Talk:Funny animal/Archive 1

Ongoing NPOV Concerns
There has been an ongoing campaign by certain individuals of systematically (and unnecessarily) removing references to furry fandom in these articles. Petty personal vendettas against furries do not belong on Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind with future edits of this article. &mdash;Xydexx 00:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There has been an ongoing campaign by certain individuals of systematically (and unnecessarily) adding references to furry fandom in these articles. Petty personal vendettas of furries do not belong on Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind with future edits of this article. &mdash;MWMiller 02:38, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Xydexx, I don't know where you're coming from, but my own edits haven't been due to a vendetta against furries, and I have no idea where you got this idea from. I've got friends who are furries, and I'm well familiar with the fandom. Furthermore, I've been editing these articles in order to make them clearer, more consise and most importantly, more accurate. Now, I really don't appreciate the way you've been editing these articles. I especially don't appreciate you making these accusations, because I'm starting to come under the impression that your OWN edits are motivated by a petty personal vendetta of your own, one against Krishva, who I'm assuming is the certain individuals you're talking about.
 * However, as much as I'm disappointed by your behaviour, Xydexx, I'm also very patient. All along I've been giving your edits the benefit of the doubt, as much as I disagree with them, and I want it to be known that it would be very courteous if you would also take into account my own edits and give THEM the benefit of the doubt. This is really all I ask of you. Thanks. --Prangton 02:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flamebait removal
I have taken the liberty of removing Grumpyhan's inaccurate and inflamatory accusations that he made in my absence, and reiterate my stance that personal attacks such as his do not belong on Wikipedia. &mdash;Xydexx 02:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's always amazing how Xydexx constantly accuse me of the actions which I notice he keeps conducting, in order to show that he's the better man. This is what I originally wrote in context:


 * As I have given user:Xydexx ample time to follow up on his inflmmatory/accusatory statement in both Talking animal and Funny animal articles and received none, I have come to the conclusion that it was done merely to incite wikipedia users into unnecessary arguments of a personal nature. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to remove and archive said sections. His edits will also be revised as they were against the outcome of previously-agreed discussions, and being factually-accurate is after all much more important than an unproven NPOV. -- Grumpyhan 12:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Make of it as you will. I am personally convinced Xydexx is unable to back up his points without trying. -Grumpyhan 03:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Will both of you just cool it for a second, and can we get back to a discussion about the article at hand, rather than accusing each other? Let's pretend for a second that both camps have good points, and that there are points in common that both parties can agree on. We should be looking for those points rather than trying to discredit the other camp's entire opinion. What points can we all find in common, with regards to the same issue that's been raging on this page for ages and ages? This point is on the talk page not because we want to have fights but because we want to resolve this issue in a way that would keep inaccurate information off the main article, right? Now let's have less "I'm right, you're wrong" and more "let's work toward an agreement". --Prangton 06:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I find Grumpyhan's accusations that I'm here to "incite wikipedia users into unnecessary arguments" to be patently ludicrous considering he's defending Krishva who has admitted she likes to make fun of furries to get a reaction. Given her campaign of removing references to furry fandom from articles, suggesting deletion (rather than expansion) of furry-related stubs, attempts to get irrelevant information incorporated into furry articles, and getting her pals User:Stiv and User:Grumpyhan to gang up on anyone who disagrees, I find her previous claim that she's "not here to cause trouble" dubious at best. This is not a personal attack; this is a legitimate concern that has yet to be addressed. I know Wikipedia says to Assume Good Faith, but really, how much more evidence needs to pile up before you realize they may not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind?


 * I feel it's a waste of time to try to work towards agreement on an article when the other side is deliberately being obstructionist and trying to cause drama because they "think it's funny." It's not just a waste of my time, but yours as well. My purpose here has always been to ensure misinformation doesn't get incorporated into articles about furry fandom (no matter how "funny" the LJ Drama crew thinks that is). As a member of the furry fandom (or "funny animal fan," if one insists on using the "mainstream" terminology) for over a decade, I'd consider my role more along the lines of Subject Matter Expert than Biased Furry Fan.


 * I would appreciate any guidance or information on what protocols are in place to prevent a resource like Wikipedia from turning into something like UrbanDictionary as a result of edits by groups who have personal problems with furries. &mdash;Xydexx 16:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you, I didn't say Grumpyhan, I said both of you. Listen, I agree with a lot of what Grumpyhan is saying about the article! I don't find it funny when I write something I have held as true for a long time, only to have it reverted because someone thinks I've got an agenda. That's not funny, that's frustrating. Now, if we all had our druthers, it would be a lot different. But we can't all have our druthers because this isn't an individual project. If we can find a collective druthers, then we're in business. Despite the fact that you think people are being contrarian in order to incite drama, is there anything the people you accuse have written that is factually correct? Nevermind the motivations, I'm asking about some of the information they've presented. I want you to keep an open mind about what they're saying. I'm defending their views because I agree with them on a lot of points. Sure, their wording might be a little strong. So might mine. But try to see the information they're trying to present, rather than looking at the intentions of that particular wikipedian.
 * Same goes to you, Grumpyhan, User:Stiv and Krishva. Xydexx is probably just as frustrated by you as you are by him. I'm starting to get frustrated by both parties.
 * Is it enough, on the funny animal page, to just have the article begin with "Funny animal, also called furry by the furry fandom..." and not mention the furry fandom anywhere else in the article? Is this something both sides can agree on? --Prangton 17:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I did try extremely hard to work towards an agreement in the Talk:Talking animal page by adding information which I disagreed with in the article, but the constant disrespect and wild accussations Xydexx made towards me is not making me think any better of him. This is also why I have added the furry fandom line in the article believing that it would be sufficient to cover the information re: furries calling talking/funny animals furries. I have also just noticed that he failed to read my statement carefully, as I have archived his inflammatory statements rather than deleted them.


 * I do agree that this thing is getting far beyond what the articles are supposed to represent, and I'm thinking of archiving this section as well (both in talking and funny animal talk pages) and adding a (much shorter) notice in the talk page to prevent this sort of thing from popping up again and again. Would that be much more suitable? -- Grumpyhan 08:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)