User talk:FangedFaerie

Welcome

Hello, FangedFaerie! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Re: Adoption

I'll be happy to adopt you. If you would like me to write a little "wiki course" for you, I'll get on it on soon as possible. Otherwise, basically if you have any questions about anything, feel free to ask me and I should answer within a few hours. Thanks for picking me! :) Thingg^⊕^⊗ 02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletion

Yeah. Sometimes, there just isn't enough info out there on a subject. I've been working on some articles relating to islands in the Bering Sea, and I've run into the same problem of very little info several times. btw, if you want the second article deleted, you should create an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion by clicking the red link in the tag on that page. (here it is so you don't have to go to that page: red link) If you don't know how to list an article for deletion, instructions are located here. It looks like someone else already listed it for deletion here. Regards. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue

Yo, fantastic work on Thomas Muthee, it's always great to see a worthy article rescued. Keep it up! the skomorokh 13:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please double check those sources

"October 2005, during which he prayed over Sarah Palin, who was mayor of Wasilla at the time" seems to conflict very much with the Sarah Palin article which state she was mayor 1996-2002. Other than that your version seems fine to me. Hobartimus (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will change. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palin Pic

Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: [[1]]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I read that you are new at Wikipedia. I am also new, and my first article was creating Wasilla Assembly of God, and on Wasilla Bible Church and David Brickner. All of them were instantly deleted, and there was a huge piling on by many experienced Wiki people at once using tehcnicalites to delete all of the articles. A tactic was to have multiple people make false acusations against me in such a volume that other people would see these and then ignore anything I wrote. So I had to learn pretty quickly. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I am a mathematician, so not the best at a lot of things, but feel free to ask. One thing I learned is that to leave messages for someone, edit their talk page and at the very top put two' of these "{", then the word "talkback", then a striaght up and down line "|", then your name "FangedFaerie", "another two of these "}", all with no spaces. This alerts the person that they have a message on your talk page. I left you one to cut and paste at the top of your page, and it should create an alert for you to look for this message. Does "fanged" refer to wolves, like those hunted in Alaska from the air? OK, Im off to read the Muthee article you wrote. Tautologist (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the info! And the screenname has a long history, but I find it easiest to say, Think miniature gargoyle. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Muthee

I wanted to drop you a note off talk-page and reiterate that I don't think you've done anything wrong. I think you've developed a well-sourced article that doesn't take fantastic insinuations at face value, but reports them critically. Other participants have not shown that circumspection, and that has prompted the dispute that you see at Wasilla Assembly of God. The fact that you can take a contentious topic and do that with less than two weeks of effort on Wikipedia is a credit to your impartiality--many people who join Wikipedia to work on controversial topics are politely termed "POV pushers"--partisans, in other words.

I see you have obtained a mentor. That's always a good first step. One piece of advice: do find an uncontroversial article or two to which you can contribute. It's a much less stressful part of Wikipedia editorship, and one that every editor should kick back and enjoy. Cheers! Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Sarah Smart; ¡Hola!; Sarah Taylor (personality); Life's Blood; List of U.S. state fish; Jane Kramer; Joris-Karl Huysmans; Greater Hartford; Sarah Osman; Greater New Haven; Tana River District; JoJo's Bizarre Adventure; Crystal ball; New Britain, Connecticut; Universal Soldier (1971 film); Litchfield Hills; List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones; Space tourism; Sarah-Jane Hutt

Cleanup: Sarah Macmillan; Jenna Russell; Psychedelic rock
Merge: Meta Comment; Ufology; Marion Jane Turnbull
Add Sources: Romanesque architecture; Another Sunny Day; Dark Avenger
Wikify: Brian Yale; Beverly, Chicago; Captain Action
Expand: Sarah McElcheran; Sarah Johnson (poet); Southwestern United States

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on John McCain

No worries. I was pretty appalled when the rollback results came up and I saw what I'd inadvertently reinstated. -- Zsero (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2008

Hi, FangedFaerie, I'm having difficulty with a user pertaining to this article. Requesting your help, thank you, EagleScout18 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you good Faerie :) EagleScout18 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader

I just listed the source of the interview as the Houston radio station, I didn't touch the number, Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO problem about the numbers. But when they are official, let's put the proper percentage in, as there 1 is nearly twice .54. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader's use of the term "Uncle Tom"

What brought national attention to Nader's criticism of Obama on election night was not the criticism itself, that Obama serves corporate interests. Nader made that charge repeatedly in the election campagin. What brought so much attention to Nader's comments that night was his callous use of the term "Uncle Tom." Therefore, I think we should restore the "Nader used the term Uncle Tom when questioning the kind of presidency Barack Obama will engage in" that you removed. It really was extraordinary for a major presidential candidate to use this perjorative term which is so offensive to African-Americans. The FOX news asshole couldn't help but seize on it. Your edits make it sound as if he was the callous one, not Nader. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that my edits removed any context. Why is it necessary to say how often the interviewer mention "Uncle Tom"? 71.139.23.95 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my Talk page, "I oppose repeated mention of the wikilinked "Uncle Tom" term, and would prefer to keep the info simple and reflective of sources. Regards." We agree. I, too, think it should be simple and mindful of sources. Warm regards. 71.139.23.95 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Love

Great work! EagleScout18 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That whole 3RR issue

Thanks for the AIV report, but these wasn't a vandal case. In the future, 3RR might be a better choice. Oh, and if you're interested, see this on how I'm handling the issue. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader Presidential Campaigns, 2008

Hello User:FangedFaerie!

The reason I'm including the factual data, i.e., number of times Mr. Smith used the term "Uncle Tom" during the interview, is because I believe it establishes the weight of what the controversy is about as well as the overall tone of the interview. I believe it is important. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you for ongoing excellence! EagleScout18 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. If we located a notable, objective source with that information, perhaps that would be better. Also, I am pretty happy with the current version. I think it's the most WP:NPOV we've had so far. Thank you! EagleScout18 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: videos

Well, a video is more ambiguous than written material and thus can be more easily interpreted in different ways by different people. It is for this reason that using videos to cite potentially contentious material is generally discouraged unless other, third party sources have drawn the same conclusion from the material. As to whether there is a specific policy outlining this, I'm not sure that there's a specific place that spells it out, but this section of the BLP policy would probably apply. Does that answer your question? Thingg^⊕^⊗ 16:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.... I can't really think of a better way to answer that... You know, you could try asking User:SandyGeorgia about that one. She's the director of WP:FAC and she knows a lot more about hat policy than I do. Thingg^⊕^⊗ 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Palin interviews

I think that we should try to avoid succumbing to WP:Recentism. I was thinking of suggesting a moratorium on adding any material from an article less than 2 weeks old. While before the election it was important in the interest of fairness to reflect recent coverage as much as possible, there is now more time to "get it right", to wait and see how the coverage plays out before attempting to reflect it here. So, my suggestion is to hold off on the new interviews.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Bailon

75.89.239.16 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)I'm not sure how this whole hierarchy thing on Wikipedia goes so I just picked someone at random that has commented on Mrschimpf talk page. Could you take a look at the discussion thread of the Adrienne Bailon article and give your thoughts. This guy is constantly deleting conversations from it stating that it has no relevance then when proof is provided he gives some other excuse. This guy has constantly been acting like he has some sort of agenda on that article and quite frankly it's rather annoying. It was in a discussion thread because I felt it merit discussion yet this guy wants to act like an one man dictatorship trying to filter what can or cannot be discussion...especially when sources to the comments have been provided.[reply]

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Requesting you help

You've been very helpful in the past. I seem to be dealing with WP:BITE, among other things. I've been reported to ANI because of a problem formatting the RfC template, if you can believe, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JRH95_and_also_User:EagleScout18. Could you please assist? Thanks in advance, EagleScout18 (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thomas Muthee/GA1

FF, are you still around? Collect and I could use help with the GA for Thomas Muthee--you've done a lot more work on the ministry refs than either of us. Please drop by and provide input if you can! Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for popping in to provide an opinion... you want me to just go ahead and make those changes? We were kind of waiting for you to. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Manson

(I wrote the first version of this before I read the note you left on my talk page, so I apologize if the tone of that version was brusque.) I'm really not so keen on conducting a "discussion" over edit summaries on this article. It has been developed over a long period of time by a group of editors who have hammered out multiple issues and wording, sometimes congenially, sometimes not. However, eventually we came to work on it by consensus. This article is extremely well-sourced and supported. There is little content on it of which I'm award that isn't solidly supported by reliable and verifiable sourcing. In any case, it is much more conducive to productive work to make comments on the talk page rather than an edit summary. I'm not so much working on the article now as I'm watching to ensure meaning isn't changed by editors, who have certainly inserted, for the lack of a better word, crap into it. The sole reason it isn't a good article was because they wanted the size to be cut down and we just couldn't bring ourselves to cut out parts of it, or even to know what should be cut. So we decided to keep it detailed and comprehensive and not sacrifice content for an assessment level.

The source for the particular wording that included "annoyed" was taken directly from witness statements. There's nothing in what was worded that said Manson's being annoyed by Shea's biracial marriage was the motivation for his murder. It says he was annoyed by the marriage, believed Shea was trying to get them thrown off the ranch, and that he possibly knew about the Tate/LaBianca murders. That is qualitatively different than murder because he was annoyed at a marriage. However, since the Tate murders occurred for much less reason that a direct grudge against the victims, it's a stretch to try and logically comment on motives for Shea's murder. The wording you inserted, "Manson may have also been offended that the white Shea had married a black woman" is a speculative phrase and not what the source says. I'd like to discuss such changes if I disagree with them. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those it may concern, the sequence of events was this: I edited the article. Wildhartlivie reversed some of my edits, and in the summary seemed upset about them. I then commented on his talk page, intending to extend an olive branch. He then pointed me toward the talk page of the article in question, where I expanded my reasoning. Another editor chimed in, also disagreeing with my edits. We are attempting to come to some kind of resolution. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate articles

These are handled by redirecting, not deletion. But good job spotting it.DGG (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]