Talk:Kendricks Redtail

I see rather a lot of bullet-points. My understanding is that article text should be complete prose sentences in articles, in standard paragraph form. -- Sine 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reason for protection

This article is being subject to a bit of an edit war, so it has been anon-locked for the time being. Simba B 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call two vandal edits and reversions made over two days an edit war. I'd recommend un-protecting the page and simply reverting any irrelevant links. -- JaeSharp 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The edit war is between various people from Encylcopedia Dramatica and Kendricks Redtail who reverts their adding of a link to the Encyclopedia Dramatica biography on him. The odd thing is that most Wikifur biographies seem very happy to have links to the person's ED biography and sometimes they're even used in reference sections. Odder still is suddenly this article cannot have links to it's dramapedia bio. All the encyclopedia dramatica biographies are similar in offensiveness. Deafleas 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please cite a biographical entry on wikifur where encyclopedia dramatica is linked without exceptional note about the nature of its content or as a source of factual information as I can not find one. Personally I don't find ED to be a useful reference for verifiable facts about individuals -- especially in the case where such information is potentially defamatory. WikiFur, in general, has no problem with libelous information, assuming that we can provide evidence that we acted in good faith regarding investigation of the truth of said information for our defense (see Sibe for a good example). ED does not provide that level of proof and as we are not talking about ED directly, links to ED are irrelevant on this page and should be removed. -- JaeSharp 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"The odd thing is that most Wikifur biographies seem very happy to have links to the person's ED biography",... Whatever the case, the person's whose entry belongs to does not wish to have that link included, and whoever keeps reediting back in seems more interested in creating "Teh Drama" than offer valid alternate points of information.

Tl;dr version: Article's user does not want that ED link added to his entry Spirou 05:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought people couldn't "own" articles o_O --Sema JayHawk 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You can check through here and see the links. http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.tinyurl.com&namespace= The tinyurl are either to the "fursuit database" or to ED. Deafleas 14:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, what Spirou said. In general links to ED articles are not encouraged, becuase they do not attempt to give an balanced or attributed individual point of view, but a collective work that is deliberately slanted towards the emphasis of drama. That is what that site is all about. Usually it is more appropriate to reference the actual sources, rather than link to ED's editorializing.

If there is a link to ED on a WikiFur article, then there had better be a good reason for it, and WikiFur's regular contributors should agree with that reason. If not, the subject may remove it if they wish, since by definition most ED articles contain personal information. The fact that some people have not done so (yet) does not mean that they or others cannot. --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In the history of this article here the article's subject is removing links to the ED article about him several times and several people including a sysop here have reverted his removal. Wikifur sysop reverting removal of ED link. Deafleas 05:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds to me like there was a good reason and WikiFur's regular contributors agree with that reason. However, looking at the talk page, that reason is not explicitly stated - there is conversation about the ED article (including, for some confusing reason, requests to us to fix it), and some conversation which might suggest reasons, but nothing specific. The specified removal stated that it was because the site was down - which it was, at the time.

I do think it should not be a reference there, and that any stuff that relies on it as a reference should be separately sourced or removed, so I've done that. ED is not really suitable as a reference on anything but its own policies - it makes stuff up, and such stuff is kept if it is considered funny and enhancing the drama. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm...

The article lists him as an admin, but an account with that name is not registered. Equivamp^talk 03:31, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Bumping discussion. Equivamp^talk 11:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Like a few other of our earlier contributors, he has not logged in since we moved from Wikia, and hence his account is not registered here; they are transparently imported upon first login. --GreenReaper^(talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (EDT)

Exclusion request

The subject of this article has requested personal exclusion. If you wish to object to this request, please do so within 24 hours. --GreenReaper^(talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (EDT)