- The above is a standard template. Now that I reconsider, I probably shouldn't have used that one. Or, at least, a lower-level one. The sexual aspect of the furry fandom is covered in the main section of the article regarding "Sexual aspects". The fandom itself is not entirely about the sexual aspects (though there are sexual aspects in the fandom, just as there are in most other fandoms). Because it is not a main part of the fandom, it is not mentioned in the lede of the article. Furthermore, "perversion", regardless of dictionary definition, is commonly regarded as negative by the general public and should not be used as a description for a group of people. SilverserenC 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Erm okay chief.
I am not sure if I should reply to your post here, or on your talk page.
But irrespective of what the great unwashed think the word pervert simply refers to acts not considered "vanilla" by the majority.
I like doing ladies up the wrong 'un, so technically I am a pervert. ;-)
I didn't mean to upset you, or anyone. BUt I think it is important that the sex aspect is mentioned at the top of the article, it is after all a large part of the furry experience for the majority of furries (or is at least viewed that way by the majority of people), so do you not think it is worth putting at the head of the article?
- I am pretty sure that the vast majority of furries indeed do not consider sexuality as a large part of being furry. That said, the public's general view (as with many other stereotypes) is quite flawed anyways, and there is not much point of putting it in the top of the article since a section already exists within the article itself. Also, I'm curious to know what makes you feel that the furry fandom is mostly related to sex. GB86 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Bartley Gorman article
Hi, Would you take another look at the Bartley Gorman article - I've revamped it with a stack of references. You might want to consider withdrawing your nomination for deletion. I won't point you in the direction of WP:BEFORE, but it certainly would have been useful if you'd followed it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
hullo dylanfromthenorth, I am sorry if I failed to follow some WP protocol. I first read this page months ago, as I am interested in amateur boxing but the page was shocking. It was overly florid and read like a fairy tale. I mentioned this on the articles talk page months ago, and no one bothered to add citations. So I resorted, as I said I might ages ago, to putting the fairy tale page up for deletion.
It seems my method for getting some citations on the page and removing the wild flights of fancy the page contained worked.
I am happy with the page now, thanks dylan....