User talk:GreenReaper/Archive1

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Wikicities

Hi, that's really me on Wikicities. Thanks for checking. Rick K 20:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Creatures Wiki

Hi GreenReaper,

I'm aware of the Creatures Wiki. I actually stumbled across it a few weeks before a lot of websites started carrying news stories about Wikicities and was quite surprised – it's a high-quality resource. I don't think I have anything to add at the moment, but I'll drop in from time to time. - RedWordSmith 15:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Use of {subarticleof} tag

I decided to put the tag in on all of the pages where I reverted your original reversion. As I have changed my mind about the use of the tag, I do not see a problem with altering my own edits to those articles to remove the use of the tag in advance of any decision to remove the tag generally. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

Even if you put it there, and removed it because you no longer support it, some people do. Removing it will remove any chance people have of seeing the notice. I would suggest you put it back, or I will. Havok 5 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

If you, personally, think that it is suitable in its current form, on that page, then you should re-add it. I will not, because I do not think it is the right thing to do, but if you revert it I will leave that alone until the issue is resolved, or until a week has passed, whichever is sooner. But please, ask yourself whether you're just putting the template back in place because you want to get people to come and look at the issue. I don't think that's a good reason to do so. Plenty of people visit that page already for other reasons.

Imagine the template was not on vote for deletions. Is Object Desktop really the main article of WindowBlinds, when it has always been offered separately, and when the WindowBlinds article stands on its own? The reason I put it there in the first place was to balance the link to it from Object Desktop (as the templates were suggested as a pair), but I do not think that was the right decision.

Looking at it, which form do you think the pages that I have changed are better in - with the bold links that show links to several articles, or the link at the top that points people to another page first. Which one reads better to you? More importantly, would you add the {subarticleof} tag if it were not there? I think if you would not add it then, you should not re-add it now.

This is how I think the issue should be decided. If individual contributors believe that it is better to use the bold text, then they will use the bold text. I do not think that forcing everything to freeze until an argument is resolved is the right answer. I do not personally care overmuch whether or not the template is deleted; I just think that there is a better way to show association for these particular articles. Do you think that it is better to use the template? If so, re-add. If not, please do not. GreenReaper 5 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Then I would propose an Stardock box, like the one they use for Blizzard games etc. Your take on this idéa, because I'm not that fond of the bold approach. Havok 5 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

That's a good idea. It separates nicely into product lines, too. Thanks! Will have to look into that when I am not tired (although I am moving to the US in two days, so I could not guarantee an immediate addition). GreenReaper 5 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

Stardock/Uplink

Given that Introversion are still their own publisher, and thus the only link to Stardock is North-American publishing, I don't feel that the {{stardock}} template should be applied to the Uplink article. It makes it seem that Stardock have a much more involved role to have such a huge template, just for the NA publisher. --Dave2 12:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I put it there because it was a member of the template, as to be complete I believe the template should have all TotalGaming.net games (not just the ones developed by Stardock, which are about 1/4 of them), but I can see your point. If you think it is not valid then you should remove it and I will not re-add without further evidence of involvement with the development. GreenReaper 13:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted Template:Stardock to show a difference between the games developed and published by Stardock. GreenReaper 14:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for former Bath residents - I almost never run in to people from the area on the Internet, for some reason, although someone I've known online for several years is going to Bath Uni (depending on grades).

Well, I've moved to the US now, but I remember my time in Bath fondly - in fact, some of my friends from last year are going through the Abbey gates right now with their degrees! Ahh, those were the days . . .

With regards to the template, having the distinction is a definite improvement; beforehand it seemed to imply that they'd developed it. I'm still not sure whether it really belongs there though; it'd probably be a good idea to bring it up on the talk page and see what the general opinion is. --Dave2 15:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. I have done so. GreenReaper 16:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Making a site like WikiFur

hi you may know me from uncyclopedia as Ff but i came to ask you a question. can you give me some tips for creating a site like wikifur? --Whopper 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the most important thing to do is get people who will help you. To attract them, you will have to do a lot of "seed posting" (possibly anywhere from fifty to over a hundred pages), and the project itself must be of enough interest for them to want to contribute to it. How you do that would depend on the community you choose to provide a wiki for.

It is generally inadvisable to create a wiki for a communtiy that does not exist yet, as then you have to generate the community, which is very hard. The most successeful Wikicities have been those that were "the wiki for fairly popular community X". It helps if the communities have a history of creative endeavour.

MeatballWiki has a useful page about the Wiki life cycle which I think should be mandatory reading for new wiki founders, if only so they have some idea of where they're going. Be sure to read the pages linked from there as well.

I guess another tip is to always remember that your objective should be to create a community that could survive without you. You are the founder, not the Dictator for Life. Besides, it can get awfully tedious if you're the only person doing the admin tasks. :-) GreenReaper 02:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:DesktopX Objects.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:DesktopX Objects.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have obtained permission from the copyright owner, Brad Wardell (User:Draginol) to license this image under the GFDL, and will indicate so on the appropriate talk pages. GreenReaper 21:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. You should have made that clear originally.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 08:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't previously obtained permission to license it under the GFDL. I figured it was easier to do that than write a fair use case. :-) GreenReaper 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur Article

Someone's made a new WikiFur article. But wasn't the WikiPedia article deleted at some point? You could probably explain better than I can about what happened, so if you have some time, could you check out the new article and add a comment(s) on the talk page? Thanks. Kalo 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've responded on the talk page. We'll see where it goes from there . . . GreenReaper 18:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gal Civ 2

On the Galactic Civilizations 2 page, under player criticism you (or I believe it was you) wrote

Other updates are set to follow after the release of a demo version.

I was just wondering where a possible demo version has been announced? And when it might come out? I see you are an employee of Stardock, so I was just wondering when this was mentioned.

Thanks, --Mercury1 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I did indeed write that. It was based on personal knowledge of discussions of a demo version, but if you want an official source, you should try this forum post, which has a reply by Brad Wardell (User:Draginol, aka Frogboy) who states that it should be available by the end of March. GreenReaper 18:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, thanks a ton. --Mercury1 19:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there GreenReaper, could you keep a watch over GalCiv 2? User:Robust Physique has been repeatedly deleting a large chunk of text regarding the StarForce incident without attempts at communicating. He's also been involved in other revert wars over StarForce. Thanks.

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed . . . I'm not sure how much I want to touch that particular part, since I'm an employee, but I'll be watching and if nothing else I'll try and ensure that the consensus is maintained. Thanks for the note. GreenReaper 07:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Well I'm not. I could spend some Rogue Admins points if things get too heated, heh. Probably not, let's hope for the best. :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. He might be a StarForce employee. :p -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did spend my Rogue Admin points after all. And got a slap on the wrist, too. A part of me wonder if I'm subconsciously authoritarian... Or secretly wanted admission into the coveted Guild of Rogue Admins. :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a bunch of freshly created user accounts that just happened to vandalise me. Penis attack! -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, no problems editing my edits on the GC2 article. I was kinda pressed for time when writing it, and admittedly a little bit angry after dealing with the Dread Lords that, in hindsight, I should have held off doing it. Scumbag 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-furry site voted for deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopaedia_Dramatica I hope you will vote for delete DyslexicEditor 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted, but not for delete. The site's policies on furries are irrelevant to its notability or suitability for a Wikipedia article. GreenReaper 01:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2ch

The truth of the matter is, I am not sure whether the kemono world and 2ch are on friendly terms. I don't see them write about each other very much-- I posted the link in the most recent furry thread on 2ch to see whether they would improve it, but rather they got into the usual sort of nonsense about how 2ch is an anonymous forum and foreigners should sage and not fill in their names. I just posted a more explicit request because it does seem like there is at least one English speaker in the thread. Ashibaka tock 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GreenReaper, you are a god

uhm, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.199.102.55 (talk • contribs)

Doh! And here I was thinking I had a good disguise . . . GreenReaper 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WindowBlinds

While correcting the section marked for copyediting in the WindowBlinds article, I came across this sentence:

For a short time, there was also a scaled-back version called WBLiteFX.

The problem is, it's not clear what WBLiteX is a scaled-back version of. Would you clarify it for me? You made a lot of edits to that article, and you seem pretty knowledgeable about the subject, so whether or not you wrote that particular sentence, I imagine you'd know. —Saric (Talk) 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've talked to the developer (we both work for Stardock and he's confirmed that it was a cut-down version of WindowBlinds. I've made an edit to the article. GreenReaper 22:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft gadgets

I reinstated the list of other products at Microsoft gadgets, although I altered the wording a little. The fact is that they preceed Microsoft's gadgets and are undoubtably a significant influence on the system's feature list and initial included gadgets. This is of relevance to any article about them; it makes no sense to view a product in isolation, as it would be like talking about an artist without considering the work of their contemporaries. That is why I spent so much time on the competition to WindowBlinds - I know first-hand that their presence over time was vital to the shaping of the current product. GreenReaper 06:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the see also list to explain how they have influenced Microsoft's version (with suitable citations of course) I'll wholely support it. As the list stands right now it doesn't tell us anything about Microsoft gadgets. AlistairMcMillan 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section is not for information about the current topic - it is for articles that people might also be interested in reading in relation to the current article. I believe that people who are interested in reading about Microsoft gadgets are also likely to be interested in reading about the other kind of widgets/gadgets that are and were around. Do you not think that this is the case?

If I were to do as you suggest, I'd put it in the main article and remove the appropriate links from See also - but I don't know enough about the topic to give detailed references off the top of my head, if they even exist. Being propiatary, unfinished software, I would be concerned about the quality of most links - they're likely to be content-free and bias-heavy one way or the other (most of those I remember reading either praise it as a great innovation or blast them for copying someone else). Software companies big and small are notoriously cagey about telling people what influenced them, for the very real reason that they might be sued over it (see the "look and feel" case).

I can see the argument for removing the list and replacing it with a discussion of the impact of various widget engines, but I can see no reason for removing it and replacing it with nothing at all. The article's short enough as it is. It may not be the perfect way to introduce readers to other related topics, but perfection is hard to attain for an article that is about an yet-unreleased product. GreenReaper 18:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 19:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part did you have in mind? I don't see how that relates to not having links to other articles in See also. It would indeed relate to writing up a proper discussion of the relations, but then part of my point was it's not really possible to do that yet, precisely because there are no reliable third-party sources reporting on it. This in turn is due to the fact that it's not got a stable version - for example, they just changed things so that their sidebar gadgets will be the same as their web gadgets, which changes the available feature set.

In short, we can't write a great article, because nobody else has (or can) write good original research on it yet. So the best thing we can do right now is to give users an idea of what features have been promised and link to other articles on engines that have actually been completed.

Of course, they're not much better in terms of verifiability - so what do we do? Write nothing on topics that people expect us (as a net-based resource) to cover? I've always been unsatisfied with that viewpoint, which is probably the reason I spend more time over at Wikia. I think that verifiability is a great policy for solving contentious questions on topics that are verifiable, but I strongly doubt that the people who write computer software publications are playing by the same fact-checking rules as Nature, which brings the use of such references into question.

I don't think our users seriously expect that level of verifiability on such topics, either . . . but that gets into questions of general policy, which are probably better discussed elsewhere. GreenReaper 22:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Totalgaming.net

Dear Green:

I was rather distressed when I went to the totalgaming.net article recently to find it deleted/redirected. I contact you because you defended so vigorously. I had personally contributed to this article in the past, and thought that it had value as a historical evolution of the list of software that was sold through it's interface and a springboard into the individual game pages, in addition to explaining this new style of sales. There are plenty of other software suite articles listed and it was a good central page for all the games offered, which the redirect (stardock) does not compensate for. I regret that I didnt find out until too late to vote a strong keep. I know that a lot of time was spent on the article and I always thought it was a sound article. Is there any process for proposing an undeletion/rewriting, or when can the article be recreated and written from scratch? Although I occasionally contribute to some pages, I am not that familiar with these internal processes.

--66.140.152.89

Hi there! There is indeed an deletion review page. You should read through Wikipedia's undeletion policy before contributing there. It does state that you can revive a deletion discussion if you were not aware of it at the time. However, you may have trouble getting the article undeleted unless you are able to provide better references than I was, or can successfully argue that it should be kept despite the lack of third-party references. The basis of the deletion argument was notability, and the lack of such sources (somewhat unsurprising in the gaming industry, where news amounts to little more than press releases and analysis is reserved for FPS rather than distribution systems).

I saved a copy of the article concerned at User:GreenReaper/TotalGaming.net for reference purposes (which could include review purposes). If you feel that you can improve this article further, perhaps by adding such references, you are welcome to give it a go, and I would recommend doing so before submitting it for review. Let me know if you do proceed with the undeletion request. GreenReaper 15:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will see what I can do in regard to this. Seems a little tricky to resurect an article, and I need to find some more sources, but I'll see what I can come up with. --66.140.152.89

Hi

I noticed you run a lot of wikis, all on Wikia. I am curious why you chose them and not a different wikifarm that gives you more content control. Looking at Wikia it seems that once you sysop someone, you can't de-sysop them and they have the same power as you--true or false? Also they will merge your wiki at any time and you will lose control of it that way, too. And I also think it can't be offensive to minors, with means no sexual stuff, not even ASCII art? I don't know if I am right about any of this so can you please answer back and let me know. Thank you. Anomo 10:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomo! The reason Creatures Wiki is on Wikia is because it was initially founded there by another person, Sgeo. The reason I chose it for WikiFur was because I had had a good experience with Creatures Wiki and I felt it was the best place to be.

Wikia will indeed merge or even retire wikis if they prove to be unsuccesful in gathering contributors on their own. It basically only happens if you fail (or possibly if your wiki was never suited for Wikia in the first place, for example if there were only a handful of people who would ever be interested in the topic). If you succeed in making a good wiki - or even a not particularly good wiki that still has contributors - then it is not going to happen.

I believe you are incorrect about being inoffensive to minors. See prohibited content and terms of use. You should read them and interpret them liberally, as that is how they have tended to be applied. Obviously, if you're looking to create PornoWiki, then you might want to talk that over with them first - if you include large numbers of pornographic or erotic images then that will mean that Wikia cannot use AdWords on your community's wiki. However, WikiFur has one or two pieces that are of a "mature" nature (appropriate to articles) and that has not affected our status on Wikia.

It is true that when you give sysop status to others, then they technically have the same powers as you (except the power to grant other people sysop access - you have to grant that separately). However, most contributors will tend to defer to the founder to some extent, regardless of actual editing and administration powers. If you have a good reason to de-sysop someone, then you should be able to convince Wikia of that.

The question is, are you making a wiki for yourself (which seems somewhat contradictory to the idea of a wiki), or are you making one for your community? If you represent your community well, it is very unlikely that you will lose control of the wiki, and also that Wikia will be a good place for you to build a wiki for that community. If in doubt, get on the "Live chat and support" (later this week, we're all at Wikimania right now) and talk about it with a Wikia staff member. :-) GreenReaper 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. The one thing is, I wanted creative direction for the wiki. The other thing is that I'd like to be able to de-sysop someone if they abuse their power. The only benefit I see of wikia is that it gets a better alexa ranking. You also run the Galactic Civilizations wiki, which looking at its recent changes, gets little contributions and looks like Wikia would merge it. Anomo 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being on something.wikia.com does not, as far as I know, get you a better Alexa ranking. However, their help may enable you to get it for yourself. Wikia staff have technical and community staff that know what they're doing - often the same people that have taken part in running Wikipedia in the past. They have people around in IRC to help out, pretty much 24-hours. They also have significant server resources, and with their background they know how to use them to make MediaWiki fast.

GalCiv could indeed be merged, though it's hard to see where it would be merged to. I doubt they would do it, as it has almost 500 pages on its own (plus it gets rather a lot of hits). It has demonstrated that the concept of that wiki is valid - it just lacks a leader, as I've been occupied with other tasks. Merging tends to happen only with those where that is not the case.

It sounds like what you want is not what Wikia is offering, though. In particular, if you demand creative direction (and do not allow the possibility that other members of the community may overrule you), then it is no longer a community's wiki - it is your wiki. I therefore suggest you look at other wiki hosts. I do not think you will find one with the services provided by Wikia, but I could be wrong, and you may not need these services anyway. GreenReaper 01:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how do you do Checkuser? Like on this one: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/User:Jewbo_Wales you found out the IP (which is a match with Blu Aarvark on wikipedia--of course his list of sock puppet names give it away, though. I told an admin on wikipedia who promptly ignored it.). It says you're a Bureaucrat, but not Checkuser and I don't see any of these places giving Checkuser. Is there a way to do Checkuser and how do you do Checkuser as just a bureaucrat? Anomo 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a member of staff on the live chat and support, who was more than willing to look up a vandal IP for me so it could be banned. They will do such things as long as the reason is good. They would not, for example, look up the IP of a user that was just disagreeing with the founder on a point of opinion. GreenReaper 03:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Windows Sidebar; Creatures 2; Desktop Window Manager; Point-defence; Grendel (Creatures); Wikipedia Widget; Desktop Sidebar; Steve Gallacci; Comparison of widget engines; Microphilia; Fur; Windows Desktop Search; Bill Holbrook; AOHack programs; Millennium Interactive; Albedo Anthropomorphics; Fuzzball MUCK; Galactic Pinball; Pittsburgh City Paper

Cleanup: Associated Student Bodies; Wiki farm; Jade Empire
Merge: Monster Truck Madness; Forest Trolls; Computer addiction
Add Sources: Cutey Bunny; SkinBase; Trash (computer game)
Wikify: World of Warcraft Forums; Orthokeratology; Full system simulation
Expand: Prison rape; Soil horizon; Gangrel (World of Darkness)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your removal of links in talk

Sure! I am one of those cleaning Wikipedia from unnecessary external links, especially those that may have been added to either promote a site, a story, or a product. Right now, I am unlinking links that may have been added to increase story ratings in community sites like digg (less than 200 links left), reddit (less than 50 links left) and slashdot (almost 2,000 links left). I also clean YouTube, MySpace and other links that are usually used to promote users. In the case of Talk:Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords, the latest conversation had been held almost a month ago, thus I suspected it was not necessary to have clickable links. Hopefully that makes things clear. -- ReyBrujo 02:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is clear, but I disagree with doing so on talk pages. Those links were used in the discussion of the articles concerned. Removing them makes it harder for subsequent readers to follow the conversation. I doubt that the intent of any of those in were to promote the article on behalf of the site itself, but to draw editors' attention to the story, which happened to be on that site. Given that intent, it seems "right" that the link remain, even if it results in benefit to that site. Moreover, just because a site is a popular news aggregator does not mean it cannot have original content as well. I know of several interviews that have occurred on Slashdot, for example. Would links to these be removed? In some cases, the discussion on a particular site may itself be worthy of linking. Where, exactly, do you draw the line? GreenReaper 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to only remove links from archived discussions and articles where the link is not necessary (in example, when the Digg link does not add to the article, and can be replaced with the story link, or when the story link has been deleted). Hopefully this will solve any further problem. I have seen people linking to a Digg story with only 6 digs, in a seemly clear attempt of boosting the story ranking. As for original content, I don't just go around deleting every link, but I review each of them to consider it worthy or not. Original stories in Slashdot are few, though, so I am not likely to just delete one by mistake. Original stories in Digg (if such can exist) can't stay, as they can be created by any user willing to write it, much like a post in some forum. -- ReyBrujo 17:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary!

(diff) (hist) . . m Furry fandom‎; 20:08 . . GreenReaper (Talk | contribs) (rv conclusion - original research)

I hereby award you the User:I do not exist best edit summary award of 2006 ^__^ - ∅ (∅),

Hehe, thanks. It seemed appropriate. :-) GreenReaper 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Machine Chloe Sullivan

How did you get the screenshot? I looked for a few hours and couldn't find a way to do it. -TheGreenFaerae

Printscreen button on the keyboard. Takes a screenshot, puts it in the clipboard. True for all of Windows (alt+PrintScreen does just the current window). Open Paint Shop Pro (or Microsoft Paint), paste, save as PNG. Done.

By the way, you can do ~~~~ to get a signature, or ~~~ if you don't want the time. GreenReaper 03:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do me a favor and stop by the RfC page on Debuskjt and offer your two cents. You're the only real third party that seems to have gotten involved in the dispute. Thank you. TheGreenFaerae 06:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry. i forgot to give you the link. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debuskjt TheGreenFaerae

List of furry comics

You beat me to it. I was just about to make an edit or two there. :-) GreenReaper 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, heh! I'm sure you could still find a thing or two to improve. --Mwalimu59 22:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think my next target will be T.H.E. Fox. It deserves more, given its position. GreenReaper 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with it, so you won't have to worry about any edit conflicts from me. From the title alone, however, I have to wonder if it draws any of its inspiration from a mid-1960s TV series called "T.H.E. Cat". --Mwalimu59 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cut me deep

Your accusation of sockpuppetry deeply hurt my feelings. I'm not even sure if we can be wiki-friends anymore. :-( Whirling Sands 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I called you a troll, too, and with no less accuracy. GreenReaper 03:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photosensitive epilepsy

Please can you supply a fair use rationale for Battling seizure Robots.jpg. Thank you. Colin°^Talk 09:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. GreenReaper 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur article

I notice it didn't survive the second AfD, but I think it's very close to a no-consensus. If you think you can rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic style and address the verifiability concerns, I'd encourage you to do so. It was greatly improved from the first incarnation of the article, and with a rewrite, I suspect it would pass. Shimeru 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that would be the result, and was actually a little surprised at the deletion. Not too surprised, though - AfD has been going that way for a while now, and as stated in the article, it's one of the reasons WikiFur exists in the first place. As far as I can see, the problem was simply that it did not meet people's notability criteria (e.g. WP:WEB). I thought of bringing it up at deletion review, but I'm really not sure it's worth the hassle.

I do not think I can address these concerns, because there are not really any "better sources" in the sense that will be accepted. I can only provide more sources that will not be accepted. That is why the article was so short and something of a definition to start with. I could have written an expanded article that might have been more interesting (like I did for Samuel Conway), but it would have to draw on things like LiveJournal posts and articles on Crush! Yiff! Destroy!, because those are where the matters of the furry fandom are talked about. Torley of Second Life mentioned it - but to trust that as a source, you'd have to know who Torley is, and accept that he's a reliable source, which I doubt people would. And when all coverage they need to do is "it's like Wikipedia, but furry", you don't get much of a reference out of it.

I saved a copy of the article. As far as I can see, it doesn't actually have any problems with verifiability in terms of "you can verify it by going to the referenced sources and seeing that they are as indicated". Its crime is that there is only one "verifiable media source" in there, and that's only because I happened to be at Anthrocon 2006 while the con crew were looking for safe people to be interviewed by visiting reporters. The furry fandom has not tended to seek out such attention, for reasons that are obvious upon reading the parts of the furry fandom article relating to the media. When we do, they are usually looking at our fursuits, not our encyclopedias.

The irony is, I actually went the academic route of verification by writing a paper describing the creation of WikiFur and presenting it at Wikimania 2006, too. I guess they missed that session. :-) GreenReaper 04:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Looks like someone did so anyway. Here we go again . . . GreenReaper 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. I hadn't been planning to bring it up, mostly because I lack any experience with it and couldn't expand the article myself. I'd encourage you, though, to write that expanded version. And if you've written a paper about it and presented it at Wikimania... I think that's a reliable source. Wikimania is an important wiki-related conference. Shimeru 05:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you post Miltopia's personal journal? Now he's decided to leave Wikipedia. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it had him asking people to come here and make sure WikiFur stayed deleted, which seemed really not on. I didn't go looking for it - I only found it after searching for WikiFur, where I found another thread where he'd boasted about getting it deleted. If he considered the posts on there personal (like the one where he was boasting about forcing Angela to block him from her personal wiki), well that's what friends-only posts are for. Personally, I don't give a damn if people read my publicly-accessible posts, and indeed I expect them to, and for people to judge me by my actions everywhere. GreenReaper 02:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called stalking about not everyone likes it, in fact, most people don't. Just because you don't happen to mind it and you expect it from others doesn't mean everyone does. Regardless of whether you were searching for him or not, you found his account and posted it on Wikipedia without his permission. He was being unbiased in the review and explaining why he thought the article should be kept deleted. The correct thing to do, if you felt it was necessary, would be put a note on his user talk page asking him nicely not to tell people to go onto the AfD. I don't know what was in his LJ account and frankly, I don't care, but it's his own business and it doesn't concern the Afd. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Frankly, if he does not like it, that is not my concern. He was participating with a debate and at the same time telling people to go support his side on the debate. If he didn't want people finding out that he was doing that, then he shouldn't have done it. I can accept that there should be a level of separation between actions on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but there are limits, and in my opinion those limits are broken when you make publicly visible posts representing a call to action. While this didn't actually come into the debate, I feel it is also unrealistic to assume good faith from someone who is known to be proud of causing problems for other wiki editors elsewhere. GreenReaper 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you have reasons for keeping the WikiFur article, he has reasons against it. There is no reason to post people's private views when it does nothing but cause frustration on both sides. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be your concern, he's a person just like you and just because he has different views doesn't mean you have to treat him like you did. If he doesn't cause trouble here then it doesn't matter. The good faith policy exists because people like you don't assume it unless you're specifically told to. I hope you're happy that you got him to leave, now that's one less person to oppose the creation of your article. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 04:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His personal views were not the problem. The problem was his action, in encouraging others to come and help him out. That was causing trouble. GreenReaper 04:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I don't even think any of the people who read his LJ entries came to the AfD. I don't understand why you couldn't have just asked him to remove it instead of posting the entry. He was probably just trying to be funny, once again why there's a good faith policy. You have to assume that he's trying to help the project unless he does something like that on Wikipedia. His arguments reflected his reasoning as to why it should be deleted and there was no need to bring outside, personal things into it, especially since, once again, you could just ask him to take it down. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 15:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would "something like that on Wikipedia" include boasting about "sav[ing] an article from Wikifur spam" on your talk page? [1] Seems an odd sort of comment to make, for someone who's concerned with remaining neutral and not editing according to his biases. That said, Reaper, you probably shouldn't have called it out on DRV. Taking it to him and/or an administrator in private might have been a better approach to begin with. Shimeru 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have done so. I didn't, because I was angry with him for not playing by the rules when I'd tried hard to, and because I felt his motives were not to make Wikipedia a better resource for its users, but to "stick it to the furries". His LiveJournal was where the confirmation of this was, and that is why I posted it. I had no wish to solve it quietly, because I felt that this would just encourage him to do the same thing next time, but to be more careful in hiding what he was doing. GreenReaper 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely up to you, but I would like it if you were to apologize to him. Thanks. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't apologize, because I'm not sorry - I think I did the right thing. Perhaps not the nicest thing, but still the right thing. I don't feel any obligation to be nice to people who are proud of vandalizing wikis for their own amusement, as he boasted about in that very journal (there's a reason all the rest of the posts have become friends-only). GreenReaper 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might want to be "the better person", but I guess not. Just so you know, I have nothing against furries, you, or your wiki. Miltopia is just my friend and I didn't want him to leave. Also, Shimeru, he was just removing links to articles in the WikiFur wiki because they were mixed in with links to Wikipedia, which is a bad practice IMO (which may or may not be his all of his reasoning). From the edit summary: "removing WikiFur links, Wikipedia should not be linking to Wikifur articles alongside wikipedia links, implies endorsement of WikiFur on too many accuracy/fact-checking levels." --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am the better person. I guess we just have different definitions of the word. I think he's wrong if he wants to leave Wikipedia over it (and I have my doubts - the whole "oh, woe, my personal journal got linked to by a top 15 website in the world" is pure drama, which he admitted in another LJ thread), but that's his call to make, not mine. GreenReaper 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being "the better person" is a phrase[2]. From a random website I found using Google, "Don't spend too much time vetting the past. It can be useful to retread things to figure out what the problem is, or was, but you can't fix the past. All you can do is make changes in the present to effect the future (Sounds like a fortune cookie, I know). Be generous. Be apologetic. Be the better person. Care more about resolving the problem and moving on then about assigning or deflecting blame." I'm sorry that you didn't decide to apologize too him, but as I said before, it was your choice. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 22:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was removing them because he thought it was bad practice. Or maybe he was removing them because he has something against WikiFur. The only one who really knows is him. But making comments like those does make it tougher to assume good faith. Not impossible, mind you, but it makes doubt more reasonable. Personally, if I had an acknowledged prejudice against something, I would go out of my way to avoid editing articles about that topic, both because I'd doubt my ability to remain objective and because, eventually, someone would inevitably find out and raise questions. He didn't -- which is fine, as far as it goes, but I'm not sure he should feel surprised or offended that the point's been raised. And asking people, on a non-Wikipedia site, to vote on a Wikipedia deletion kind of turns his writings on that site from a private matter into a potential Wikipedia concern. I'm willing to believe he's merely being reckless and naive, as opposed to actively malicious, but he didn't exactly step up to take responsibility, either. Suppose the point is moot, until and unless he changes his mind. Shimeru 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]