Talk:Alan T. Panda

I understand babyfurs wanting to distance themselves from this guy, but trying to blank out the fact that he's obviously into the babyfur community isn't fair, either. Thus I reverted User:Softpaw's edits removing references to Alan being a babyfur. If you want to argue that babyfurs are an exclusive club, I'd like to see something to substantiate that claim. --quoting_mungo 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rereading the google cache of Alan T. Panda's pounced.org profile, it seems he preferred to be the "daddy" rather than the babyfur, but, at the same time, had a few babyfur tendencies: He notes that he "occasionally like(s) to be babied", and one of his commissioned fursona pictures depicts him wearing a diaper.

I considered that enough to use the babyfur category in the article, but now I'm undecided.--Higgs Raccoon 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, and if that can be incorporated into the article that's certainly a better way of doing it; it's more nuanced and there's a source for it more detailed than an LJ profile interests list. --quoting_mungo 20:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this person was only tangentally connected to the babyfur community, he was not an "active" participant, and his behaviour makes him a rogue element who was not welcome among us. The LJ community he was a member of is a low-traffic group popular with trolls, he was not a member of the LJ group that serves as our central (and, at this point, only) community. Bottom line, he was not nearly as much of a babyfur as he claimed, and given our hard-line stance against anything involving minors, attempting to connect him to the rest of us is inappropriate at best, and inaccurate.

Wording that would be appropriate for the article would be to say that he "claimed to be a babyfur", without adding the category to it. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that being "an active participant" of the babyfur community is not a prerequisite for the "babyfur" label. (Likewise, I am not active in the Jewish community, but I'm still a Jew; and I do not contribute to or participate in the Doom community despite considering myself to be a "Doomer") Furthermore, even if that were true, the Google cache of the pounced ad shows he had been keeping his ad up to date as late as April of this year. That would lead me to believe he's at least somewhat active.

Regardless, Alan does seem to have enough in common with most babyfurs that I would say he is one: He has badges of his character in diapers; his character art is done by artists most commonly known for their babyfur artwork; He identifies as a daddyfur (not only can I say from my own experiences that this often comes with the free bonus of being a babyfur on the side, but Wikifur's own article on babyfurs considers "daddyfur" to be a "sub-group" of babyfur, and case in point he indicates an interest in reversing roles on his pounced ad).

Based on all of the above I have no doubt in my mind that Alan is a babyfur, whether or not he's been outcast or disowned by the community. skippyfox 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case would you make changes to the BabyFur article where you list off the requirements to make someone 'Babyfur Enough' to be considdered a babyfur and not just 'Claiming to be a babyfur'? This way babyfurs can easily identify based on your criteria if they are 'real babyfurs' or only 'claiming to be babyfurs'. 99.241.49.17 23:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, you both are neglecting the fact that Alan himself, according to people who actually did know him, made no claims of being a babyfur (found this out recently myself). He called himself a diaperfur, yes, and a daddy, but he never considered himself a babyfur. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added into his list of hobbies that he was a 'diaperfur' and linked it accordingly to the relevent article. His Pounced add clearly says he wears diapers. 'likes to wear diapers at times and use them for their intended purposes', if that isn't a diaperfur, what the hell is? It appears that 'diaperfur' redirects to the 'babyfur' article, well, don't that beat all? 99.241.49.17 04:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've been thinking about this. The babyfur article states that diaperfurs are a sub-catagory of babyfurs, so either it is entirely correct to state that Alan was a babyfur or the babyfur article is incorrect and that it requires correction. Anyone have any ideas? 99.241.49.17 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have decided that it would be better to have the assumed facts of the fandom of this article match with others, so I have changed the article to state that Alan was a babyfur and I think it should remain unless there is dispute as to weather a diapfur is a sub-catagory of babyfur or not. 99.241.49.17 04:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've rolled your changes back, anonymous user, because your assumption is incorrect. Diaperfurs are sometimes rolled into the babyfur umbrella, yes, but not always, and not when someone doesn't want to be. In this case, Alan didn't claim to be a babyfur, so calling him one directly in the article would be inaccurate regardless of what happened. And yes, I'll be happy to get someone to back that up.

By the way, if you enjoy making controversial edits to articles, you might want to register an account to be taken more seriously. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Be nice, please. :-) Nobody is required to create an account to participate in a debate on article content. Your words matter far more than who you are.

Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology.

It's important not to give people labels that don't belong, and so the category may not be appropriate. I also don't support reporting like this (the post title appears both incendiary and inaccurate).

However, the impression I get from this discussion is that the babyfur group is (understandably) trying to avoid association with Alan for their behalf, rather than his. I feel that's unreasonable given the evidence, any more than it is for us to say that the guy "wasn't a furry". If you have a relevant fact, such has his membership in groups or lack thereof - and I note that he was watching both   baby_furs and   babyfur - feel free to mention it in the article. Show, don't tell. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for sounding harsh, but the anonymous user in question has a history of making controversial edits, and more importantly, he has no verifyable connection to the babyfur community, and thus only has an outside knowledge of how the community works.

You're right, we don't want to be associated with Alan, but not at the expense of the truth. Fact is, he fell into a grey area, where the label of "babyfur" is neither 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate. However, it's also verifiable fact that he didn't attend any babyfur parties, and he didn't actively take the label "babyfur" for himself, he always described himself as a diaperfur. Combined with the fact that the number of babyfurs who knew him more than just recognizing the name can be counted on one hand, and that he was not a member of   babyfur (watching it is irrelevant, because there's nothing to watch, it's a non-public community), which has been the single, central point-of-contact for babyfurs for years. The other community you mentioned,   baby_furs, is much like its IRC counterpart - full of trolls, barely active, and only tangentally related to the community itself.

Bottom line, directly applying the label of "babyfur" to Alan is inaccurate. He was a very fringe member of the community at best, and avoided taking the label himself, his only real connection being that he dated/lived with a babyfur. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry 'no verifyable connection to the babyfur community'? What does that have to do with my right to make edits? You're implying that only a babyfur is qualified to say who is or is not a babyfur, or who should be labled a babyfur in a Wikifur article. This is agianst the neutral point of view that is the core nature of Wikifur. Infact, you are suggesting that my opinions are less valid because I am not biased by being a babfur. You can not basicly say that only someone with 'inside knowledge' is able to say how the babyfurs work. It is infact invalid, you are supposed to cite your statements and arguements with evidence. You appear to be implying your own original research. Could you please cite a list of accepted and published critia for what makes someone a babyfur, not a babyfur, and 'falls in the grey area'. Something that is not your own original research.

Anyway, you have been told by GR that you need to show that he wasn't a babyfur. I await your documentation of that. AshleyAshes 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I also said we should be careful about labeling him as a babyfur. Either way, please don't use my non-authority over content decisions as a discussion point. :-)

Also, bear in mind that WikiFur is not Wikipedia. We allow original research, as long as there is consensus over the reasoning. If people claim expertise, we're willing to listen, albeit with a significant grain of salt. To my knowledge, Natasha is both a member of the relevant community and a resident of the region, and that does count for something. --GreenReaper^(talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is sufficent evidence to suggest he was a babyfur, you yourself cited it better than I. I honestly missed the 'being taken care of' part. I think that at this point she is making unreasoanble claims to define 'babyfur ship'. She is stating that because he didn't attend certian parties or had membership in certian LiveJournal groups that he falls into a grey area. As much as she claims the babyfur LJ community is the 'central community' it is certianly not the only one. Most popular, or most populated, sure, but that doesn't make it the definitiave 'babyfur or not' criteria. I think that his his nothing but a special interest group attempting to manipulate information for their own benifit. In comparison to the babyfur issue, Alan is being labled a 'Fursuiter'. While it is documented that Alan had access to a fursuit and wanted to have fursuit sex with the boy in question, he never claimed to be a fursuiter, there is no documentation of his participation in any fursuit community, his pounced ad makes no references to fursuits or anything else. There is infact less 'evidence' for him being a fursuiter than a babyfur, however there is no dispute over him being a fursuiter because it is documented that he had intentions that involved fursuit sex. If the fursuiters were attempting to erase the fact that he was a fursuiter and 'a person with an interest in fursuiters' it wouldn't fly. However, I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal. AshleyAshes 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that may be more that the fursuiters don't have their own cabal.

Oh? Who do you think made the posts necessary to get the babyfurs all stirred-up, perhaps resulting in the rewording of both such terms? Sometimes the most effective response is indirect. *grin* --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just hadn't bothred to log in, but as GR says, one doesn't need to have an account to participate. Anyway, Alan had art of his character wearing a diaper, he admitted to wearing diapers, he identified as a 'daddyfur' and a 'caretaker'. He was by definition a diaperfur, the 'diaperfur' redirects directly to the babyfur article. The babyfur article itself states 'sub-groups within the babyfur community' includes 'Diaperfur' and 'Caretake'. Thusly, the Babyfur article is quite willing to group diaperfurs and caretakers into the 'babyfur community' with no dispute on definition specifics untill now. Talk:babyfur features no arguement on the specifics on what is and what is not a babyfur. The article gives the impression that any of the 'sub-groups' falls under the definition of babyfur. Certianly in the fandom, when the babyfurs are addressed, no one has questioned the inclusion of 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers'. You are trying to force a seperate definition now simply to erase Alan's association with babyfurs for your own benifit. Before now, no one would have ever challenged someone as being a 'real babyfur' based on which LJ communities they actively participated in or not and the specifics of their dating site postings. This article is also not the place to begin a movement to segragate the 'diaperfurs' and 'caretakers' from the babyfur community, which is what I believe would be necessary to validate your claims that he was not a babyfur. AshleyAshes 20:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As clearly stated in the babyfur article, an interest in diapers does not automatically make one a babyfur. And, while the babyfur community typically considers diaperfurs to be "one of us", diaperfurs do not always share this sentiment. Alan is one of those who, while somewhat interested in dating babyfurs, actively avoided applying the label to himself. Combined with the details I outlined in my reply to GR above, directly calling him a babyfur in this article is not accurate. And, in the traditions of both the babyfur community and the furry community (and Wikifur terminology), a label can only accurately be applied to someone who accepts it. If Alan were able to respond, based on what I've been told by someone who knew him, he'd be making the same arguments instead of me. -- Natasha Softpaw ^{( talk | contribs )} 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself'. There is infact limited evidence of anything. For his known usernames, Google can only turn up membership in some LJ groups, his Yahoo, his Pounced.org ad, his FA account that was only used to view art and never even commented, and his own LJ account. A lack of Googleable evidence that he claimed to be a babyfur is not evidence that he avoided it. Especially when his presense on most websites seems to be largely neglegable as a whole. It would appear that most of his activities online were either done under different usernames not known to most or that he used internet chats of some form which kept no records. However you can't say that he 'actively avoided applying the label to himself' based simply on the fact that ther's no references to him actively trying to apply the label. You are also not in a position to suppose what Alan would say if he could speak now on his own behalf, so any of your views in that reguard are irrelevent in this case. AshleyAshes 22:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As a long time friend of Alan's I can definitively say that he did now wear the babyfur label. While his interests were in babyfurs themselves it did not extend far beyond that. In the times I've spent time with him I never experienced any of the fore mentioned behaviors. What I am confused about is your stake in all of this. You seem very intent that it it well know that he was somehow a babyfur. Are you part of our community? After reading your posts and history on here I'm am convinced that you are little more than a troll that pays careful attention to stay inside the rules. Again I ask, what is your stake in this? What do you gain by somehow trying to force an association with the bayfur community and Alan?--Therealfoxcub 00:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is still sufficent information in the content to label him as a babyfur, especially as Babyfur is often used as an umbrella term, even as stated in the babyfur article. Additionally, my motiviations for edits is irrelevent, as we have babyfurs trying to edit this article not in the pursuit of correctness but political convenience shows that 'motivation' isn't necessarily a healthy thing for wiki articles. AshleyAshes 05:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient evidence? What sufficient evidence? Based on a pounced ad? That is hardly proof. Further the burden of proof is upon you to actually show any relation he allegedly has to the community. It is not my job to provide proof contrary to an allegation. If you are so hot to get him tagged as a babyfur then prove he is. Furthermore your motivation is absolutely relevant in the matter. You accuse me of politicking yet hide your motivations. All in all your actions and responces read very much like those of somene simply seeking a rise out of another. Again I will ask, what is your stake in this?--Therealfoxcub 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with GR's statement here. "Alan's pounced.org ad stated that he was looking for "Someone who can also take care of me from time to time. I also have a little side that I like to indulge at times. It would be wonderful to have someone who can also treat me well." This suggests to me that he was at least an occasional switch babyfur, to use MUCK terminology." As I stated above as well, there is no indication of him claiming to be a 'fursuiter' but no one is disputing his listed status as a fursuiter. He had a fursuit, he was a furry, he was thusly a fursuiter, weather he claimed the label or not. I believe he fits the criteria of a 'babyfur' as it is largely used within the fandom. Never before have I seen babyfurs make such an out effort to specify what is a babyfur or not. I beliueve that if babyfurs were having this discussion under any other circumstance, there would be babyfurs complaining about such harsh and strict definitions. Agian, I will not go into my motives, I am making a logical argument for the inclusion of facts and am operating within he rules, that is all that matters. AshleyAshes 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I dissagree with the existance off such an umbrella term. Just because someone likes diapers does not make them a babyfur. Under that argument I could allege that fursuiters are all into fursuit sex because there are some of them that are. I think clarification and dismissal of this umbrella term needs to happen.--Therealfoxcub 07:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be a issue for discussion on Talk:Babyfur, not Talk:Alan T. Panda. AshleyAshes 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys. Guys. Let's please cool down and avoid the personal implications and questionable motives and all of that troll crap.

The question was not "What can I say about you that will invalidate your opinions?" The question WAS "Is Alan a babyfur or not?" And I'm starting to think even that question is now irrelevant because there was never (and never will be) a dictionary defition for babyfur. I mean we could argue all year, but admit it, it's not worth it.

Here's an irrefutable fact: Alan has been associated with Babyfurs. Everyone involved in this debate up until now has acknowledged this fact. (If not, then what are you trying to defend or support?) It does not claim that Alan is a babyfur or not. It simply admits that some people think he is. The current revision states that Alan is 'a fursuiter, babyfur and "daddyfur/caretaker with a cub side".' I propose revising this to say:

a fursuiter who identifies himself as a "daddyfur/caretaker with a cub side" and who has been associated with Babyfurs.

Feel free to debate on this politely. For example, the association may be better suited for some section after the Contents of the article, rather than in the introductory paragraph. Thoughts? skippyfox 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I heard there was a klufuffel

Something about him claiming to run ac?