Talk:Fluffy - Revision history

Nitrol at 12:57, 14 January 2012

2012-01-14T12:57:32Z

Superbabysimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-16T11:20:28Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Superbabysimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-16T11:16:14Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Wildsimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-16T06:58:05Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Wildsimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-16T06:57:42Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Superbabysimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-15T12:06:43Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Wildsimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-14T23:47:38Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Superbabysimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-14T22:22:57Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Wildsimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-14T16:51:40Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

Wildsimba: /* Uhhm, okay. */

2011-04-14T16:48:37Z

‎Uhhm, okay.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 14 January 2012
Line 47:		Line 47:
	::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)		::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)
	:::::::Yes, I do remember that but it seems a general statement that we should discuss articles before making huge changes and that he wishes other articles ''too'' were given as much efforts as this has got - not saying that we should ''completely'' stop with this article. And again, I thought they locked this because these articles are open for editing to any anonymous person and people wouldn't do the discussing but just edited however they felt like. As in locked so that no one could actually ''edit'' this so that all the editors - including us - would sort out what to do with this article by discussing this on this talk page. See, there are more than one way to interpret the admin actions and words, so if they wished us to completely abandon this article and work on this only among the staff members, they should've literally said so. Also, shouldn't the "discuss huge changes before making them" apply to the staff too? And it's not really discussing if everyone who isn't part of the staff is forbid to throw suggestions and opinions on the matter even though there are tons of others involved in the project. As far as I know this staff isn't that unfair, which is also why I interpret "we" as all of us, that we users are allowed to discuss this article's future with the staff. Because they own the Wiki in general but not any specific article contributed to it, unless I'm horribly misunderstood the point of a Wiki. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 16 April 2011 (PDT)		:::::::Yes, I do remember that but it seems a general statement that we should discuss articles before making huge changes and that he wishes other articles ''too'' were given as much efforts as this has got - not saying that we should ''completely'' stop with this article. And again, I thought they locked this because these articles are open for editing to any anonymous person and people wouldn't do the discussing but just edited however they felt like. As in locked so that no one could actually ''edit'' this so that all the editors - including us - would sort out what to do with this article by discussing this on this talk page. See, there are more than one way to interpret the admin actions and words, so if they wished us to completely abandon this article and work on this only among the staff members, they should've literally said so. Also, shouldn't the "discuss huge changes before making them" apply to the staff too? And it's not really discussing if everyone who isn't part of the staff is forbid to throw suggestions and opinions on the matter even though there are tons of others involved in the project. As far as I know this staff isn't that unfair, which is also why I interpret "we" as all of us, that we users are allowed to discuss this article's future with the staff. Because they own the Wiki in general but not any specific article contributed to it, unless I'm horribly misunderstood the point of a Wiki. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 16 April 2011 (PDT)
		+
		+	== 6NA vs SP makers ==
		+	SP makers wasn't even heard about TLK:6NA ([http://www.animationsource.org/sites_content/balto/upload/fanproject/152111/weinstein_interview.pdf Interview with Phil Weinstein])
		+	<pre>
		+	Aniu: Well, in regards to The Lion King 2, how involved were you as far as
		+	production of the movie and, I guess, story-wise?
		+	Phil: For Lion King 2 , I was a storyboard artist, and I was—believe it or not, the
		+	movie went through a series of directors that were hired and fired in Lion King 2 .
		+	The very first directing/producing team that was on-board, I was actually part of the
		+	very original development group that was on that. So I was developing characters,
		+	and we were working on story scenarios. And one day they fired that director and
		+	writer team. And I stayed with Disney, but I moved on to some other director/video
		+	projects. And then a couple of years later, I came back to the project as a storyboard
		+	artist. And I ended up storyboarding a lot of songs, so I think—if I remember—I
		+	storyboarded or helped storyboard a lot of the songs. I can’t remember all of them,
		+	but that’s—Most of those direct-to-videos back then had one or two songs, and
		+	pretty much all of them from the Aladdin sequels on forward had them, even Lion
		+	King 2 .
		+	(...)
		+	Skul: Okay.
		+	Aniu: Are you familiar with Kopa, the original son of Simba and Nala? And if so, was
		+	there a reason you all opted not to put him in The Lion King 2?
		+	Phil: No…what was his name?
		+	Aniu: Apparently his name was Kopa, and it was—I forget exactly where the fan
		+	knowledge comes from, because I’m not—
		+	Skul: [interrupting] I can answer that. Kopa was the son of Simba and Nala in a
		+	series of books that were published immediately after The Lion King . And there were
		+	six books total, all of them 100-page kids books, but they all had Kopa in them.
		+	Phil: Wow. No, I wasn’t aware of that.
		+	Skul: Yeah. A bunch of people have been wondering why it was Kiara instead of
		+	Kopa in Lion King 2 . And, I guess not even you know the answer.
		+	Phil: No, you’re going to have to track down—gosh, I can’t even remember. Who was
		+	it…was it Darrell Rooney that directed Lion King 2 ? Is that right? I think he was the
		+	one who ended up taking it to the finish line.
		+	Aniu: Okay.
		+	[Note from Skul: Yes, Darrell Rooney was the director]
		+	Phil: So you’ll have to find him or one of the writers and ask them. They might know.
		+	Aniu: Okay. We’ll definitely have to track him down and ask that question
		+	eventually.</pre>
		+	[http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/ASimmons_email.png Talk about TLK:6NA with A Tale about Two Brothers author]
		+	-[[User:Nitrol\|Nitrol]] 04:57, 14 January 2012 (PST)

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 :::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)
 ::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --[[User:Wildsimba|Wildsimba]] 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)
-:::::::Yes, I do remember that but it seems a general statement that we should discuss articles before making huge changes and that he wishes other articles ''too'' were given as much efforts as this has got - not saying that we should ''completely'' stop with this article. And again, I thought they locked this because these articles are open for editing to any anonymous person and people wouldn't do the discussing but just edited however they felt like. As in locked so that no one could actually ''edit'' this so that all the editors - including us - would sort out what to do with this article by discussing this on this talk page. See, there are more than one way to interpret the admin actions and words, so if they wished us to completely abandon this article and work on this only among the staff members, they should've literally said so. Also, shouldn't the "discuss huge changes before making them" apply to the staff too? And it's not really discussing if everyone who isn't part of the staff is forbid to throw suggestions and opinions on the matter even though there are tons of others involved in the project. As far as I know this staff isn't that unfair, which is also why I interpret "we" as all of us, that we users are allowed to discuss this article's future with the staff. --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 16 April 2011 (PDT)
+:::::::Yes, I do remember that but it seems a general statement that we should discuss articles before making huge changes and that he wishes other articles ''too'' were given as much efforts as this has got - not saying that we should ''completely'' stop with this article. And again, I thought they locked this because these articles are open for editing to any anonymous person and people wouldn't do the discussing but just edited however they felt like. As in locked so that no one could actually ''edit'' this so that all the editors - including us - would sort out what to do with this article by discussing this on this talk page. See, there are more than one way to interpret the admin actions and words, so if they wished us to completely abandon this article and work on this only among the staff members, they should've literally said so. Also, shouldn't the "discuss huge changes before making them" apply to the staff too? And it's not really discussing if everyone who isn't part of the staff is forbid to throw suggestions and opinions on the matter even though there are tons of others involved in the project. As far as I know this staff isn't that unfair, which is also why I interpret "we" as all of us, that we users are allowed to discuss this article's future with the staff. Because they own the Wiki in general but not any specific article contributed to it, unless I'm horribly misunderstood the point of a Wiki. --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 16 April 2011 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:16, 16 April 2011
Line 46:		Line 46:
	:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)		:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)
	::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)		::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)
		+	:::::::Yes, I do remember that but it seems a general statement that we should discuss articles before making huge changes and that he wishes other articles ''too'' were given as much efforts as this has got - not saying that we should ''completely'' stop with this article. And again, I thought they locked this because these articles are open for editing to any anonymous person and people wouldn't do the discussing but just edited however they felt like. As in locked so that no one could actually ''edit'' this so that all the editors - including us - would sort out what to do with this article by discussing this on this talk page. See, there are more than one way to interpret the admin actions and words, so if they wished us to completely abandon this article and work on this only among the staff members, they should've literally said so. Also, shouldn't the "discuss huge changes before making them" apply to the staff too? And it's not really discussing if everyone who isn't part of the staff is forbid to throw suggestions and opinions on the matter even though there are tons of others involved in the project. As far as I know this staff isn't that unfair, which is also why I interpret "we" as all of us, that we users are allowed to discuss this article's future with the staff. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 16 April 2011 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:58, 16 April 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:

	:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)		:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)
−	::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce.	+	::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:57, 16 April 2011
Line 45:		Line 45:

	:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)		:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)
		+	::::::"''I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said''." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 15 April 2011
Line 42:		Line 42:
	:::Well, I thought that what The Walt Disney Company calls official (such as the official trailer of the sequel film) is what matters most in these articles and not what the fans think is official. As in I though these articles are supposed to base on official matters and facts and not fan point of views. Also, excuse me for misunderstanding that only admins are allowed to discuss this article's future. Obviously I am not trying nor able to edit this article - I was just throwing in suggestions and thoughts for the admins to consider. I'll shut up now then, if this is not what was supposed to be done. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)		:::Well, I thought that what The Walt Disney Company calls official (such as the official trailer of the sequel film) is what matters most in these articles and not what the fans think is official. As in I though these articles are supposed to base on official matters and facts and not fan point of views. Also, excuse me for misunderstanding that only admins are allowed to discuss this article's future. Obviously I am not trying nor able to edit this article - I was just throwing in suggestions and thoughts for the admins to consider. I'll shut up now then, if this is not what was supposed to be done. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)
	::::I wasn't saying that to ask you to shut up, I was just simply suggesting you not suggest anything currently, because for one, we don't want all our issues to continue to be conflicting. There's a lot of things in the Fluffy article that were never officially stated by the creators of the films, but are just assumptions that were your own. I'm just merely suggesting you let the admins do their job. They already stated in here exactly what they were wanting to do, and as far as I'm concerned, you should let them just do it without a fight. Whenever the article is open again (if it ever is), then you can start kicking up suggesting, but as for now, just let them get the issue sorted out. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 16:47, 14 April 2011 (PDT)		::::I wasn't saying that to ask you to shut up, I was just simply suggesting you not suggest anything currently, because for one, we don't want all our issues to continue to be conflicting. There's a lot of things in the Fluffy article that were never officially stated by the creators of the films, but are just assumptions that were your own. I'm just merely suggesting you let the admins do their job. They already stated in here exactly what they were wanting to do, and as far as I'm concerned, you should let them just do it without a fight. Whenever the article is open again (if it ever is), then you can start kicking up suggesting, but as for now, just let them get the issue sorted out. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 16:47, 14 April 2011 (PDT)
		+	:::::I was/am not trying to distract the admins from doing their job. As suggesting through misunderstanding is not fighting, it's just suggesting. They spoke of "we" but that could've meant MLK in general and not just the admins. And I thought they locked the article so that just anyone could not edit it until "we" (which I mistook for MLK in general) have sorted it out. Because as it is now, anyone - even non-registered members - are allowed to edit if an article isn't protected like this one is now, and there were trolling and privacy violating edits by registered members too. So excuse me for doing what I thought was my right (as in to throw suggestions.) And yes, I'm annoyed at the moment because if I did wrong by replying to this discussion started by the admins, I think it would've been the admins' place to poke me about it and not WildSimba's. Also, excuse me for saying but if the admins indeed have suddenly reserved all the rights to edit or even discuss the article's future, it kinda takes away from the point of a Wiki.
		+
		+	:::::If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 15 April 2011 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:47, 14 April 2011
Line 41:		Line 41:
	::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. oh, and hi Axx1000, even though I already knew you were the other admin here. :P --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)		::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. oh, and hi Axx1000, even though I already knew you were the other admin here. :P --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)
	:::Well, I thought that what The Walt Disney Company calls official (such as the official trailer of the sequel film) is what matters most in these articles and not what the fans think is official. As in I though these articles are supposed to base on official matters and facts and not fan point of views. Also, excuse me for misunderstanding that only admins are allowed to discuss this article's future. Obviously I am not trying nor able to edit this article - I was just throwing in suggestions and thoughts for the admins to consider. I'll shut up now then, if this is not what was supposed to be done. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)		:::Well, I thought that what The Walt Disney Company calls official (such as the official trailer of the sequel film) is what matters most in these articles and not what the fans think is official. As in I though these articles are supposed to base on official matters and facts and not fan point of views. Also, excuse me for misunderstanding that only admins are allowed to discuss this article's future. Obviously I am not trying nor able to edit this article - I was just throwing in suggestions and thoughts for the admins to consider. I'll shut up now then, if this is not what was supposed to be done. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)
		+	::::I wasn't saying that to ask you to shut up, I was just simply suggesting you not suggest anything currently, because for one, we don't want all our issues to continue to be conflicting. There's a lot of things in the Fluffy article that were never officially stated by the creators of the films, but are just assumptions that were your own. I'm just merely suggesting you let the admins do their job. They already stated in here exactly what they were wanting to do, and as far as I'm concerned, you should let them just do it without a fight. Whenever the article is open again (if it ever is), then you can start kicking up suggesting, but as for now, just let them get the issue sorted out. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 16:47, 14 April 2011 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 14 April 2011
Line 40:		Line 40:
	::I wouldn't remove ''everything'' below appearance. Unless you want this article to end up as a total stub. As there are more facts to Fluffy than just the canon. The ''Girl or boy?'' section might as well be removed as it seems trivial as it is mostly theorizing and whatever facts lurk in there do come up in the ''Who is Fluffy, really?'' section - and in that section as it currently reads, I don't see any guessing. I see nothing that isn't enough fact. Because every single bit in that section is factually true ''and'' can be verified by looking into online discussions, the Laserdisc release, the book series' covers, the end credits of the first movie (which don't have the books' authors included as in the books were not written by the film's makers), the sequel's end credits, the movies themselves... And it is also a solid fact there is said rumour about the sequel's production development and that it hasn't been proven official yet. And it is also a solid fact that Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity and that still some people think Fluffy is someone else. So, Axx1000, what exactly is guessing to you and not enough a fact about the ''Who Fluffy is, really?'' section? The only thing at the moment I see as sensible to remove from that section is the rumour bit as long as it indeed is just a rumour and isn't proven with official source evidence. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)		::I wouldn't remove ''everything'' below appearance. Unless you want this article to end up as a total stub. As there are more facts to Fluffy than just the canon. The ''Girl or boy?'' section might as well be removed as it seems trivial as it is mostly theorizing and whatever facts lurk in there do come up in the ''Who is Fluffy, really?'' section - and in that section as it currently reads, I don't see any guessing. I see nothing that isn't enough fact. Because every single bit in that section is factually true ''and'' can be verified by looking into online discussions, the Laserdisc release, the book series' covers, the end credits of the first movie (which don't have the books' authors included as in the books were not written by the film's makers), the sequel's end credits, the movies themselves... And it is also a solid fact there is said rumour about the sequel's production development and that it hasn't been proven official yet. And it is also a solid fact that Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity and that still some people think Fluffy is someone else. So, Axx1000, what exactly is guessing to you and not enough a fact about the ''Who Fluffy is, really?'' section? The only thing at the moment I see as sensible to remove from that section is the rumour bit as long as it indeed is just a rumour and isn't proven with official source evidence. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)
	::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. oh, and hi Axx1000, even though I already knew you were the other admin here. :P --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)		::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. oh, and hi Axx1000, even though I already knew you were the other admin here. :P --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)
		+	:::Well, I thought that what The Walt Disney Company calls official (such as the official trailer of the sequel film) is what matters most in these articles and not what the fans think is official. As in I though these articles are supposed to base on official matters and facts and not fan point of views. Also, excuse me for misunderstanding that only admins are allowed to discuss this article's future. Obviously I am not trying nor able to edit this article - I was just throwing in suggestions and thoughts for the admins to consider. I'll shut up now then, if this is not what was supposed to be done. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :I agree. I've locked it until we can sort this out. By the way everyone this is Axx1000, he is an administrator here. saayyyy hhiiii ~ [[User:Moka|<span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype', Georgia, sans-serif; color:#0a1529; font-weight:bold;">Moka</span>]] 23:41, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
 ::I wouldn't remove ''everything'' below appearance. Unless you want this article to end up as a total stub. As there are more facts to Fluffy than just the canon. The ''Girl or boy?'' section might as well be removed as it seems trivial as it is mostly theorizing and whatever facts lurk in there do come up in the ''Who is Fluffy, really?'' section - and in that section as it currently reads, I don't see any guessing. I see nothing that isn't enough fact. Because every single bit in that section is factually true ''and'' can be verified by looking into online discussions, the Laserdisc release, the book series' covers, the end credits of the first movie (which don't have the books' authors included as in the books were not written by the film's makers), the sequel's end credits, the movies themselves... And it is also a solid fact there is said rumour about the sequel's production development and that it hasn't been proven official yet. And it is also a solid fact that Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity and that still some people think Fluffy is someone else. So, Axx1000, what exactly is guessing to you and not enough a fact about the ''Who Fluffy is, really?'' section? The only thing at the moment I see as sensible to remove from that section is the rumour bit as long as it indeed is just a rumour and isn't proven with official source evidence. --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)
-::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. --[[User:Wildsimba|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)
+::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. oh, and hi Axx1000, even though I already knew you were the other admin here. :P --[[User:Wildsimba|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 14 April 2011
Line 39:		Line 39:
	:I agree. I've locked it until we can sort this out. By the way everyone this is Axx1000, he is an administrator here. saayyyy hhiiii ~ [[User:Moka\|<span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype', Georgia, sans-serif; color:#0a1529; font-weight:bold;">Moka</span>]] 23:41, 13 April 2011 (PDT)		:I agree. I've locked it until we can sort this out. By the way everyone this is Axx1000, he is an administrator here. saayyyy hhiiii ~ [[User:Moka\|<span style="font-family:'Palatino Linotype', Georgia, sans-serif; color:#0a1529; font-weight:bold;">Moka</span>]] 23:41, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
	::I wouldn't remove ''everything'' below appearance. Unless you want this article to end up as a total stub. As there are more facts to Fluffy than just the canon. The ''Girl or boy?'' section might as well be removed as it seems trivial as it is mostly theorizing and whatever facts lurk in there do come up in the ''Who is Fluffy, really?'' section - and in that section as it currently reads, I don't see any guessing. I see nothing that isn't enough fact. Because every single bit in that section is factually true ''and'' can be verified by looking into online discussions, the Laserdisc release, the book series' covers, the end credits of the first movie (which don't have the books' authors included as in the books were not written by the film's makers), the sequel's end credits, the movies themselves... And it is also a solid fact there is said rumour about the sequel's production development and that it hasn't been proven official yet. And it is also a solid fact that Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity and that still some people think Fluffy is someone else. So, Axx1000, what exactly is guessing to you and not enough a fact about the ''Who Fluffy is, really?'' section? The only thing at the moment I see as sensible to remove from that section is the rumour bit as long as it indeed is just a rumour and isn't proven with official source evidence. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)		::I wouldn't remove ''everything'' below appearance. Unless you want this article to end up as a total stub. As there are more facts to Fluffy than just the canon. The ''Girl or boy?'' section might as well be removed as it seems trivial as it is mostly theorizing and whatever facts lurk in there do come up in the ''Who is Fluffy, really?'' section - and in that section as it currently reads, I don't see any guessing. I see nothing that isn't enough fact. Because every single bit in that section is factually true ''and'' can be verified by looking into online discussions, the Laserdisc release, the book series' covers, the end credits of the first movie (which don't have the books' authors included as in the books were not written by the film's makers), the sequel's end credits, the movies themselves... And it is also a solid fact there is said rumour about the sequel's production development and that it hasn't been proven official yet. And it is also a solid fact that Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity and that still some people think Fluffy is someone else. So, Axx1000, what exactly is guessing to you and not enough a fact about the ''Who Fluffy is, really?'' section? The only thing at the moment I see as sensible to remove from that section is the rumour bit as long as it indeed is just a rumour and isn't proven with official source evidence. --[[User:Superbabysimba\|Superbabysimba]] 14 April 2011 (PDT)
		+	::Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. --[[User:Wildsimba\|Wildsimba]] 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)