Talk:Cigarskunk

Moved comment from main page. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He wrote this all himself, as you can tell by the selfsucking way it sounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.190.5 (talk • contribs) .

The animated gif seems a little self-indulgent. Why another person re-uploaded the same exact file over it hours later I have no idea. Tretonin 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

THEN EDIT IT. he can write his own article, before you complain, maybe do a little rescearch, maybe he didn't write it even, try checking. but don't flip out. heh heh ^. .^ - cchristian talk

Editing it is rather pointless when any edits, even just removal of the self-aggrandizing statements, is reversed within minutes. I'm surprised the citation requests have lasted this long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.180.158 (talk • contribs) .

Proposition: Rewrite to NPOV status (Vote)

Request of votes: Rewrite of article down to NPOV status.

I can't find nothing to back any of the "citation needed" tags (Delete that, one [Plush-She],) and, just IMHO, this reads like a giant "fluff" piece. Should it, for the moment, be rewritten to eliminate the POV angle, or continue to try to reference it?. This is just a request of opinions, not representing the general view of the Wiki itself:

Rewrite to NPOV Spirou 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote Aye.

I'm not sure that any vote is needed here. A neutral point of view is required for WikiFur articles in the main namespace. Besides, this doesn't seem to be about neutrality, but a lack of references/a surfeit of puffery. We don't generally require references, but if there is enough reason for a statement to be considered dubious and removed by others, then it is up to the person who puts it back in to provide stronger proof of it, otherwise it will probably be removed again. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion request

The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion from WikiFur. I intend to perform this exclusion within 24 hours, unless good reasons are given to preclude this action. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the exclusion, strictly because of the controversial action which placed the guy in other blogs (and the relevant separate article). Plus, someone will manage to slip some information about him into the Furrygate article anyway, so what's the point of excluding the article if it is linked to by another article?

Maybe if it was an isolated article that wasn't linked to by other articles, then sure, I wouldn't protest the exclusion (in fact, this is the first time I've protested an exclusion). But someone may want to look in this article if it is linked by another full article (which it is). So no, no exclusion of this article (disclaimer: only found out about the controversy after reading the WikiFur article). --RayneVanDunem 20:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He accused a user on FA of using his Grandfathers Holocaust experience as a way to gain political points.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2305289/

and he harassed WWII vets on a misguided quest to prove President Obama's Grandfather lied about being in WWII.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9628.html

http://www.first-draft.com/2008/05/some-people-jus.html

I think people need to know what kind of douche bag this guy really is. When you do things like that, you deserve to be ridiculed. --Sniff Heinkel

"I think people need to know what kind of douc(h)ebag this guy really is. When you do things like that you deserve to be ridiculed". Negative. No matter how you fill about somebody on article here, Wikifur is not the forum or place for personal attacks or incendiary comments. Please take to email - Spirou 21:39, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

"No matter how you f(ee)l about somebody on article here, Wikifur is not the forum or place for personal attacks or incendiary comments". See I can do that as well. In any case the mods on Wikifur certainly are more tolerant than me. I believe in Cause & Effect. What if it was Vietnam Vets he went after? You think he'd still be flapping his jaw? I seriously doubt it. There come a point where you say "Ok you crossed the line" and he has. --Sniff Heinkel

Wikifur, Again, is not the venue for this kind of one sided behavior. Please abstain from doing so."In any case the mods on Wikifur certainly are more tolerant than me", no, we just try to keep a neutral stance on any article submitted, period - Spirou 23:42, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

"We try to take a neutral stance on any article submitted..." Wrong. WikiFur has no NPOV rules, much to my chagrin. While I agree with you, this statement is inaccurate. Lately I've been realizing this site is more about furries that "OMG LYKE STEAL MAH ART!" than it is about anthropomorphic animals. I began to realize this when I learned that there was no article on Lola Bunny. Equivamp 08:53, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

WikiFur:Policies and guidelines states that WikiFur aims to hold a neutral point of view. Whether we actually reach that in all cases is questionable, but it is the goal. But this is getting rather off the topic. Sniff, if you want to ridicule someone, do it on your LiveJournal, not here. --GreenReaper^(talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

I like how on http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Watch_Your_Step the article doesn't say anything at all about what Bryan and his goon squad actually did. Its simply says it was a "critical" site. I bet if I edited it and told the entire story it would get reverted. See this is exactly what I am talking about. Why protect someone who makes the fandom look bad? --Sniff Heinkel

Um, to have a neutral point of view? I know if you wrote harsh things about anyone, I'd revert it the second I saw it. And whether or not they "made the fandom look bad" is debatable. Personally I think you're doing a dandy job of that yourself. --Equivamp 19:38, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Hey I don't run around harassing people. I didn't make a site with a hate list of people I never even talked to loaded with ridiculous accusations I couldn't prove. About 77 percent of the stuff you read about me online is bullshit. But I guess 15 year old furs just take what they read at face value, huh? --Sniff Heinkel

What? I've never read about you anywhere else but here. And my age has nothing to do with anything, and I'm quite surprised you bothered to bring it up. Equivamp 20:11, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

How could you read anything about me here when I had my article blanked? And your age has everything to do with it. I was in this fandom before you were even born. --Sniff Heinkel

I read about you here, in this discussion. And being in the fandom longer doesn't make you a better furry, it just means you were born first, which, again, is not relevant. Equivamp 20:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"I read about you here, in this discussion". And your point? Last time I checked it was quite all right to dislike someone who belittled a person for having a relative who was in the Holocaust. "And being in the fandom longer doesn't make you a better furry, it just means you were born first, which, again, is not relevant." No it doesn't make me better than you. It makes me more knowledgeable about the fandom. I joined the fandom back in 1993. When did you join? 3-5 years ago? I'd say that makes my point relevant.--Sniff Heinkel

"the last time I checked it was quite all right to dislike someone who belittled a person for having a relative who was in the Holocaust". That's not what this discussion is about. Are you just saying whatever pops into your head? "It makes me more knowledgable about the fandom." Says who? I've met furries who have ben in the fandom longer than I have been alive, that are only in it for the fetish aspects as far as I can see, that didn't even know what the word yiff meant. Equivamp 20:39, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

That's not what this discussion is about. Are you just saying whatever pops into your head?

• Actually it is. Cigarskunk is the one who said it: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2305289/
• He also persecuted a WW2 vet: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/392426/

I actually meant the discussion he started after GreenReaper's last post, but I didn't realize this either. Equivamp 22:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

"Says who? I've met furries who have ben in the fandom longer than I have been alive, that are only in it for the fetish aspects as far as I can see, that didn't even know what the word yiff meant." Did you know when the fandom was originally created it wasn't even called "Furry Fandom"? It was called "Anthropomorphics" It also had nothing to do with sex. --Sniff Heinkel

Yes, I did in fact know this. You think I would become so involved in something if I didn't know even the basic history of it? I'm not interested in joining fetish-based fandoms, so if that's what I thought it was, why would I allow myself into it? Equivamp

Just checking. Believe it or not a lot of the newer members of the fandom don't know the history.--Sniff Heinkel

Well, I might be new, but I am far from uneducated; much of my time is spent reading about it, here and elsewhere. Equivamp 20:56, 13 May 2011 (EDT)