Talk:Lance Rund

FC 2004 Art Auction

This section has apparently been removed as it contains "personal financial information". I feel that it should be restored. The amount of Mr Rund's winning bid on the picture in question is a matter of public record - indeed, I was there, I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears. It's not as if the article mentioned the source of Mr Rund's money, or anything similar which might reasonably be considered "personal" or "confidential". Tevildo 10:00, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. If it happens in a public place, with everyone's identity obvious, then there is no basis for removing it. Additionally, it is notable as being the singularly largest bid ever in an art auction at a furry convention, so it deserves to be recorded.--Duncan da Husky 12:01, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I thought this, but decided to leave it for a while because I wrote it. Thanks for the validation. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 13:56, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, an account of the FC 2004 record winning bid ought to be included somewhere in WikiFur (possibly in the entry for FC or Goldenwolf), even if the identity of the winning bidder is not included. --mwalimu 21:38, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Blanking

Lance contacted me on IRC just now. He wishes the removal of this information from the entire Wiki. He believes the information is a matter of personal privacy, and that he should have the right to demand its removal, because it is apparently being used as an excuse to pirate his work. He also claims that he is being stalked, though he did not say by whom. I have informed him of our policy, and have blanked his page in accordance with it - in regards to the general availability of that informatinon, he is talking to Wikicities. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:58, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion on this topic is at Talk:Further Confusion. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:21, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Why are you explicitly pointing to a topic in which the point of contention is personally identifiable information? Why does THIS blanked topic have such an extensive call-attention-to-it flag? Is this an act of reprisal?

As explained on the page I linked to, I feel people who were watching this topic have a right to know what was going on, as when you removed it they disagreed with that. Not everyone looks at recent changes to see what's happening with topics they're involved in.

If you are referring to the green template about the blanking of the article, all blanked topics about people have the tag. It is an explanation to the users who visit the page. Normally, this sort of thing (blanking and permanent protection of non-critical pages) isn't allowed at all on Wikicities, because part of the ethos is that pages should remain freely-ediable - the fact that we explain it is one reason why our hosts allow it in the first place. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:40, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Kinda sums up furry drama

What's the point of an encyclopedia with holes in it?

If it's going to be blanked at least mirror the information contained in Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Rund

This discussion was continued in comments to this LiveJournal post. --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)