1. Favorite Add to Personalized Monster tooth fairy pillow comes with a Free I Lost My Tooth button. There are 4408 tooth fairy pillow girl for sale on Etsy, and they cost $17.71 on average. The most common tooth fairy pillow girl material is cotton. The most popular color?
2. In his attempt to get back on his long-lost love's good side, Larry visits the school where she works and makes a horrible mistake - he accidentally tells a.

1. Tooth Fairy 2 6 18 Inch
2. Tooth Fairy 2 6 18 Full

The new European data protection law requires us to inform you of the following before you use our website:

We use cookies and other technologies to customize your experience, perform analytics and deliver personalized advertising on our sites, apps and newsletters and across the Internet based on your interests. By clicking “I agree” below, you consent to the use by us and our third-party partners of cookies and data gathered from your use of our platforms. Steermouse 5 3 2 – powerful third party mouse driver. See our Privacy Policy and Third Party Partners to learn more about the use of data and your rights. You also agree to our Terms of Service.

$20.00 The Tooth Too Set $3.95 Tooth Fairy Pillow - 2 Sizes! $4.00 The Tooth Fairy - 2 Sizes! $5.29 Girly Tooth - 4x4 $3.99 Tooth Filled Set - 3 Designs, 2 Sizes! $7.50 In Hoop Tooth Fairy Pocket for Boy $4.00 Fairy Tooth, Filled - 2 Sizes! $4.00 My Tooth - 2 Sizes! $2.40 Tooth Fairy 2-9, 4x4 $10.50 Deluxe Tooth Fairy Set, 2 Designs - 5x7 $2.40 Tooth Fairy 2-11, 4x4 $2.40 Tooth Fairy 2-12, 4x4. Considering adults’ central role in tooth fairy customs, it seems just as likely that the tooth fairy grants grown-ups, for a just little while, reemergence into a child’s magical world.

Error in newspaper headline

The Miami News is cited for having an article titled 'Tooth Fairy acts fast, sends girls dog back.' Now for that sentence to be correct, 'girl's' should be spelled with an apostrophe. Paste 2 2 3 4. So we either need to correct it by adding the apostrophe if the newspaper used it, or we need to put [sic] behind it if the paper did not use the apostrophe. Which is it? LadyofShalott 18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

found it. I knew it was in the browser history somewhere. Penyulap _talk 18:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

done Penyulap _talk 18:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. LadyofShalott 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Section headings

Topspin nmr crack. Is it ok to put in topic titles, as the subject material comes up, that suits the kind of editors and readers that comment on the talkpage. For example, topics such as 'How much does the tooth fairy give' 'Has anyone seen the tooth fairy' 'Is the tooth fairy real' and so forth, any problem with that ? (provided I find appropriate material) Penyulap _talk 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tooth Fairy 2 6 18 Inch

Yes, that would be a problem per Wikipedia:NOT#FAQ. Wikipedia articles should not list/respond to frequently asked questions about a topic. only (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, this page is to be used to discuss possible improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the tooth fairy. General discussion removal is routine. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead suggestions

I was thinking a better lead would be a good idea, especially removing the word fantasy and using a word such as folklore figure instead. or 'A cherished figure in America's lore of childhood' The source is already in the lead.

[1]Penyulap _talk 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What good does replacing the word 'fantasy' do? Especially when we already use 'folklore' in the second sentence. Additionally, 'cherished' would not be POV. only (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

'Folklore' does the job on it's own, 'fantasy' just attracts vandalism, is re-iteration really necessary? Penyulap _talk 03:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't write to avoid vandalism. We write what is significant and verifiable. We handle vandalism by reverting it, blocking vandals and -- when necessary -- protecting articles. We call the tooth fairy a 'fantasy figure' because the tooth fairy is fictional. Folklore, OTOH, can evolve around real or fictional figures. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'We don't write to avoid vandalism.' -Classic Penyulap _talk 05:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can direct me to a policy/guideline to the contrary? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

the dentist is for adults.

Tooth Fairy 2 6 18 Full

Why doesn't the tooth fairy visit adults ?I'm thinking there is a guideline to be wary of here (1 + 2 = 3). I can find of course, children lose baby teeth, and the tooth fairy collects baby teeth, can I add that adults don't lose baby teeth ? or when they do lose teeth, they goto the dentist ? Penyulap _talk 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What you're proposing to add would be based upon your own original research. We would need to add in information from reliable sources as to how the folklore/myth explains why the tooth fairy does not visit adults. only (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also the fact that when most adults lose a tooth, their parents aren't in their house to remove the tooth from under the pillow and replace it with money. Further, barring some developmental disability or brain injury, adults generally know the tooth fairy isn't real. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Such disabilities can be more common than you think. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we somehow gauge the number of children reading this vs. the number of typical adults vs. the number of developmentally disabled/brain injured adults (now called 'intellectually disabled (ID)' on this side of the pond)? I'll have to see if there is any research on belief in the tooth fairy in the ID population. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

While it would be interesting, I don't think it is feasible for us to get this data. Nor do I think it would be all that useful. LadyofShalott 03:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can do that. We can, however, drink a really tasty beer and prepare for class tomorrow. Oh, and improve the article. Even more. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one don't drink, who'd have thought eh ? But the result of the ANI discussion SummerPhD so graciously notified me of was that I can topic ban myselves from the article, so I'll look into doing some collaborative research with myself as to the demographic, whilst SummerPhD is researching the population in ID. I'm seeing I could well change category into the brain injury category if I continue collaboration. Should I take up drinking maybe that'll help as I continue work on the article. Penyulap _talk 03:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to look into this further after tomorrow's lecture that I am woefully unprepared for and will have to find some way of getting through. Actually, I'll probably focus more on the ages of children believing/no longer believing. We need some data on that. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well hey look at that, it's been more than a week, and no surprise to me, nothing new into the article. What happened to the 'I'll have to look into this further after tomorrow's lecture' did the lecture last more than 10 days ? The only work I see going on is reverting whatever people are putting in to this monumentally disgraceful article. Do you have new material for this article at all, or is the plan to perpetually keep it in it's whitehouse state ? Penyulap _talk 03:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the amount of work I've done, feel free to dock my pay. As for the reverts, I don't think 'the monkey he was best friend i liked to fuck him it felt so good' was helpful. If you think the article needs 'kill all humans', I must disagree. I was unable to locate the source cited for 'The tooth fairy encountered a large swarm of beach eagles recently. They attacked without warning and the tooth fairy was caught completely off guard and without her guns. She managed to escape, however, and now makes sure to bring her pistols with her whereever she goes. <ref>WooWoo, B. (2004). History of the toothfairy.</ref>', perhaps an ISBN would help.

Yes, I did remove trivial 'In popular culture' mentions of the tooth fairy. I had removed a number of such trivialities earlier (here's the longer list) as trivial in popular culture mentions. If you feel there are problems with the article ('steaming dog turd class'), adding irrelevant, trivial material is not helping. If you add independent reliable sources discussing these, they are good to stay. Otherwise, it is trivia that should go, per our guidelines. If you disagree, I invite you to seek a third opinion or request comments on the issue. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I only reverted one edit, yours. The rest of that stuff your quoting, which other editors removed, I have no problem with. I agree with them. There is a big difference between removing political commentary, and removing junk that makes the article suck less. Now where is this research you have been threatening to do ? it's been 10 days and you're avoiding the question. 3rd opinion ? I don't need a third opinion. The original editors who inserted the material, count as one, and I count as another. Unless you count yourself as 3 people to outvote 2, I can't see it as my job to bother anyone else. I can't see how all but blanking this article on the grounds it's not all FA is going to help. This article is a lovely place for newbies to edit, and I'm here to help. Not totally Vista-fy wikipedia. Now what are you doing, should I wait for this research ? btw, I love the pastel text. Penyulap _talk 06:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you were referring to one edit. Your comment about 'it's been more than a week.reverting whatever people are putting in' led me to understand you were referring to edits by more than one person in more than a week. As for the trivial in popular culture material, I have tagged it as such. 'Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivial references.' As it currently stands, this section is an indiscriminate collection of trivia and should be removed. (Not that it is any business of yours, but no, one lecture lasts about an hour and 45 minutes. I have several each week. I get paid for them. I am not paid here. In instances where I need to pick one or the other, I choose the one that pays. In cases of conflict between what you want me to do and what I want to do, I don't give you much weight. I am a volunteer. Let it go.) - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap, for someone whose concern has been readability of this article and what happens on this talk page page with respect to younger readers, you sure are sprinkling in a lot of rude language lately. Can we please avoid the references to defecation and sexual acts? LadyofShalott 13:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course LadyofShalott, I probably would have left them up a while before removing them myself, but they've been read by the recipient now, and you are right. My point about the poor editing of the article comes down to one editor, SummerPhD. SummerPhD you don't have time to add anything at all to the article, so don't arrive and snarl and bite at the newbies, delete GF edits, blank large amounts and expect to be called a hero for it. ADD something, don't threaten to add something to wikipedia in the far distant future if or when you ever get around to it, whilst the whole time screwing with other editors who are doing a good job of improving wikipedia. So what if it's some trivia some editor put in, it's a hundred times better to welcome the newbies than make a disgraceful article and trample the project into oblivion. Get with the project. Penyulap _talk 14:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(oh, LadyofShalott, I think the phrase you were looking for when copyediting was 'naughty words' :) Penyulap _talk 14:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting trivia is a perfectly valid editing technique. As far as I can see, Summer has not bitten any newbies. If she went to their talkpage and said 'Don't add trivia!' that would be bitey. Just removing trivia is not, and it is an improvement to the article to do so. Adding good content and removing bad are both ways to improve an article. LadyofShalott 14:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I put even more emphasis on the AND in this case. Well, how about language that may imply to some, that if they don't agree with SummerPhD's point of view, they have 'some developmental disability or brain injury' or leaving threats on someones talkpage in a way that defines hypocrisy ? Seems a bit more like 'Bite' than 'Welcoming committee' to me. Penyulap _talk 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

archiving of the talkpage

Can we let Miszabot handle this please ? I for one, would like to get a better idea of the readership demographic. Focus reclaim your productivity. Cook serve delicious 2 2 6 0 m 1 1. Penyulap _talk 02:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not about doing statistical analysis or gauging the demographic of those who post here. They are about making comments for the betterment of the articles. only (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'betterment of the articles' Are we editing for the readers to read the article and learn, or is it like on that scifi serial i saw where programs are living inside the holographic complexes computer system and they are eventually allowed to remain there by the crew after the crew figure they are life-forms, i think it was star trek, where picard was in it. The articles aren't personified like little dolls that Beth cares for in Little Women. If you want to better the article, it's a fundamental prerequistie to consider the readership. It's the last and often most difficult lesson for a genius to learn, that everyone does not think the same way that they do. If you can't consider the readership, you can't use approachable language. Unless you just insult everyone by assuming 'approachable' means 'suitable for idiots' which is not the case at all. Penyulap _talk 02:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

'The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page . is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.' You are not discussing changes to the article. If you feel talk pages should be allowed to run wild to allow us to make pseudo-demographic assumptions about the self-selected population of readers who comment on the talk page as a stand-in for the demographics of the readership of the page as a guide for the reading level the article should be targeted to. or something like that. the place to discuss that is Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that going in the article ? also, what other kind of reader/commentators are there, don't tell me people are being forced to read the article. that was banned by U.N. convention long ago. And I am discussing the article, in regards to approachable language, it's just I've cleverly hidden my comments in a section entitled 'archiving of the talkpage'. Penyulap _talk 04:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture ('In film and television')

This section is an 'indiscriminate (collection) of trivia or cruft' Per Wikipedia:'In_popular_culture'_content, this is to be avoided. ' Eon 2 7 – simple and elegant time tracking software. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.' Failing reliable secondary sources supportive of this judgment or a consensus to the contrary, I will trim the section again in several days. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Better to leave it in for the time being, until there is more meat in the article. Remove it when the article is moving to GA as part of that process. Penyulap _talk 14:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Others? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Others ? oh lets ask shall we ? Penyulap _talk 15:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If we know something should be removed as part of moving towards GA, then it should be removed period. It makes no sense to leave it in 'until there is more meat in the article'. Also, let's please leave off the sarcasm. LadyofShalott 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? sarcasm is a useful alternative to less acceptable language. Cut out the pop culture now ? sure, lets. Now I'm back to looking for ways we can possibly make the article suck more. After all, it's the fashion to do ANYTHING ELSE except add new material. I notice someone attacked the Lede[2] 'The tooth fairy is a fantasy a person that is not real and will eat you alive. Her mother is Santa Claus and father is Homer Simpson' yep, told you so. To quote myself 'Personally I would have used 'Folklore figure' for example. A child would read straight past that without any problem, an adult would understand it perfectly, win-win.' 'Folklore hero' wouldn't be correct, as the TF is not exactly a hero, but I've seen that used before for a different figure. 'Folklore helper' is a bit vague, 'Generous folklore figure' would be about spot on I'd think. you could qualify it with 'sometimes' as the TF doesn't visit everyone, but that's outside of the folklore. But hey, what am I doing? I've been distracted, we're meant to be arguing here aren't we, not thinking about good ideas, EWWWW!!!! (I feel so dirty) Penyulap _talk 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Your 'win-win' assumes (with no basis) that Wikipedia's goal is to discuss reality with adults while hiding it from children. I'd invite you to test this assumption against the graphic images and video at Ejaculation and dozens of other articles. The desire to add more material is fine, but it is not an excuse to keep garbage. 'Folklore figure' is not as descriptive as you seem to believe. George Washington is a folklore figure as he is the subject of traditional stories and beliefs passed down orally. He is not, however, a 'fantasy figure' as he is neither fictional nor magical. The tooth fairy, while a figure in oral tradition, is also fictional and magical. I suppose we could say the tooth fairy 'is a fictional, magical folklore figure', but 'fantasy figure' covers that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would ask you to remove your example before I respond. Penyulap _talk 11:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, the responses to your side trip to AN/I have cleared this up for you. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it was resolved to my satisfaction I can't see how it in any way relates to the point I was making, which is, your use of the word 'Fantasy', which I stated, and I must have done it twice, as I quoted the wrong quote, I said

'Folklore' does the job on it's own, 'fantasy' just attracts vandalism, is re-iteration really necessary?

So maybe folklore doesn't quite 'do it' for you, but as some vandal pointed out quite well, 'fantasy' attracts vandalism like I said. I don't know if you see my point or just want to try and show me more porn. The idea that an article can be a good article for all readers is my belief and objective. You seem completely stuck with the faith that an article can only cater to one specific section of the readership, and that's somehow wikipedia policy. I am saying it is better to write for all readers, a 100% proper article for all of them. I refuse to pick one faction and write for them and then try and patrol the page for vandalism from dissatisfied readers. This isn't the freedom flotilla article or rocket science it's just the tooth fairy. Penyulap _talk 14:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Your 'attracts vandalism' argument is spurious. We neither know that what you believe attracts vandalism has anything to do with the vandalism nor do we write to avoid vandalism. 'Folklore figure' is only partially correct. 'Fictional, magical folklore figure' or 'fantasy figure' covers it. If you would prefer 'fictional, magical folklore figure',I'm OK with that. If you wish to omit 'fictional' and 'magical', I'd like you to explain why, preferably with a basis in our policies and guidelines. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We ? It's not we at all, referring to yourself in the third person collective won't impress me. If a cosmic moment demonstrating that the word 'fantasy' attracts vandals after I have told you so twice before it happens, cannot spell it out to you, then your faith that this article has to suck is unshakable, and no amount of reason will prevail. Folklore defines the subject sufficiently. Folklore does not need to be dictionary defined in this article. It needs to be defined in it's own article, same way a handful of teeth belongs in a handful of teeth article. This article is supposed to be about . Oh god I give up Penyulap _talk 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

'We' = those who are working on this article. 'Folklore figure' = subject (real or imagined) of oral tradition. 'Fantasy figure' = fictional, magical folklore figure. 'Tooth fairy' = a fictional, magical figure in oral tradition. There was vandalism before the word 'fantasy' was included. There is no indication of a connection. Betsy Ross (folkloric but not fantasy) is regularly vandalized. There is no connection. If there were a connection, there still wouldn't be a reason to change the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

' 'We' = those who are working on this article.' I don't recollect anyone electing you to speak for me, or anyone else for that matter. So when you say 'We neither know that what you believe attracts vandalism' and so forth, please be polite enough to speak for yourself and not speak for me. Thanks! This would be a lot easier if you were to use a singular personal pronoun, or have yourself elected as speaker for all editors. I for one would vote for you. Penyulap_talk 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To rephrase, then: 'While it is certainly possible that you have some god-given knowledge of what attracts vandalism, the rest of us have no way of verifying that your knowledge is correct.' There is no way to tell what 'caused' various acts of vandalism nor are there any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia that indicate articles should be written to avoid vandalism. Your theory is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just using commonsense, by not ignoring all other editors on this article and talkpage, I get the idea that the tooth fairy article is a disgrace, if for no other reason than another editor said so. Looking at the article, I can see exactly what he means, and others have similar comments, am I the only one with a what is it ? 'god-given knowledge' or commonsense to see this ? Actually no, I'm not, lots of editors can see it also. It's the 'we' that can't see it, and I don't mean 'we' as in more than one person. I mean just the 'we' you refer to. Of course if you are just talking about what I believe when you refer to ' what you believe ' well, there is no mystery or research needed there. I am the final authoritative arbiter on what I believe. Actually, I add to wiki in like 17 or something languages so far, most of which I don't even speak. Takes only the slightest effort, if any, to understand where all these people are going, what they are all trying to say. If you just block your mind all day and delete it all, just to push your own POV, misses the entire point of the project really. No benefit to anyone. The article is 'start class' for the tooth fairy for crying out loud. That's a disgrace all right. The tooth fairy is a household name across millions of homes, and wait a sec, google is showing 461,000 hits for tooth fairy, and you say 'So far, we have exactly zero reliable sources indicating what the tooth fairy looks like.' Stuff this for a joke. I think as a pet project I should write it in several languages I can't speak a single word of. Take it to GA status on those foreign wikis and leave you to find 'what the tooth fairy looks like' and determine 'generally accepted characteristics of the tooth fairy. White, black, API or indigenous? Male, female or neither? Clothing? Accessories (wands, etc.)? Wings and other non-human body parts? Average human size?' and so forth all by yourself. Do you want my help or not ? seriously, what on earth is it you want to do here ? What do you want ? what are you trying to do with this article, I would really like to know. Seriously, all jokes aside. Penyulap _talk 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

One word does not attract vandalism. Adding unsourced garbage, original research and synthesis do not yield GA status. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)