User talk:Ochlophobia

Welcome!

Hello, Ochlophobia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! GreenReaper 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks!---Ochlophobia 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Furry redirects

Please do not make major changes to Wikiprojects without consensus, esp if those changes are under discussion. If and when you do make changes or redirects please make sure that you do it correctly and don't break the links or lose information as you did last time. If you have any questions on how to move pages or make consensus driven edits hit me up on my talk page. Thanks. NeoFreak 04:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) noticed you have changed both the name and scope of the project without consensus, and had simply restored it to the original. If you feel my editing capabilities are not satisfactory, I would appreciate it if you restored the WikiProject to its original name and scope rather than changing it to Anthropomorphism without consensus. Thanks. -Ochlophobia

The change was made with the consensus of the editors we had on board at the time. I've left a reply on the WP talk page as well. If you have concerns with the Scope and the Name of the project feel free to join the discussion in the already existing "Scope" and "Name" sections at the project, it's much more acceptable than temper tantrum editing. NeoFreak 05:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of you. -Ochlophobia

Ochlo, please leave the issue be until 0800 Pacific Time on Wednesday. We've heard your viewpoints, and while I am in agreement that perhaps the proper procedure was not followed, there's nothing we can do to change that NOW. Let the issue rest, and it looks like that at the mentioned time, it'll be changed back to Furry. Bengaley 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Putnam Division map.png

Hi. Please be aware of the subject request. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Furry

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) 18:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]