User talk:Charred Feathers

Damn those frakers'
Thanks. As for friends, it would be great to have some more friends (I made a couple since Skookum1 left too). My apologese for my intentness on Residential School. I made a pre-judgment. What can I say; I'm used to finding middle-class White folk on Wikipedia, or at the very least, people who act like middle-class White folk. It's offical, two Other are now friends. OldManRivers 04:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

unlike the many others here, i am completly forgiving, unlesss you did orsaid something upon knowing what can pester me to aggravation. those are few and far between, and well, ( a little about me now) since im rather staunchly pagan, i still dont actually understand why (underline it if  i knew how) people would be so... creul... so callous.... ( sobs a little)Charred Feathers 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What can I say, I'm a mean Pagan. lol OldManRivers 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask, what nation are you and where yo from? OldManRivers 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Thank you for your opinion. Please remember that Wikipedia is about neutral point of view. Although this article does clearly have a Euro-american POV, it can be contested, and re-worked. Please use the talk pages on articles. Visit Five_pillars. Also look at [|What Wikipedia is not]. I want to welcome you to wikipedia, and hope that you can contribute to the discussion and content of the articles. Improving the articles for Indigenous point of view on subjects such as the migration theories, and other things, help Indigenous perspective for people who read the article. But it is a neutral point of view. Like I said, welcome. I, among many others, want more Indigenous to contribute to the content and quality of wikipedia, but vandalism doesn't help. Removing articles because you feel like it does not help. If you dispute or have a problem with something on article, talk on the talk page. Thanks. OldManRivers 04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

for a writer...
...your prose is a little coarse. Just because this is wikipedia, on the internets, doesn't mean that it's not important to have proper grammar and spelling. The more intelligent your words look, the more weight your ideas will hold. I myself am a big fan of firefox 2.0 because it has a built-in spell check utility. Manual_of_Style is a really useful page.

Now, a note on Indigenous peoples of the Americas: I personally do not think that anyone uses the idea of a non-native origin to excuse the, to put it wp:npov, conquest of the native americans; however, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it allows many different points of view to be shared. For instance, you will notice that there are in fact four different theories on the origin of the Native Americans. Why don't you add your own? If you can find a notable source that backs up your theory, then there is no reason why we shouldn't have a section titled "Native American Folkloric Origins" or some such, going on to say how the verbal histories passed down throughout the ages say that Native Americans have always been in America. -Rebent 15:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer and comments from Maunus
I appreciate your consideration of what is being said by other editors and trying to reconcile it with your personal views, that is the right way to build the article together. I think that a discussion of native models for migration should go in another article - since the article on indigenous americans is not about migrational models as such. I think that after the sentence about oral history we could add a short sentence simply stating that "Modern scholarship largely disregards oral history as a source to knowledge about the earliest occupation of the Americas" or some such. I think the article on Models of migration to the New World is lacking a section explaining the models proposed by oral history of diffrent idnigenous groups and the attempts to reconcile this with the archaeological record. I think you should start by writing a section there.

Also I would like to say that I know the kind of viewpopint that you are arguing against, in fact on the same page where we have had our discussion you will see CJJLW and yours truly arguing against a user who finds the usage of the word "indigenous" or "native americans" to be false "because they have migrated recently" and thus should have no special rights. This is however not the predominant scientific viewpoint as Twalls and CJJLW have pointed out. It is however considered scientific fact that all people stem from central Africa and in this way all have a migrational history, and are "new comers" (relatively to the age of the planet) to the places where they live now. So the point is only "how early did homo sapiens enter the Americas?" And the Bering strait model also allows for earlier entries than the normally given ~14.000 BC. Any way happy editing and I'll be happy to help sort out further disputes and help you formalize you style of prose. ·Maunus· · ƛ · 04:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mormon

 * Except that it's something that the Book of Mormon actually says, and that page is for documenting all the prominent theories, wherever they come from. All we're doing is saying the theory exists, and attributing it to who says it. We are not saying there is any archaeological or historical evidence supporting it. Much of what's on that page has no real evidence supporting it, it's recorded because it is notable or influential in some way. And Mormon beliefs are certainly notable.Cúchullain t/ c 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Shamanism
What I'd added were the Chinese characters for "sha men". It's fine to leave them out, as readers of this page rarely read Chinese. -- Palaeovia talk 08:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

sortry,  put em back i guess,  all i saw was question marks, and i didnt understand,.....08:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule
Hi. Please read the link embedded in the subheading.--MONGO 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is engaging in revisionist history, it is you. If you revert the page again, I'll have to report you to the appropriate noticeboard. Thanks.--MONGO 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

threats have no place here. you shouldnt act like you are. ever hear of an open mind? no? didnt think so. i just read it... oopsies, i suppose, but thats still no excuse for contributing to revisonist history like that, why would you try to soften the truth? are you one of those who would say " no no, the natzis didnt try to commit genocide" or " no no, all indians were dying when the settlers got here, we  helped them" or something like that? if not, then why allow this subject to have such foolishness attached to it? saying that the americnas allegedly attacked people when its a matter of public record that they did so is simmilar, as is saying that the international court found something allegedly etc etc....Charred Feathers 07:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat, it's a warning. If you revert again, I will have to report it to the 3RR noticeboard. Learn our policies. Remain civil in your edit summaries as well...calling someone a historical revisionist is incivil.--MONGO 08:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

if its accurate, is it still incivil? would you say that calling someone who served in the german armies in the 1940's a natzi is incivil even if its accurate too? ( i know, harsh example, but still) reverting to the version YOU like is not very nice, expecially if there is still discussion on the very subject going on.Charred Feathers 08:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

3rr violation
Charred. You really need to keep an eye on WP:3rr. You may be blocked for this last round of edit waring. Please see [] if you wish to raise a defense against this last edit war. You may wish to revert yourself. Dman727 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You really do need to be mindful of the policy, which you have already broken on Indigo children. I was not aware that you knew about the policy, and had had problems with it before, so was lenient there. --Philosophus T 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indigo children article reverts
Charred, you made some changes that had nothing to back them up, either in footnotes, reference, or even an author/text to cite, regarding a trend in psychology towards accepting the "indigo children" phenomenon. also the word "fact", with a link to the wikipedia article on Facts is freefloating in the text!! You must have misused some Wiki-markup. I will erase that once again. Sigil7 20:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

i was trying to gett hat citation needed marking...

and i dont think the pharagraph long deletion is good, but there are views in the community that the  community is gaining  validity in the psychologists  community, and not just as " aww hes jus nuts" wayCharred Feathers 20:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Charred, you didn't put in a citation needed marker, I've figured out now that you used brackets ([ ]) not curly-braces, so you had inadvertently put in a link to the Wiki article on Facts. Please be more careful and preview your edits before submitting the changes. Also, be sure not to include original research.Sigil7 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Please take care to avoid original research. Specifically, this edit caught my attention. Friday (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass Erasing of talk page
Charred, I know that you meant well, but its really not a good idea to erase entire conversations off a talk page. I know that some of the conversation is inane, but some of it isnt and you erased the contributions of good contributions as well "bad" contributions. It will be impossible to reach any kind of consensus if talk page contributions are erased because someone disagrees with them. Dman727 02:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

i suppose, but the whole idea that discussing a country's mistakes makes one "a communist" or " an evil [person who needs to be bombed" or something like that makes me ill, i thought that the entire section should just go away, much like the person who started the section. on another note tho, im hoping that being anti hatred and anti violence is NOT a fad...Charred Feathers

(im also of the opinion that the originator of the section is out for trollin bloodCharred Feathers 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC))


 * You are proably right, I suspect the originator was trolling. But the conversation has continued with people who are certainly not trolling and imo its not fair to blank their comments. Also we have this thing called WP:AGF. Unfortunately, that article is somewhat of a lightening rod for strong opinions from all sides.  For my part I think the article has a place in wiki, although I feel that it needs a great deal of pov work, however emotions are so strong, its virtually impossible for anyone to make even minor edits. Not sure how it will work itself out. Dman727 02:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

id say just erase anything people say on talk that involves swearing, to force at least some  politeness upon them. i did some digging of my own a while back, out of bored curisity and found out that the USA trained people who ( asi read it) turned into the taliban or al queda years later. " to combat russian oil interests in the region" then when the wall fell, they abandoned thier  new friends, which obviously peeved off the middle easterners....and voila, airplanes crashing into american targets any hoo its all playground politics, you have this big bully, who goes around kicking people in the butt, its expected that someones gonna turn around and kick him in the jewels sooner or later.Charred Feathers 02:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

sedition, patroitism, subversion, all loaded issues that really shouldnt have been created, well, in the view of someone who wishes for a world without war.Charred Feathers 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

76.166.143.145: "Arucard" vandal
I'd leave the troll alone right now. Any reverting of his vandalism just results in him turning it back again. I've reported the user to the admins. After he's blocked, we can revert with more lasting effect. Bob  f''' it  09:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

good advise, thanks for helping!Charred Feathers 09:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Heathen
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Dl2000 04:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Charred Feathers, what is wrong with you? Your childishly emotional defendings of quack hippie beliefs is bad enough. . . but your persistently terrible grammar, spelling, and all-around buttheadedness (on top of claims to be a "writer" who hopes to "win prizes and brag") make you a detriment to every cause you believe in. And what's worse is you will probably go on seeing each of your critics as "Mean Mister Conservative" spiteing the "original free spirit" you have deluded yourself into thinking you are; and therefore you will never improve yourself. 76.27.212.74 (talk) 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)