay. Just because you don't want to provide them doesn't mean the content gets to be added without.--Crossmr 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Until you can show me that the majority of furry art is not explicit, I'm going to go ahead and say that the furry lifestyle revolves around a sexual fetish, something which most people already know.  I have provided credible sources and they have been reverted repeatedly. For example, I cited Wikifur's article on bestiality which mentioned that certain furries who practice this are called 'beasties' and the edit gets reverted. All you want to do is make the furry "fandom" look completely innocent and nonsexual, which is completely ridiculous because the sexual aspect of the furry lifestyle, as one user mentioned above, is the most notorious.  I feel that not enough attention is shown towards the sexual aspect of the the furry fandom. 68.69.194.125 06:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another wiki cannot be used as a primary or secondary source on wikipedia.--Crossmr 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And why not?  Perhaps because they are prone to the same kind of POV pushing that you are doing right now. 68.69.194.125 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still of the opinion that deleting large sections on the premise that there was inadequate citations isn't the right way to go about improving the article.  Frankly, it's childish.  Yes, you don't have to add requests for citations rather than just delete material, but doing so would probably have prevented this idiotic edit war.  To prove my point for example I could go and delete the entire fan creations section under the same pretense - it doesn't include a single citation, and could for all intents and purposes be completely fabricated and original research.  I won't of course because it would be absurdly pedantic, as was deleting the other sections rather than simply addressing the specific issues in the first place. - 81.178.225.214 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and re-adding them when people had to leave without reaching a conclusion to the discussion is just as childish. The content is obviously disputed, and trying to force it back into the article unsourced doesn't make the article better. You're continually violating WP:V if you feel other content needs citation, then either put an unreferenced tag on the page and list the stuff that needs citation here, or put individual requests on the material itself. Other unreferenced material is not a license to continue to add more just becuase you feel it should be there.--Crossmr 14:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not NPOV 

message: I agree with 68..., the criticism section is interesting, of interest, and helps put the furry community in some context. (It's also hard to see the section he/she is adding  as derogatory to furries... it seems more derogatory towards the critics). Adding ((Fact)) tags does the job a lot better than deleting whole sections (which inevitably leads to edit wars). Wikipedia is not going to be printed tomorrow, so leaving the information in and encouraging contributors to provide citations is not doing any harm: on the contrary, it lays down a path towards a better article. SB Johnny 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately were zero usable sources for the material they were trying to add. While criticism sections do serve purposes on some articles they need to contain proper sources.--Crossmr 13:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC Response

message: Just a thought -- On the Scientology articles we also have a problem with the question of how to deal with "criticism" from humor sources such as South Park. In that case, the content in question ended up on a separate article; all the hooraw that was posted to Scientology about South Park's "Trapped in the Closet" episode ended up on that article instead of all over the Scientology articles.
It seems dangerous to me to consider parody to be "criticism" in the same sense that a scholarly work would be: scholarly works on a subject that are critical, we use and cite and discuss as sources. In the case of Scientology, A Piece of Blue Sky is criticism; "Trapped in the Closet" is parody. Parodies are of vastly less usefulness as sources, and should probably only be mentioned briefly in passing.
Why not treat parodies (or fiction works like CSI) as sources? The point of a parody is to mock and to entertain, not to inform. As such, parodies frequently take vast liberties with the facts. Fiction works will almost always sacrifice accuracy for good drama; that's what fiction is for after all. It simply is not honest with our readers, or in keeping with Wikipedia's goals, to treat parodies at all like we would treat serious criticism. --FOo 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On parody vs. criticism, with examples 

message: The citation for this piece of information: "Although various articles have linked the furry fandom to sexual fetishes, such as bestiality and plushophilia, some furry fans have stated that they do not participate in or approve of such fetishes, and they protest the portrayal of the fandom as anything but an interest in a certain genre of art" doesn't seem to match up. It doesn't mention anything in regards to that.--Crossmr 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. I've moved the KDKA citation to someplace it would be more appropriate. —Xydexx 13:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we still need an actual citation for this opinion and theory.--Crossmr 14:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I'm thinking the sentence is redundant and could probably be rewritten/merged with the already-referenced first sentence in the first paragraph under media coverage. —Xydexx 04:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KDKA Citation 

message: Is it nessessary here?Why not put it into the article on Anthropomorphicism?(I hate writing that word"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.138.145 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 14 July 2006
:Interesting philosophical question there.  One might even query if furry fandom is indeed a reality.  Perhaps it is really the anthropomorphism fandom and is worth no more than a footnote at the bottom of the anthropomorphism page.  Then again, perhaps it is just an exaggeration of funny animal fandom, and should be merged with the funny animal page.
:It seems that Wikipedia has separate articles for anime and anime fandom, as well as Star Trek and Star Trek fandom.  But furry only has a page for its fandom.  Perhaps the more relevant question is, which Wikipedia page represents the object of furry fandom?  Does Wikipedia even acknowledge furry as an art form?  And if there’s no art form, how can there be a fandom?
:The problem here is that you are dealing with a relatively new kind of cultural phenomenon.  Even those here who are furries don’t completely understand it.  To define it properly, you need to put it under a microscope and study it.  But that is not the nature of Wikipedia.  The nature of Wikipedia is to pit people with differing limited opinions against each other.  It’s a no win situation that will never result in any kind of truth remaining on the page, if it ever manages to get there in the first place.
:Sadly, none of you even have the option of researching it, for nothing you discover on your own can be contributed to the article.  Thus you must continually reference flawed documents written by people who probably know less about the subject than you do.  And the more you quote these misbegotten sensationalistic portrayals, the more the truth becomes obscured.
:I fear the situation is hopeless.  You will never arrive at the truth under these conditions.   I give you this page with some reference links to study.  http://www.snowcovered.it/furry.html  Perhaps if you read more you will at least achieve a greater understanding of this subject that you have in all likelihood been misrepresenting to the world.    Dr. Righteous 03:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people will trust a mainstream professional magazine/television channel over some furries webpage.  Oh, and your name is totally in tune with your attitude.  Talk about wearing your heart on your sleeve. 68.69.194.125 05:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I think you're name says a lot about you, too. Dr. Righteous 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't sink to his level...--Crossmr 06:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:NPA DyslexicEditor 23:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And thats pointed at who? What I said certainly wasn't a personal attack and the IP is currently on a long time out for endless personal attacks.--Crossmr 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media with anthropomorphic characters in it

message: The first two paragraphs need to be rewritten so that they appear more factual and less speculative in what they're saying.--Crossmr 20:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can probably help out with that eventually. I'm working on tracking down a few articles and references that would probably be very useful. There was actually a significant article written about furry fandom in Comic Buyers Guide a few years back, IIRC. —Xydexx 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be useful if you could get access to it. --Crossmr 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a copy of it myself, but it's buried somewhere in my disorganized multitude of files. I'll keep an eye out for it. —Xydexx 02:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing, as long as we use a proper book citation its usable.--Crossmr 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan creation section 

message: Can this be put to any use?   --Pifactorial 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: try the fursuit article? seems like it might be appropriate there.--Crossmr 06:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just responding to "Find more high-quality images that represent the fandom" in the todo list.  IMO the fursuit picture in this article is pretty ugly, though.  --Pifactorial 06:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh I thought it was just a general inquiry :) Hrm I'm assuming its from a convention right? Maybe to illustrate the convention or something along those lines. I think fursuitting is covered briefly in the article, in and around ther emight be good too.--Crossmr 06:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try putting it in and see if anybody's head explodes.  --Pifactorial 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice picture of fursuiters. The problem I see is that its position implies that all the people who go to conventions are fursuiters, which is not the case (the previous one was almost as bad in this respect). I believe the actual value is around 15% - perhaps we could find some reference with a measured value and add it in as a note? GreenReaper 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, that same thing actually crossed my mind.  Problem is, I don't have any con pictures that really demonstrate the population breakdown.  (At Anthrocon 2006 there were 2489 attendees, and 191 fursuiters in the parade. )  --Pifactorial 07:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I have from AC2006 that is remotely near is this one. There are probably better ones out there. GreenReaper 07:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pictures 

message: While adding the various links to other sites, 81.178.86.15 also added this little snippet of text:  Pornographic material focusing on intercourse whilst participants wear fursuits also exists.  Aside from fursuitsex.com, (which, despite being a members-only pay site, keep getting cited and added to this article), is there actually any notable body of material in this sub-genre—i.e., enough to actually warrant note?  (I honestly don't know, myself; it's definitely not my cuppa.) --Dajagr 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's obviously worth mentioning, especially considering there's Sex and furry fandom subsection specifically for this kind of thing. - 81.178.86.15 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, though—you didn't answer the question.  I asked whether there was a notable body of material in the sub-genre.  Whether or not the act occurs often enough to be notable is a different question from whether material is produced of it.  The former could probably actually be supported by citations.  I'm questioning the latter.  --Dajagr 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's non-notable at best, and generally beyond the scope and definition of the article. The website was set up by some folks just trying to make a few bucks from the CSI episode. Not really a credible reference, IMHO. —Xydexx 05:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, one appears to be a highly oppinionated blog which I'd question the credibility of, and the other doesn't refer to "furry" at all in the whole text.--Crossmr 05:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I know over a dozen people who have built fursuits.  When questioned about 'fursuit sex' they all say the same thing.  They would never damage/ruin/stain their $500-$3000 costume they spent months perfecting.  Perimus 17:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Those aren't reliable sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fursuitsex" text addition 

message: back to the left. If there is significant trade in furry themed art and other pieces of fandom then it might be worth covering.--Crossmr 08:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who go to a convention commission one or more conbadge for when they are there, either before or during the convention itself. That's just the tip of the iceberg with respect to artwork though - it comes in all forms, 2D (most media you can think of), 3D (both virtual and real sculptures), the fursuit thing, etc. It's almost all original (either of the artist's or the commissioner's characters), which sets it apart from anime art which (as far as I know) tends to be mostly about coming as close as possible to famous media icons. GreenReaper 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know googling fursona revealed alot of commercial links for online artists who sell stuff, so to me thats an indication that its strong outside of conventions too.--Crossmr 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. While conventions are a big boost for some artists, and probably more so now that there are more and more of them, I'd say that the majority of commerce is done with Paypal and the US Postal Service. Some (few) people like Dark Natasha can make a living off off original commissions and (often framed) limited-edition prints. It can certainly make a respectable second income. GreenReaper 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There also exist Zeta Toys which are dildos designed to resemble animal penises. Maybe we could fit that into the article somewhere? 68.69.194.125 05:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furry art and commerce 

message: In the future please do not edit war - both sides of the debate.  Thx! --mboverload@ 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: There are currently way too many links in the article, see Wikipedia:External links. I think sites like DMOZ are a better source to link to various sites within the fandom. I'm not sure which links to remove tho, and as they're getting added back anyways I'm starting a discussion here. Which links should go? --Conti|✉ 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read over the guidelines and tidied it up a bit. I removed the commerce links because they're not really talked about in the article. Perhaps if we get a good section about people making money off it and various businesses we could add them back in as long as they actually relate to what is written.  I removed a couple information links that were present on dmoz, and I removed a couple over-lapping information links and tried to keep one of each kind of information link.--Crossmr 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have to ask why you thought my essay on the history of the genre was so expendable.  It's not like you had two of them to choose from. Perri Rhoades 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://otakuoftomobiki.livejournal.com/12978.html Perri Rhoades 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we already had a chronology of the history? If you think the essay does a better job you're free to replace it, I just thought that as far as history goes we should have 1 covering that aspect. Nothing personal at all.--Crossmr 06:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, the history you saved is the history of the development of The Furry Community.  What you tossed out was the history of the genre the fandom is built around.  And though it seems tacky to be plugging my own page in a situation like this, there just isn't anywhere else on the net people can go for that information.  So, yes, you cut out possibly one of the most vital pieces of information for anyone trying to understand furry fandom, but no, I'm not putting it back in for you.  If someone else thinks the history of the genre is important enough to include, they're welcome to link it.  But for me to do it seems not quite right. Perri Rhoades 09:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I think we need to refocus our efforts on improving the article. I've had some ideas the past week or so, but work has kept me pretty busy. The sections on Conventions should be rewritten and expanded to include: the first furry convention (Confurence); the growth of furry conventions/gatherings held today; the "Big Three" furry conventions (Anthrocon, Further Confusion, Midwest FurFest), and mentioning the events scheduled at a typical furry convention. Fursuiting and Charity work could easily be broken out into their own sections. I added parades to the list for reasons for fursuiting; I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned considering Rapid T. Rabbit (host of a public access TV show for 20+ years now) always has a group in the Doo Dah Parade in Ocean City, NJ. —Xydexx 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Convention stuff is now covered more fully in furry convention. I think the summary style coverage we have here is sufficient, although it could probably stand some tweaking. Fursuit has (and should have) its own article, too, although it is in need of a complete overhaul. Charity would perhaps be more appropriate in furry convention, although a brief mention here would be good as well, since many thousands of dollars do get raised. GreenReaper 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement