User talk:FFthird

Welcome!

Hello, FFthird, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold

You placed a citation needed tag on this page earlier, for the sentence which reads: "Some people who knew the perpetrators have stated that the pair was not obsessed with Nazism nor did they worship or admire Adolf Hitler in any way, as has been speculated in the media." Your comment stated "need source for this, as it goes against all evidence." What goes against the evidence? That they worshiped Hitler, or that some people who knew them said they weren't obsessed? I have pages citing both sides of this statement. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is firm evidence they were interested in Hitler.[1] If you have sources that they were "not obsessed with Nazism," then cite it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FFthird (talk • contribs) 00:51:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

In the article, it does not state that they weren't interested in Hitler. It says that some people who knew them said they weren't. That's a huge difference. It's not advocating that their interest in Hitler and Nazism wasn't a factor, it says that not everyone that knew them had that knowledge of them. My sources pertain to that viewpoint of them. Don't misread what the paragraph is saying.Wildhartlivie 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Do you have a source that "says that some people who knew them said they weren't"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FFthird (talk • contribs) 01:35:21, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I have 11000+ pages of sources regarding Klebold and Harris. I am presently going through them to find the pages with the quotes from friends who said they didn't have that knowledge about them. When I find the exact pages, I will cite it and if necessary, reword the paragraph to cover that more thoroughly. Wildhartlivie 01:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that's why the source needed tag was added.

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for showing me how. FFthird 01:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged scandal of FPM comment on CREW

My strongly held opinion is that the "Criticisms" section of an article on Wikipedia is not a playpen for the critics. If you are going to quote a criticism you need to give both context and replies (if any). I didn't want to just delete your contribution on this subject so I took the time to do it right. Boy was it not worth it. It seems that when Horowitz wrote, on his blog, in October 2006 about CREW announcing they had turned some Foley emails over to the FBI in July he -- in the context of a Washington Post report that the FBI claimed CREW may have been holding them since at least April 2006 -- characterized the CREW announcement as holding them "since at least July 2006" (emphasis added). This is not strictly untrue even though CREW had said they had turned the emails over to the FBI on the same day they had received them -- saying that they had them in July is indeed an admission they had them since at least July -- but may have been a bit misleading. Hard to tell since that blog entry is no longer online. The article in FPM the next day, maybe in response to MM's crit the same day, doesn't contain that ambiguity.

I'd like you to try to give the other crits you added a similar NPOV treatment.

Best wishes. Andyvphil 12:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]