User talk:FangedFaerie

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 &#8853; &#8855;  02:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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 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 &#8853; &#8855; 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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: []. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Wiki-Love
Great work! EagleScout18 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * No problem! Keep up the good work, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  07:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

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 &#8853; &#8855; 16:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 &#8853; &#8855;  19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Tito the Builder
FYI - due to updated info, and new sources - the article on Tito the Builder has been reconstructed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tito
You may want to see Talk:Tito. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  05:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
 * Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
 * Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
 * Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)