User talk:Xydexx/Archive

Furry article

Hi! I've come across the Furry article and I think it needs a lot of work, from a pure wikipedia perspective. I am disinterested in furries, so I'm not the greatest expert. I've proposed (on the talk page) merging content from Furry into Furry Fandom, and eventually replacing furry with a redirect.

Before and while performing such a merge, I'd like to rewrite and refactor a large amount of the existing content.

Looking at the discussions you appear to be a strong and vocal advocate Furry issues.

Wikipedia isn't the best place to conduct pure advocacy since we need to write from a neutral perspective. As a result I will be toning down some of the advocacy and rephrasing some of the text so for example "anti-furry websites intentionally misrepresent furrydom" becomes "many in the furry community feel that anti-furry", it's a minor difference but it keeps wikipedia from taking sides.

Since I am disinterested in Furrydom, I need *your* help to make sure that I am providing a fair coverage. I am particularly interested in providing better coverage of why so many internet forums have found it so fun to troll furries, I suspect that it is because many furrys consider their furry participation to be part of what defines their inner-self, so an attack on that is especially hurtful... But I'd like to find some material discussing this that I can cite.

So, would you be interested in helping me in this endeavor?

Hello, Gmaxwell-

Let me preface this with a quick explanation of what all this furry stuff is about. Since the 1980s, furry fandom has been defined as the appreciation, promotion, and production of stories and art about anthropomorphic animals (or so-called "funny animals"), as well as the exploration, interpretation and examination of humanity and human values through anthropomorphic expression. This includes works such as animated cartoons, comic books and strips, text stories and articles, artwork, costumes, and stuffed animals. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. One could say we're just fans of cartoons and comics with talking animals in them, but that leaves a lot out. More detailed information is available at Anthrocon's "What Is Furry?" Page, or Petercat's Furry Infopage.

I've been a furry fan since 1993, so I consider myself pretty familiar with furry fandom. I wouldn't consider myself an "advocate" for "furry issues"(?), as my interest is simply about ensuring accurate information gets posted about furry fandom. A fair article, in my opinion, would be one which focuses on what furry fandom is about rather than what it isn't about. Due to sensationalist media coverage the fandom has gotten in recent years, there is a lot of misinformation which gets passed on (sometimes deliberately). I feel an obligation to correct this when I see it.

As to why some people deliberately pass on misinformation, there are a number of reasons. Some people do so out of ignorance (i.e., they saw something like the CSI episode and simply don't know any better). Sites like Crush Yiff Destroy are more deliberate, they cater to disgruntled furry fans who spread misinformation as a way to "get back" at the fandom for whatever reason. Other sites, like Portal Of Evil, Something Awful, and far too many others, just do it because it's "fun" (for them, at least) to do so. Like a puppy that misbehaves, doing something bad and getting a reaction gives them attention they want.

I hope this clarifies any confusion and you find this information helpful. —Xydexx 03:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith Until Evidence Proves Otherwise?

Certain internet ne'er-do-wells have been going around and systematically removing and deleting content they don't agree with, or attempting to add misinformation to articles for "entertainment" purposes. While it isn't outright vandalism, it does go against the spirit of Wikipedia. I would be interested in any guidance on what protocols, if any, are in place to prevent this.

Okay if I respond here? It sounds like some of the things you are describing are actually vandalism. Look at Wikipedia:Vandalism and you'll see several types of vandalism, including: "Silly vandalism: Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr. Pelican Shit.)" and "Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos (e.g. [1] which was reverted because the source material is easily available)." Deliberately adding misinformation, whether it be for jokes or otherwise is vandalism. For that, you should follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Now, removing content because of disagreeing with it is not vandalism, but it is inserion of POV, and thus a violation of WP:NPOV, one of our central tenets. If you are involved, or willing to become involved for the good of the encyclopedia, read over Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial for some great advice on dealing with POV (remember, most people that appear to have a strong POV may not even realize it, and think others are the ones with POV). If not, you can add one accuracy/neutrality notices found at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes and leave a quick note on the talk page as to why you think it is not NPOV or accurate. I hope I'm answering your question, but I'm probably just rambling, so feel free to ask me any further questions! --Dmcdevit·t 06:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I figured it qualified as vandalism, but I never saw anything specifically addressing it. I'm mostly concerned with folks replacing accurate information with inaccurate information in the furry_fandom articles. Since it looks legitimate on the surface, it's not as obvious as when someone just fills a page with gibberish or flames. As fun as Uncyclopedia is, I don't want to see Wikipedia turn into it. —Xydexx 01:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Reference Thing

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
Remember to use a neutral point of view!
If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

Clockwork Soul 02:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furry Wikipedians

Hello, Xydexx... you're not familiar with me, I don't think, but I'm a fellow furry contributor to Wikipedia. I was thinking of creating a furry Wikipedian category, if you would be interested in joining it... (Just putting [[Category:Furry Wikipedians]] on your user page would be enough.) Almafeta 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added! —Xydexx 01:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome... I hope this list gets larger in coming months. ^^; Almafeta 16:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:user fsm

I'm calling out a posse, to fight for freedom of choice, to fight all those who think that only their opinion's right, template:user fsm was speedy deleted by an administrator without any cause or even discussion, I'm therefore putting it up for undeletion since people have put a jihad out against opinions in userboxes. As you were one of many people using the template, I'm trying to rally you into the posse. If you think the template should be returned to active status, put in a vote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#template:user_fsm. Janizary 04:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be of interest to you

WP:OR An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

it introduces a theory or method of solution;
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

might be handy.--Crossmr 07:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Xydexx 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is something else that might be of interest to you Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Citing_Self-published_Blogs. Its just beginning but I'm hoping to generate some concensus on various things.--Crossmr 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone uses the term furry. yet. (funny animal article)

No... no... xydex, your reference to the "Washington Post" has no relation to furry and funny animals, should not be counted. Washington post article specifically metioned the cast of "Over the Hedge" as characters are "furry", which in english language means, characters that are hairy or have fur. The word furry, meaning character a with fur was already their before the internet slang today known as "furries".

By the way washington post does not represent the animation/entertainment community. It's just a newspaper and should not be cited as reference to funny animals, its not solid. I suggest reading a annual animation or entertainment journal before coming to the conclusions.

I still think furries are part of the internet culture and not is not fully embraced by the mainstream. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.104.42.76 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Many newspapers refer to talking animals/funny animals as furries. This is not surprising as furry fans are the ones who have conventions and have been getting all the media attention. It doesn't matter if the animation/entertainment community doesn't, nobody said they did, and the point is everyone doesn't have to. The bottom line is the term is not limited to "internet subcultures" as you claim. —Xydexx 18:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome, West Virginia

I reside near Jerome...who shot at you? --Caponer (talk) 07:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno who it was; we heard yelling and gunshots, so we didn't stick around to find out. We were trying to check out where the old train orders station allegedly is. I can only guess is it's private property. —Xydexx (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]