User talk:Kotra/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kotra. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hi there, Kotra, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your recent additions - perhaps you would be interested in helping out at WikiFur as well? As you know, we already have articles about Talzhemir, and Furcadia and Dr. Cat/Felorin, but we could always do with more, and right now there's nothing on Dragon's Eye Productions.

Also . . .

Welcome!

Hello, Kotra/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --GreenReaper 08:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome! I'm interested in the furry fandom and I have a lot of respect for WikiFur, but at the moment I don't have anything to contribute that I feel wouldn't be more appropriate in Wikipedia. in fact, I feel that most of the articles in WikiFur would be acceptable and even welcome in Wikipedia. therefore, in my ignorance, I don't see the advantage of contributing to WikiFur, unless it serves to create a division (or recognize the already existing division) between the furry fandom and the rest of society.

on further consideration, I recognize that WikiFur allows more POV (especially positive POV) on a variety of issues than Wikipedia, which aspires to strict NPOV. in a sense, this POV is an advantage, because it provides a balance for other POV Wikicities, like Encyclopedia Dramatica.

regardless, currently I would rather contribute exclusively to Wikipedia, because it's more accessible and universal to all viewpoints. but if I ever would like to contribute something that would be more appropriate in WikiFur, I won't hesitate to take you up on your invitation.

anyways, you're welcome to use the Dragon's Eye Productions article for WikiFur. I don't know how I would make it any different for WikiFur, nor do I know what are the conventions for duplicating articles from one wiki to the other. I am new to this, after all! 8/

again, thanks for the welcome and the invitation! and keep up the good work! --kotra 11:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! To explain - the POV thing is actually not the objective. While we do not totally require NPOV, most WikiFur articles tend towards that. I honestly do not want WikiFur to be some kind of self-serving "furries are cool" site. That would hurt our credibility, and rightly so. :-)

The main reason for WikiFur to exist is because Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia. It has a fairly strict requirement of verifiability - which is often taken to mean notability. There are certain people who take the stance that information that is not notable is not welcome on Wikipedia, and this means that not everything will survive addition here.

I would also like to think that many articles in WikiFur would be welcome at Wikipedia, and indeed I suspect that several of our better articles will make their way to Wikipedia at some point. However, what I strongly suspect would happen from past experience is that some of these articles would be be listed on articles for deletion, would be trimmed of "useless" information, and generally made less useful to us becauae most of the information they contained was only of use to a small proportion of the world - i.e. furry fans. Many of our articles are biographies of people who are not particularly notable, and while this information is of interest to us, it would be removed out of hand from Wikipedia.

Another example of this situation can be seen at the Creatures Wiki. Over 2000 articles, on a single game. Wikipedia has about 12, and it would perhaps be hard to justify much more than that. Out of the entire world, only a few people care about the history of Ron, or Steerpike's many wonderful creations. Does that there shouldn't be an article about them? No, but it does mean it may not be suitable for Wikipedia.

Ultimately, it's a depth thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it's not a complete reference to all things furry - it just gives the highlights. WikiFur is intended to be that reference. It also happens to be far easier to build a large number of articles about the furry fandom if you can point at a single website and say "edit this site" rather than "edit this group of pages on Wikipedia". *grin*

There is more information here and here. I hope this helps you understand why there are two sites rather than one. :-) GreenReaper 01:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying! personally I feel that if an article is useful for someone, then it deserves being included on Wikipedia. but, I know there are others on Wikipedia who feel otherwise, and I don't blame you not wanting to take them on and potentially instigate edit wars. and, as I continue to browse WikiFur, I've noticed a lot of articles that would be changed greatly if they were put on Wikipedia, and that may not always be a good thing. my opinion now is that WikiFur is sort of a reflection of the knowledge of the furry community, and I see strains of its collective personality in the articles. Wikipedia has its own personality (or lack of personality), which is not always better, so I understand the desire to keep WikiFur separate (but linked). and, as you say, WikiFur is more specialized than some people want Wikipedia to be. --kotra 02:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the intention - a reflection of furry fandom knowledge, with a twist. Separate, but linked is a good doctrine to follow. We don't want to be just another Wikipedia - after all, where would the fun be in that? ;-)

Best wishes to you. I hope you have fun with your future wiki editing, wherever it is! GreenReaper 07:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Talzhemir listed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Talzhemir, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talzhemir. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the article to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

++Lar: t/c 17:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know! -kotra 08:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

You stated yourself very well at the Lolicon talk page. Joey Q. McCartney 10:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks! Too bad that these same ideas keep needing to be discussed over and over again... -kotra 10:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kemono

Hi. I noticed you put some of the categories back on Kemono. I deleted it, based on the #3 guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines, about an article being in a category AND its subcategory. Category:Kemono is a category underneath Category:Anime and manga terminology, so I thought it applied directly. But, I just checked Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories　and　subcategories for another reference, and saw that it is ok if the article and the category have the same name. So, sorry for taking that one off.

Also, (based on the picture), the terminology/style seems to go back farther than just pop culture manga. I didn't notice that aspect earlier, so Category:Japanese visual arts may be appropriate too. Unfortunately, the Japanese wikipedia translation ja:ケモノ and ja:獣　didn't have any further details. Do you know anything about that? I think that sort of information would make a welcome addition to the article, and reduce the chances of someone else coming in and doing the same thing as me. Neier 13:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ja:ケモノ and ja:獣 aren't much help in terms of the history of kemono. ja:ケモノ is practically a stub though, so that doesn't mean that there isn't any history of kemono before modern times, it just means that the article doesn't mention it. After a little research, I've found that kemono does have, at the very least, some roots in medieval Japanese art, although it probably wasn't called called 'kemono' back then. For example, Choujuugiga (or Choju-giga), from about the 1130s, is an example of anthropomorphic animals in medieval Japanese paintings (description on this page, large image here). Frederik L. Schodt's books about the history of manga, Manga! Manga! The World Of Japanese Comics and Dreamland Japan, mention kemono a few times, and are probably one of the few authoritative sources that mention kemono (in English, that is). I'm not entirely sure about that though, it's been a long time since I've read them. I'll check them out from the library again and see what I can find.

As for Category:Japanese visual arts, I agree that it would be redundant unless kemono exists in other visual arts besides anime and manga. I'll try to figure that out, but in the meantime I'll ask at Talk:Kemono, maybe someone already knows. -kotra 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Paulik04a.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Paulik04a.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one who tagged it as unsourced. I also only cropped the image, I didn't upload it the first time. You're better off talking to User:Tillama, who was the original uploader. Though you're a bot, so you'll probably never read this. -kotra 06:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My signature

I guess it is a bit long. It displays very nicely in Safari, however I just realized that it doesn't work well in other browsers. I'll do something about it. —WAvegetarian 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) (better?)

== The second image ==

According to you a pornographic image in a web article from a pornographic actor/actress is offensive...I beg to differ, not only because of the naturality of human nakedness (which is indeed inherent to its nature) but as a characteristic of the work he/she does. If a picture of Picasso painting The Dream can be posted in the article "Pablo Picasso" then censoring nakedness in an article dealing with pornography is absolutely contradictory. Wikipedia is a site that should depict human nature and censoring human nature is absurd. I think however, that the articles that show nakedness should be particularly identified.--Espazolano 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that nakedness is natural and shouldn't be demonized as it is, but most Wikipedia readers (and society in general) seem to disagree. I think the difference between artistic nudity in Wikipedia and pornographic nudity in Wikipedia is context. Logically, I understand there is no significant difference, that nudity is nudity, but the perception still exists that if it's in porn, nudity is sexual (and even offensive for some). That's why I think we should respect society's perceptions, even if we personally don't agree with them.

My real issue with having a naked image on an article like Christian Taylor, though, is that someone just typing in the guy's name (possibly looking for someone else) will get a picture of a naked guy in their face when they didn't expect it. It could cause problems at work, or if your wife or girlfriend is looking over your shoulder (heh). Perhaps an article name like Christian Taylor (porn star) would help for this sort of thing. Just an idle thought. Another option I've seen used on Wikipedia is to move an offensive image "below the fold", i.e. down the page so one would have to scroll to see it, after having read what the article was about. But in this case the article isn't nearly long enough, so that wouldn't work. -kotra 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I found another Christian Taylor....a writer for TV shows like LOST...So now there is a disambiguation page that differenciates the porn star from the writer. I haven't posted the old image though because I can't find the WARNING that people locate on top of pornographic articles--Espazolano 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, although you might want to add a space between "Christian Taylor" and "(porn star)". That's how it's usually done. Also in the future when you change the name of an article it's better to use the "Move" tab at the top, because it transfers the history as well. As for a templete warning for objectionable content, I looked too, and I don't think there is one. Keep in mind though that there already is a good image there, so it doesn't really need a second image (so consequently, a second image might not qualify as Fair Use because one of the conditions is that it can't be illustrated with another image). So if you re-add the naked picture, you should remove the first image.

Since you've changed the article name, the naked picture might be okay if you think it's better, but people still might dispute it. -kotra 07:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mightywayne here

Glad you think I had no original research behind my statement. Perhaps if you asked Felorin himself, he could tell you the validity of it. Just because nothing hits the mainstream Furcadia where you sit your character, that you do not know about, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you want a verifiable resource, why don't you contact me? I'll be more than happy to show you my collection of proof, and if you'd like, I can delete a test character you've made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightywayne (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, something simply being true isn't enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We have a policy of verifiability, which basically means that all statements that aren't common knowledge must be referenced by a reliable and reputable source. This usually means something that is published, for example in a newspaper, scientific journal, or occasionally a website. Your statements, while possibly true, do not have any references, so it's impossible for readers to know that they're true or not.

I was saying your statements were original research, because they weren't previously published by a reputable source. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, so I removed it.

But if you want to include your information in an article about Furcadia, you might try WikiFur's Furcadia article. They're a bit more lax over there. -kotra 22:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: but don't be surprised if they remove it there, too. -kotra 22:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloane deletions

Hey, I replied to your comment on Talk:MMOSG and agree in that particular case. I need your help because I have found myself in a sort of quandary regarding what to do about one of User:Sloane's deletions. He is saying the Hogwarts Live article doesn't meet the criteria for an encyclopedic article. My issue is I think that it's more notable than many articles on this site, and I know that people have found it useful, but I'm the owner of the website (and obviously biased), and I would appreciate a more objective opinion as to whether or not it should be deleted. Your comments on the MMOSG article have made me think that maybe the HL article is still worthy of a Wikipedia entry because there is a small group of at least 6,000 people who would probably find the information on that page of interest. Thank you for reading my request. --Ariad o ss 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sloane seems to be trying to delete anything that's even remotely obscure, which is a personal policy I disagree with. Simply because one person does not find a subject notable does not mean an article on the subject isn't useful. The only good that comes of these nominations for deletion is that it sometimes motivates people to clean up articles and find references that they may not care enough to find otherwise. But in response to your request, I took a look at the Hogwarts Live article and its deletion page and was surprised that it would be considered fair game for deletion. I expressed my views there, and I don't think that the deletion is likely to go through (not so much because of my comments, but because so many had already expressed their desire to keep it). Anyway, thanks for drawing my attention to it! -kotra 10:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your support, I've been paying a lot more attention to the articles proposed for deletion lately, and will be saving copies of them over on another Wiki [1] I started just in case they do get deleted. --Ariad o ss 18:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'd also look for any Harry Potter wikis, there probably is one that you could add it to. -kotra 19:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr K

I have to say that I regret that this article has obviously become a source of frustration for you. You clearly have strong convictions and good intentions, so that I really found myself wanting to agree with you rather than the users taking contrary positions. While I find myself disagreeing with you at the moment, I did want to applaud your passion and encourage you not to get discouraged. On a related note, if you have confirmation or more information on the need/desire for privacy, I, for one, am certainly keeping an open mind. Qball6 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your words. Although I still believe that the article can't conform to Wikipedia policy, the issue is very complicated and I'm unlikely to be able to convince anyone. Thank you for your well-presented comments on the AfD as well. -kotra 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)