User talk:Spirou
From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.
Contents |
User talk:68.183.71.41
The edit made by User:68.183.71.41, i.e. this edit to Foofers, does not obviously appear to be vandalism. Although there was some blanking of content and reverting it is reasonable enough, it seems to fall well within the boundaries of "assume good faith", as it may have been someone (possibly Foofers himself) removing some of the more frivolous content. I've changed the dv to an anon-ask, as it seems more fitting in this case. --mwalimu 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree on your observation and action, I was thinking if that was the case instead of a minor case of vandalism. wrong choice on my part =P - Spirou 02:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
For your awareness
Please see User talk:GreenReaper#Suspicious new account activity. --mwalimu 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Users blanking their own talk pages
I feel there's an important difference between a user blanking an article's talk page, and blanking their own talk page.
The Talk: namespace is for conversation about an article - a public conversation about a public matter that all are free to participate in, and which is not (or should not) be associated with any one user; nor is it under their control. Conversely, User talk: is for a conversation with an individual user. There is an intended audience of one. Once the audience has read the message, it is not critical that others read it whenever they wish to talk to that person.
A "wall of shame" helps nobody. Aside from bordering on a form of harassment, pinning a visible reminder of past misdeeds to a user makes it less likely that they will reform. If the message was painful or embarrassing, even if well-deserved, it will rankle and poison your future interaction with the user. It is likely to prejudice others against the user, even if they have changed. And, perhaps most importantly, it is unnecessary.
We have our edit histories, and can review the user's contributions without the need for a permanent reminder. Archiving or blanking a message does not mean it was not read; indeed, it shows that it has. If it becomes clear that it has not sunk in, further action can be taken. But if you don't give them a chance to change — to wipe the slate clean — you might as well not have sent it in the first place. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- There was no intention to make anybody's talk page stand as a "wall of shame". Just following the old, non-documented view that public comments, even in user's talk pages, should be protected. A minor comment was made a while back about to leave them up for further discussions about the subject's, or anything relating to her/him, and I took it as a set rule.
- If users can now delete their own user's page's talk pages (assuming that includes excluded pages), will abide to it. No intention of malice towards whoever this was related to was intended - Spirou 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see which talk page brought this up, no problem,... Was a little confused which talk page I reverted back - Spirou 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
H0rs3 ref section
Was the removal of the small reference section in H0rs3 article intentional or accidental? --EarthFurst 04:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Accidental copy and paste (take). Sry - Spirou 21:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Pluralizing species name articles?
LOL, I don't think we've ever done that. I'm moving Magikwolfes back to its previous name; plus, "-wolfes" sounds gramatically incorrect, and it was originally created as "Magicwolves" before I moved it to Magicwolf. The article still needs help for notability, though. --RayneVanDunem 12:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, Wolfes,... don't come back home at 1:30 am and edit =P,... Point there, do we pluralize or refer to a single individual? (Human),... Hmm, seems like I goofed, my bad Xp - Spirou 15:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Bonk!
Hi Spirou,
I'm curious as to the reason for redirecting from User:Bonk! to Bonk. It's not usual to redirect from a User page to an Article, of course. Was a search for "Bonk" bringing up the User:Bonk! page in preference to the article Bonk?--Higgs Raccoon 19:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It was suppose to be Bonk! to Bonk (artist), as several drawings I have seen have the expletive (!) added to his signature. Entered "Bonk!" on search, seems I got directed to User:Bonk! - Spirou 00:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
