User talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2009-2010

Warnings September 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Socialist Alternative (Australia)‎. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Socialist Alternative (Australia). Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Socialist Alternative (Australia), you will be blocked from editing.

Rather than adding uncited material, I was removing uncited and dubious material as indicated and within debate at Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Social class and health in the US

I have nominated Social class and health in the US, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social class and health in the US. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mblumber (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One Big Union

I have reverted this edit, [1], for unnecessary duplication, WP:NOR, errors, and other reasons that i have explained on the TALK page. Please read the explanations, and also please read the current content of the article, including observation of the (now carefully referenced) historical basis for the OBU, before you edit here again. thanks, best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My Addition to Russian Revolution

Hi Fifelfoo. I added the following to the article about the 1917 Russian Revolution: The New Bolshevik Government

Although having triumphed in the Russian Civil War, when they took charge of the government they had new problems. The Bolshevik party was composed mostly of laborers, not many members had much leadership expirience. The party was not the most unified, although it did encourage discipline and unity. Within the pary there was opposition by both individuals and groups. This really frustrated Lenin, so he changed that situation. The Bolsheviks were also faced with criticism and opposition, and the Bolsheviks showed no tolerance at all. The Bolsheviks believed very stongly on the evil of class. They favored the classes that used to be mistreated and were very much the enimies of the former elite class. Because of their dislike of class, the bolsheviks eliminated it and created the opposite of class in society.

I noticed you undid it and called it patent nonsence and unsourced. I would like to point out I did source it, The Russian Revolution Second Edition by Sheila Fitzpatrick Oxford University Press Copyright Sheila Fitzpatrick 1994 ISBN 0-19-289257-6. I would like to what you meant when you called it patent nonsence. If it could be improved, please consider taking the piece I added and improving it. Thank you, NRB.12345 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia

Please see the talk page. From my part I don't really think I was being bold - I certainly didn't delete anything, I merely reworded the lead and slightly expanded. As indeed you yourself did... Equally if you look there is a discussion thread on the lead, albeit a small one. I look forward to your contributions on the talk page. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Palmer (publisher)

A tag has been placed on Helen Palmer (publisher) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Palmer (publisher)

A tag has been placed on Helen Palmer (publisher), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Palmer (publisher)

A tag has been placed on Helen Palmer (publisher), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Overproduction Bourgeois Interpellation Structural Marxism Economic progressivism Selfishness Proletarian revolution Anarchist People of Color South Bank, Queensland Betio Public interest Institute for Anarchist Studies New Galloway Price Speedbass Stirling Burghs (UK Parliament constituency) Bread and Roses WOMBLES Return on capital

Cleanup Surplus labour Anarchist communism Young Marx Merge Individual rights Epipaleolithic Subjective theory of value Add Sources Bureaucracy Economic power Geolibertarianism Wikify Pink-collar worker USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) Yevgeny Tarle Expand Marginalism Panarchism Benjamin Tucker

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) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ya

Good move I think removing some of the non notable fiction stuff on the article that you did. I found a couple of things that I thought were pretty fascinating and added them to the article also, hence the confusion when placing some things as to order and editing timing... [2] and [3] and no doubt you know all about this fascinating guy also [4] Maybe you can use some of the sourcing for your project, keep up the interesting edits, Regards, skip sievert (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a weapon

Welcome to Wikipedia. It is not uncommon to come across Wikipedians who think that Wikipedia is a democracy. However, they misunderstand Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy does not forbid an editor from making edits that go against some consensus that's been arrived at by other editors. A editor may make an edit go against the consensus of other editors any time he wishes. So, when an editor tells you not to make an edit that goes against the "consensus" that he's a part of, inform him that that's not good enough. What is the reason for that group of which he is a part to disagree with your edit? Just the fact that he and a few other editors have an agreement amongst themselves on what's best for the article is not good enough reason to refrain from changing their edits. No editor is bound to any consensus of other editors. Moreover, not even is any member of that consensus bound to it. Of course you should try to work to gain a consensus with other editors on the talk page in order create a good and stable article, however always bear in mind that when you do eventually arrive at a consensus, there is no policy that forbids anyone from coming along and disagreeing with the consensus that you're part of and making edits accordingly. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia. Introman (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Generation Α

The article Generation Α has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merely a suggested name at this point.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lukacs

Not so. Virga only restored bits from a previous version - I can't tell who had added it originally. Back in February, I had only removed info that was obviously added from neonazi sources; I also noticed that the entire text on his political career was under likely to have used the same crap as its source, only it was virtually impossible to tell apart with all the good-faith edits in between. The solution would be to revisit the entire article with proper references, but I can't be expected to do that myself just so that the tag can be removed. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Between 6 and 10 December 2005 Hanshans23 edited Lukacs with that information. They appear to be good faith if internet researched edits. I will mull and return after further investigation.

Well, the text still would need sourcing and citations if it's to go anywere. On the other hand: sure, if you review the article and find that the problematic stuff is entirely gone, by all means remove the tags; or, if you detect any more egregious crap and can edit it out, please do. I just did not want the tags to be removed without proper scrutiny, and the scrutiny is more than I myself can offer that article (at least for the time being). Dahn (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Lee Ass Wipes

Read headline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.230.55 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction on "Encyclopedia" page

Just felt like seeing what Wikipedia had to say about the term "encyclopedia" and found a comical introduction – made me laugh! What a shame other people who religiously vandalize articles and pages don’t share that element of humour but instead make a lot of people believe that what they are reading is serious, factual and verifiable information.Moshe-paz (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing

Why are you removing material from a credible source (the Direct Selling Association) through a reliable source (USA Today)? If anything, as a marketing association, the DSA should inflate the median earnings; hence it should probably have a cavaet saying at most $2400. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism RfC

Fifelfoo, I am actually never been to a situation like this. So my reaction might not been in the best form. However I think that a RfC is a necessity on that article (Albanian nationalism). Can you please guide me on the process? Should I stay away from the talk page for a while? Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Depression RfC

Thanks very much for your comments over at Great Depression. I note with regret that you were unable to judge the WWII section as it was removed in the version that you reviewed. I have reinserted it, leaving the rest the same, and would appreciate it if you could update your comments to include that issue as well? Thanks very much, LK (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick responses. I really appreciate the work you're putting into RfC's. It's an area that sorely needs more volunteers to work on clearing the backlog. LK (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bourgeoisie#Stereotypes_in_the_United_States

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mootros (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

given I was editing down another editor work please cite the defamatory diff and why talking about a social group other than a protected category [racial / religious villification] can be defamation. Without that diff I reject this warning as ungrounded. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ungrounded for defamation. After reflection I accept the warning as a civility warning, thanks, taken on board. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchovegan had it coming

I am shocked that you encourage adding fabrications and allowing twisting facts out of context. I urge you and everyone else here to do some fact checking before adding (or encouraging) the addition of fallacy and derogatory fictitious propaganda. Eli+ 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

since when a conversation is an attacK????!!!! Eli+ 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Eli+ 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

When I am told "You encourage adding fabrications and allowing twisting facts out of context" after noting you personally attacked someone in your edit summary for a justified edit, and am told, "to do some fact checking before adding (or encouraging) the addition of fallacy and derogatory fictitious propaganda." I take this as a personal attack, and an indication of a lack of good faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass Killings

Thanks for the note. I understand the impetus to change the title of the entry (based on POV issues), but I think unfortunately it was a serious mistake. Either something like "communist genocide" or "communist mass killings" is a notable concept linking a political ideology to genocide/mass killing or it isn't. Renaming the entry to something which encompasses much more than the intended content simply opens the page up for OR and SYNTH concerns. If you have a look at WP:NAME you will see that the new name fails almost every basic guideline, especially compared to the one it replaced. Issues with the old entry, as some who even voted to move it conceded during the discussion, are separate matter from the naming problem.PelleSmith (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest restructuring of Bourgeoisie

Good effort -- useful starting point in developing this article. Many thanks Mootros (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to avoid wikidrama, and I do appreciate the thought you've put into our discussion. But just want to explain that we're not biting a newbie. Skip's been on since May 2007 and he should know better. He's also been doing a lot of biting himself on economics articles. See for instance, this, also check out his interaction on the talk page of Talk:Wage slavery, Talk:Paul Krugman and on Talk:History of economic thought. Try to see it from our perspective, he's been essentially trolling and insulting the economists here for the last month. It's really no different from a creationist hanging around Wikiproject Biology making disparaging remarks about evolution and sabotaging all attempts for rational discourse. Anyway, just want to explain why it's happening, and hope that you don't think too badly of us. Best of luck on the RfCs, like I said earlier, I appreciate the work you've been putting into it. regards, LK (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thread about Engels article and genocide

You said on the Mass killings under Communist regimes talk page that you couldn't see the thread in this link? If that's because it's a user subpage, I could copy it here for you if you'd like. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your clarification. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: September 2009

I suggest you re-read what NPA constitutes. I've reverted your frivolous warning [5] and hope you will not continue this as it can become a form of harassment. Swearing does not automatically fall under NPA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can put your veiled threats back where they belong, which is outside of any communication with other editors; I am seriously sick of the disciplinary function in which many wikipedians work and the variability of standards combined with petty moralism and natural in group formation. I strongly suggest that if you want to play dominance games you shake it out somewhere in your real life. Swearing as invective and exasperation is not appropriate in an encyclopedic context. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Um, what veiled threats are you referring to? The only useful sentence that you've typed here seems to be the last one, and perhaps strangely enough, I completely agree with it. That said, NPA is something is else altogether. If you'd simply put your last sentence as a reminder on Jayron32's talk page, you really could have avoided this, and I'm sure he would have responded to you a lot differently than with this. Please reconsider your approach when "warning" established users. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to Fifeloo's concerns on my talk page. I have some additional questions as well, so perhaps you would like to continue our discussion there, so we can keep it in one place Fifeloo? Oh, and Ncmvocalist, thank you for your concerns here as well, but I think that Fifeloo and I can discuss this matter civily, and reach an agreeable solution. Thanks for watching out for my talk page, but I've got it from here. --Jayron32 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"labour and socialist history"

Just saw your userpage - anything to do with British labour and socialist history? I've been meaning to get our article on the Campbell Case to GA for ages. Ironholds (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Drive by" review conducted. Interesting case, I think I remember it. Unfortunately I'm Australian ;) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 15:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of vandal. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--B@xter⁹ 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice re: Hungarian Revolution of 1956

Hello, Fifelfoo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding allegations of an edit war in which you may be involved. I noticed that the user who filed the notice had not bothered to notify you. In the interest of due process, I am taking the liberty of doing so myself. The thread is Edits of User:Fifelfoo.The discussion is about the topic Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Thank you. —  SpikeToronto  18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please give me some room to edit

If you would like to improve the citation form of the sources at Communist genocide please do. Otherwise, please let me do the work without being reverted in the middle. Commenting onyour opinion of the quality of the references is usually not considered helpful. In short, give me some room. Smallbones (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You say tomato …

Don’t worry about the tomato thing. It made me laugh actually, especially since I’ve been trying out this new signature, which is kind of tomato red! … blue, maybe I should look at blue … :)  SpikeToronto  04:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI on pro-Property Libertarianism?

Per WP:COI I am asking you here: Do you belong to some anti-capitalist group that wants to destroy the reputation of all pro-property libertarians? Why do you consistently assert that free market economic views equal pro-property libertarianism views, even if those holding them hold plainly UNlibertarian ideas on civil liberties? Does the extreme POV of your edits have some WP:Conflict of Interest basis?? If so, please declare it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc also originally posted this diff. I responded to both at Talk:Libertarianism#COI. Given that other editors are referring to this section of my talk page, please enjoy these two handy links.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

When people correct something they quickly realize is problematic, it is courteous editing to let their correction stand and not blare the quickly corrected edit all over a circle of editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sources

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--B@xter⁹ 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

6 RR?

All that silliness reverting footnote formating adds up. That and edits done last night gives me an estimated count of 6 reversions that you did in 16 hours just on Communist genocide, and for me 4 reversions in the same period. This is obviously a problem for both of us. Your editing has been tendentious - and I see from above that you are having similar problems with other articles. Why not just cool it for awhile and learn how to play well with others? Consider this a formal warning on 3RR, but I will not report this (on both of us) unless you revert again on the genocide article within 24 hours. Smallbones (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edits_of_User:Fifelfoo, I've changed my mind, and I'll put in my 2 cents worth there. Smallbones (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Drapier's Letters FAC

I made the corrections. Were there any other problems that you noticed? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

Fifelfoo,

Let me begin my message by quoting you on this: "If you notice a certain frustration in my typing, its because your references are horrifyingly bad." I would like to tell you some points about what exactly has happened to the War of the Pacific article, and why I am currently laughing my head off with your quote:

• 1. If you look at the War of the Pacific's edit history, you'll see that User:Keysanger has taken complete ownership of the article. This, of course, goes against WP:OWN.
• 2. If you look at the archive history of the article's talk page, this is one of the more interesting events that took place: Several editors, including Keysanger, attempted to improve the article.
• 3. It was about 4 editors that were working on the article. We did not always get along, but we always worked on improving the article one way or the other. Everything was working fine, but then Keysanger decided to "break the peace" and took complete ownership of the article. This caused the other editors to leave the article in protest.
• 4. During our discussions with Keysanger, I attempted to make him understand that it was important that we got a standard citation method. I told him that it was illogical to put direct quotes on the citation as that would only make the article longer and more complicated to read. He, obviously, did not listen. Moreover, he accused me of providing fake citations; and demanded me to provide direct quotes (basically, to do the quote with his same style) in order to "prove" that I wasn't including fake citations. He made these claims because he did not agree with the information I was including.
• 5. I attempted to still help out, despite I had stated that I would no longer get myself involved. It saddens me to see what the article has become due to one user. However, Keysanger holds a very firm POV in favor of Chile. This was obvious since the beginning of our discussions, but now that he has complete ownership of the article he has gone to extremes in order to impose Chilean POV completely in the article. For example, he did not even consider taking into account that there is a certainly strong idea that Bolivia was not the first country to declare war, but rather that it Chile. Instead of willing to understand, he went as far as to call me "The Lord of the Truth" in order to insult me.
• 6. He also attempted to accuse me of attacking him, but I counter argued the points I'm presenting to you with more detail. At the end, nobody took notice of the incident.
• 7. I see that you've also commented on Keysanger's deep use of primary sources. I told him about this as well, as you can see in this first section of Talk:War of the Pacific/Archive 6 (we discussed Gonzalo Bulnes). He and another user, Likeminas, claimed that the usage of a Chile biased primary source was essential to Wikipedia. I disagreed, but neither of them listened.
• 8. I certify you that most of the article is original research from Keysanger.
• 9. Finally, this is the "last good" article that the War of the Pacific was prior to Keysanger taking ownership: [6]. It wasn't perfect, but it was much better than what Keysanger now presents as the article. The key word here is that "we" were working on it (4 editors), in contrast to now only one editor working on such a controversial article by himself. I don't know if there is some way to revert it back to what it used to be; but I doubt it.

Now, you probably are wondering why exactly I'm telling you all of this. I know you probably don't really care, but since you took the time to present an RfC for the War of the Pacific page, I guessed you might be interested to know why the article looks the way it does (The article's horrible. I know). This is also to warn you about User:Keysanger, and about his methods of working. I also write this to you in hopes that maybe, just maybe, you might have the ability to do something about this problem I'm presenting. Well, thank you for taking the time to read this long message.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Fifelfoo!, thank you for taking the time to read and comment the article. I will come back to you after reading and hopefuly understand your advice. I fear I will need your help again to improve the article --Keysanger (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fifelfoo, I corrected a lot of the flaws and would appreciate your work and comment in the talk page. Could you explain me what do you mean with "Talk:WotP/citationquotes"? Best regards, --Keysanger (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with :

• Fix the Bibliography
• Fix the ff citations ("page 23 ff"="page 23 and also following pages")

As I understand, we don't need to add every citation to the bibliography. If the author is (correctly) cited once, then we don't need to add it to the B. --Keysanger (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

honestly, I don't understand parts of your message. You wrote:

Keysanger selectively dealt with the RFC points I had made, and then claimed to have completed editing in response without arguing why he selectively addressed citation format and sourcing issues.

Do you mean I have intencionally adressed some references and no others?. If you think that, you are wrong.

I try honestly to normalize all references. As you may note I have a deficient english, so the translation of spanish cites to english is a problem. For some sentences in the text with dubious references I don't find serious references (in Farcau or Sater) and I hesitate to delete the sentences because some wikipedians will say that I destroy the article and they say that whatever I do.

I am tired and boried to discuss with people that dont have any problem to present primary sources as though they would invent the wheel. I can't say what I think about them because it is improper in Wikipedia. If you want to help to improve the article, then you have to insist there, in the talk page of the War of the Pacific that they have to use only secondary sources. --Keysanger (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Simon B. Buckner

Thanks for your comments on my FAC of Simon B. Buckner. I have addressed your concerns inasmuch as I am able. Please review my comments there. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback needed ...

... at Talk:History_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#A_social.2C_economic.2C_cultural.2C_administrative.2C_....3F_history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Riot

The letters have been pruned YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work!

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for the good work on the Mass killings under Communist regimes article. That has been a really exhausting discussion, but you and VsevolodKrolikov have really brought some focus and direction to the article. Since you guys clearly know a lot more about this issue than me, I have stopped editing to let you guys do your work. I'll go and contribute to something I know more about instead. :) Best of luck with the rest of the rewrite! --Anderssl (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RSN

You're giving advice that has requirements beyond what is spelled out in our guidelines and policies. Not sure if you're aware of that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If your concern relates to MILMOS#SOURCES then you could have a misunderstanding, as the transclusion of policy isn't very well articulated. The History project transcludes MILMOS#SOURCES as its B-class setting, and lacks a C-Class. MILMOS#SOURCES additionally has a universalising language (and is good practice for history based articles). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using milhist's or FA's or whoever's criteria at the RSN. That page has historically been for "is this source reliable for this use" and not much more. Milhist is kinda crazy, but less than scholarly sources are going to be just fine for history subjects, up through GA, and even FA if not used to much. I just took Jackie Robinson to FA, and from GA to FA, a bunch of reliable web based sources had to replaced. But, that doesn't mean they weren't reliable, and if someone had asked about them a the RSN, they should be told "yes, they're reliable", not milhist frowns on anything but the most scholarly sources. A good aside might mention that it's reliable, but probably won't cut it at FA, or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial merge

Merging White-collar worker into middle class is highly controversial. It breaks major delimiters in class theory. Can you explain it before I revert the edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would want to revert it. The white-collar worker article was unsourced, and highly speculative. And my limited understanding is that white-collar workers are middle class. My aim here is to improve the information on middle class and the various related groups within that class. It would help if you explained to me the significant difference, and why you feel that white-collar workers are not part of the middle class system. SilkTork *^YES! 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Workers are an oppressed group in modern societies. The middle class is a group who are a beneficiary of that oppression. Subsuming the oppressed group beneath an article dealing with their oppressors is broadly offensive, and encyclopedically inaccurate. More importantly, "white-collar worker" is a generic term covering the most minor mail boy and all unskilled non-manual occupations. "Middle class" doesn't cover these terms. I'm reverting because you don't have a handle on the literature of white collar work and its social place. The other mergers appear apt and appropriate to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept I have a limited understanding of the situation - however, what I have picked up from studies, and all sources I have read, put white-collar workers in the middle class. I don't quite get from the sources I have read the understanding that you have got of white-collar workers "covering the most minor mail boy and all unskilled non-manual occupations". Do you have a source for this? Take a look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. Also, please look into some of the sources I provided for Middle_class#Professional-managerial_class which gives some useful discussion of aspects of the "new working class" and the Petite bourgeoisie, who are at the lower end of the middle class. The middle class is a very broad swath which at the middle and upper end includes the ruling class. The middle class does not, however, consist entirely of the ruling class, which you seem to suggest with your comment about the middle class being "oppressors". The politics of the middle class are the most complex of the three main classes, and, yes, need to be explored with care. I will, of course, accept your revert if you provide sources and a rationale for your explanation. At the moment - from my perspective - you are reverting based on your opinion, which does not appear to have a basis in fact. I am sorry that we are having this dispute, as it makes me uncomfortable about working further on the middle class article. I do not wish to struggle to make edits, and in the short time I have worked on the article you have reverted me twice. I would be reassured that we would be able to work together if you did not revert me without a) having a discussion about it, and b) concluding that discussion. So far you have reverted me without discussion once, and then did a second revert without our discussion having reached a conclusion. If you look at things from my perspective you might accept that your actions have been a little hasty. You have noted that my first edit which you reverted has been restored and has enhanced the article. I am not a vandal. Nor am I ignorant. I do good work on Wikipedia. I value discussion and negotiation, as I feel that Wikipedia proceeds best by such collaboration. I am writing this out fully so that you have a full understanding of my position, which might enable us to be more co-operative. I also appreciate that most edits on Wikipedia are small edits, and that what I tend to do at times is make quite strong and big changes which can be unsettling for those who have worked on an article for a long time, so I am not upset by your actions - I understand the position you are coming from! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not en_US dicdefs. Incidentally, the final dicdef you offer should cover your concerns, as it defines white collar workers as "classification for employees performing nonmanual work." That doesn't gel with "middle class," nor does it gel with Upton Sinclairs use, but it does gel with my typification "covering the most minor mail boy and all unskilled non-manual occupations". Your refs at Middle class are reliable, but are unduely weighted due to recentism and the well known features of internet journal searching being weighted towards US empiricist sociology and away from theoretical sociology. Your use of petty bourgeois is rather non-standard. Regarding "ruling classes" and oppressive behaviour, I'm not asserting they're ruling class, simply oppressive. For this, see Andy Anderson's The enemy is middle class. Its also a key example in British political polemic about why labelling a broad swathe of workers as middle class because of their occupational characteristics is incorrect (and highly offensive). Your mergers occurred without discussion, and its nice that you're bold, but if you look at your mergers from my perspective you might accept that your actions have been a bit hasty. Pushing these items to "middle class" is bold, but the variety of 20th century attempts to grapple with professional and technical occupations can be well served by placing the debate one one page, and as long as middle class covers 19th century historical uses before presenting facets of 20th century analysis I'm fine with that. Merging White collar working into middle class is not fine.Fifelfoo (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. I'm including your name only for completeness. If you feel yourself uninvolved, please remove your name from the mediation page. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As an RFC contributor, I felt "bitten", so I feel part of the mediation process. Not a particularly important or eminent part though. Thanks for the notification Fifelfoo (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ah! I had misread your comment on my talk page to mean that you thought we were biting Skip. That makes more sense now. I'm sorry about the rude treatment you got at WP:ECON. Thanks for agreeing to the mediation. best, LK (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding!Fifelfoo (talk) 10:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

If you have a concern with a source, please be specific. Otherwise (judging by your comments elsewhere) you fall back to "side A = irridentist", "side B = anti-revisionist", any sources published before the fall of the Soviet Union are Cold War clap trap, etc. Some of your points have validity, but they will not be taken as such when presented in a way which indicates you have a closed mind and when you defend your position by contending uncivil behavior on the part of others when there is none. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  14:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an egg problem with the article. It looks like an egg, feels like an egg, tastes like an egg, but happens to be some kind of 2006 era featured article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And to expand, the egg problem is two fold: selective use of Primary sources and neglect of the academic literature has lead to; omission of the humanist socialist historiography (for example, the common recognition on the part of the Small Holders, Peasants, SDP (reformed), HSWP (Lukacs), MEFESZ, and every workers council list of demands I've read about the continuity of socialism under a rule of law), and an undue preponderance of post-1989 pro-capitalist and anti-Soviet narratives which aren't present in the (predominantly Western) academic literature. I am exhausted in pushing 1c uphill against an assumption of bad faith on my part. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome further comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Can you tell me where I have misrepresented you?

Hey, I'm curious where I even mentioned your name in my discussion with Moreschi. Also, I stated that the work is peer reviewed and published, (the work is one and the same) and yet you seem upset about that. What's going on here? I think we need to have a mature discussion about this, because I do not think we disagree about the principles herein. Poulianos is a famous anthropologist and I believe his written works have a place in Wikipedia. I don't see anything about his articles that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. If you disagree, can you please show me what part of his study contradcits the standards of Wikipedia. Thanks.--Monshuai (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Asked and answered at WP:RS/N Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and looking at the WP:RS/N I am under the impression that we had come to consensus that source was written by a respectable anthropologist. As far as I can see, your've stated that your problems with the article are that it was originally published in the USSR and written in 1961. That thesis was however later republished in the source you provided and it was critiqued by another academician. What's the problem?--Monshuai (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliability inheres in the text, not the Author. I find it amazing you've sourced an obscure Greek text in under 10 hours and read it to demonstrate its identical with a thesis in Moscow University's library, and can attest to the identity of both sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said I used Poulianos's works in my first PhD. Also, considering your interests in this area, I imagine that you too have written thesis papers and possibly related published works, so I'm sure you know how the cogs function in the greater intellectual machine. You and I can work constructively as a team interested in anthropology, thus building on one another's expertise.--Monshuai (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines

Hi there. Please refactor your statement so it's under the 250 word limit - it's simply going to get out of hand if anyone had more space than that given the number of parties. Kind regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, wc shows 248. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite agreements elsewhere - which I shall yet rectify :-) - good statement. Will be watching with interest. While the problems are real in some articles, the solution is tyrannical. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border

Hi Fifelfoo, as you pointed out at the FAC for Inner German border, the organisation of references needs some work. I've proposed a reorganisation at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Inner_German_border/archive1#Proposal:_re-organisation_of_references; please let me know if what I've proposed would address your concerns. --JN466 11:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Update #1: I've now worked through the great majority of your issues. Could you possibly have a look and provide some feedback (and hopefully strike off a few)? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Update #2: I've now (hopefully) resolved the museums issue and the remainder of the sourcing issues that you raised. The only things now outstanding are the technical ones of editors' names not showing up in the book citation templates, and the revised bibiography proposal. I'd be grateful if you could help out with both issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

Can you please look at the sourcing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1 on the British Historian Mandell Creighton. I have some concerns. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane publications

I really appreciate the time you are taking on this matter and your considered answers. I have no personal axe to grind over Aubane Press, but I don't want to see a source to Primary material spiked. The footnotes in this book are very comprehensive. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously going to have to lose any article written entirely out of Aubane. Rewrite from scratch with academically acceptable sources, and for *any* Aubane you want to use as a supplement check their reviews in the Irish academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not used them 'till yesterday, and had no idea their use might be problematic. Wasn't even aware of Aubane untill I started on this article, but I have a copy of the book now. There are three to four refs attributed to the Murphy book in the article in question, Irish Bulletin, and I feel sure that if any point is challenged, I'll be able to find back ups. But so far, despite all the histrionics at the Noticeboard, not a single point has been questioned at the Article. RashersTierney (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, this happens alot with contested national histories. To avoid getting burnt on buying books... try looking up academic reviews on Google Scholar before buying :). Fifelfoo (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Propaganda - Ireland - 1919-21" is still a pretty narrow field, even in this country where there would seem to be no shortage of history/politics books on just about every aspect of the British/Irish 'misunderstanding'. I'll keep looking though:-) RashersTierney (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RashersTierney (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German Border

Are you still "declining" (opposing?) this article? It is significantly shortened with daughter articles and it looks like he addressed your bibliography issues. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could help with the citation/reference formatting. You have a clearer idea of what's needed than I do, so it's probably best if I rely on your expertise, if that's OK with you. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure is. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the refs, Fifelfoo. It is quite a lot, so if we both work on it, it'll probably be quicker. (Unless you happen to have a few spare hours and want to have a clean run at it, in which case just ping me. Otherwise I'll do bits and bobs as and when I can.) --JN466 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets keep bobbing along! Fifelfoo (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've finished the books and news sources and posted an update to the FAC page. Do you think we should have an extra section for the museum sources? I am wondering now, since it is so few. Cheers, --JN466 21:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Citation Barnstar
		In recognition of your outstanding work in organising and resolving citation issues in the Inner German border article. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1956 Hung Rev

I objected, so did another FA regular. So I won't be closing it. I think it's pretty obvious what hte decision should be. Also, how's the RM Gillespie survey going? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Abut Kahin, if you know of other stuff that discuss the Big Minh junta in detail, could you tell me, because Nguyen Ngoc Tho is pretty short. And Ba Cut, Phan Xich Long, Le Quang Tung, Ngo Dinh Can. Thanks, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Gillespie surveys have stalled for a bit while I worked German Inner Border (fun!). They're next on the list. I can do a bibliography survey possible for the juntas of RVN. I'll be doing a proper look over Ton That Dinh on the bus on the way home. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Relpied on Ton That Dinh, by the way YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

I award to you this long overdue Barnstar of Diligence for your work on various noticeboards, responding to requests for comments, and featured article candidate reviews:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your hard work on various noticeboards, responding to requests for comments, and featured article candidate reviews. Your good work is seen and appreciated! LK (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Communist memorial

I edited your comment at the AfD to show that you had voted to delete.[7] Based on your comments I thought that was your intention but if you disagree then please change it or advise me. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

no worries, that was my intention by listing. I normally check back my votes before close to see he the article has overcome its flaws Fifelfoo (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nuffield College buildings FAC

Just thought I'd check what the status of your comment was about the "Encyclopaedia of Oxford". I've scanned in the list of contributors (nearly 100), and if you would like to see that, or the two pages of small print listing the sources used in compilation of the work, you're more than welcome. I can't email you them unsolicited, since attachments can't be sent by Wikipedia email of course.

On the question of hunting down the original journal article for the quotation I use, you'll have noticed that I'm not worried about arguing whether it's a requirement of 1(c) or not - it's a minor point in the grand scheme of things, and I didn't want the FAC to be sidetracked on it. In any case, even if the opposition is felt by others not to be within the letter of 1(c), I hope that getting hold of the article will lead to an improvement, however modest, in the quality in the article, as well as potentially benefiting me in any further articles I write about Oxford collegiate architecture. I'm still reasonably hopeful that the article can be obtained within the reasonable duration of an FAC, and look forward to the day when you can strike your "decline", possibly even raising it to an "incline"(!) Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! With the Encyclopaedia of Oxford the issue is mainly whether individual specialist authors are responsible for individual articles. Specialist encyclopedias often have the author of a specific article sign it, ie, put their byline against it. This means that we can verify if they're the right kind of specialist to make the claim. I don't think its a deep problem (which is why its in the comments section), but it EoO is signed, you should attach the Author name next to the articles cited. Looking forward to changing the decline to support. I think decline is better than oppose, because I don't oppose any articles making FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the Nuffield FAC (which has already been closed as promote, but the bot hasn't run yet, so if you get in quick...) I hope this is enough to reassure you. The full passage about Nuffield, set out by David Underdown at the FAC, is even more damning than the extract quoted in the book I was using, so your pushing for the original to be cited has improved the content, not just the citation. Thanks again. Bencherlite^Talk 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Socialist Alternative

you cannot give me warnings regarding this, as you are not a sysop of Wikipedia. I am removing unimportant content, thus leaving the article more concise, you are bulking it up with unneeded unwikipedia worthy content. I am doing wikipedia a favour. It seems that these people are using their work in student politics as a way to become well known and that just makes them seem to be frauds, if they were legitimate about their work they wouldn't feel the need for being on wikipedia and being considered 'notable'. Understand? I will continue to remove the unneeded information. --118.138.192.123 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Socialist_Alternative_.28Australia.29_and_IP_conduct_in_relation_to_the_inclusion_of_office_holders_in_Student_Unions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot currently comment on that, I will register to allow myself to, however I must say that I am only trying to keep it so the wikipedia article contains information which is relevant and useful. Also, I have not received 'warnings' by anyone except you, someone who is NOT an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.192.123 (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an "administered" community in the sense that only certain authorised figures can recommend courses of action. You're being warned because you're acting without seeking consensus or discussion. I'll note that you're unable to comment on that discussion, at that discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By Administrator I meant sysop, and yes, there are always sysops around. People who make rules, regulations and give out warnings. Regular users here cannot give out warnings. You cannot warn me. Also, I'll say again. I've only been removing information to make the article concise and have only relevant information. Why is it important that those people get mentioned? Are they 'trying' to use their positions as a way to get known? If they're really into what they're doing for the right reasons, they wouldn't need recognition. Also, they don't need recognition because there's nothing to recognise. They did nothing but get voted into student office. Or, I can add some information to the page to show how one of those members, Omar Hassan, only was voted in because of his ticket (Left Action) doing a deal with the Labour group at Monash (Go!) to share votes in the election, even when Left Action claimed Go! was 'politically bankrupt' --118.138.192.123 (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regular users can and do give warnings, its quite common, its the centre of the vandalism system, and one of the things users have to do before they're allowed to bring a matter forward for assistance by people with special access rights. The individual motivations for holding office don't make the number of office holders any more of less relevant to the organisation. If you have material in a Reliable Source discussing the reasons people attained office, or the manner of their attainment if interesting, then please add the information. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

+

		The Citation Barnstar
		For you work in raising citation standards YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Something

I have changed the language here so it is less biting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've struck and apologised regarding my comments. I didn't feel your comments were particularly bitey. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Most people feel that my posts in general are biting, so I just have to assume that I come off that way. Thank you for taking time to review some of the articles closer to the end. Many people tend to just review only what appeals to them and leave some going without reviews for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1 - I have changed many of the sources on Ode on a Grecian Urn. There are a few minor rewrite matters and some more sources may be added to expand the critical response, but I believe that there are no possible issues now. If you are curious - of the works to be added are three early 20th century sources to get a fuller chronological response, sources from two current collections of articles, and and responses from 6 studies that don't add much to explaining the poem but opine on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Checked, its Beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize how some of it deteriorated over time. There are 6 of the pages and sometimes it is hard to keep up with which had what done and when. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

what is a futon

besides a couch or a bed? It's referred to in Ode on a Grecian Urn FAR. You're very brave, did you know? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

FUTON bias. Bencherlite^Talk 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite is correct, its FUll Text On Net bias. In terms of wiki sourcing we tend to reach for handy research tools like Google, Scholar, Books. Both books and scholar are bad at indexing two major academic forms: Edited collections and conference papers. They're all poor for seminal texts prior to 1970. They're all poor for Humanities and social sciences. Good advice might include library searches through major catalogs like the national repository library. I don't feel brave, I just like citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ah that makes sense. Yes, there is a net bias. I'm lucky to work at a good university where I have access to a lot of stuff, but this need for accessibility makes me crazy sometimes. And Jstor is terrific, as far as it goes. Sometimes it's just good to have a book in hand. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very glad for my libraries, and would prefer to cite accessable and good, but prefer good above all others. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it's ironic that the first reference in the FUTON bias article is a deadlink? Perhaps a team should work to improve it to FA status... Bencherlite^Talk 23:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

added to todo list...using internet only sources? :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But of course! See the article talk page, too. Bencherlite^Talk 23:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Aubane - again

Hi Fifelfoo. In light of the questionable motivations of the initiating IP editor, I've asked that this issue be reconsidered at RS Noticeboard. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC comments for Bale Out

Thank you for your attention to the FAC consideration of the article Bale Out! :) I have responded to your FAC comments, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1. Yours, Cirt (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! ;) Cirt (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

Hi, while I think we will have to agree to disagree on your 1c objections to Khrushchev, I have addressed your 2c objections and would appreciate it if you would strike your objection on that ground. Best, --Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, will check 2c now. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. FYI, I did add an article from a scholarly collection just out (2009) which covered an aspect of Khrushchev's educational policies that an editor had asked about.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping me again towards the end of the process, if content adding is in progress, so I can review my 1c as well Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

TB seems not to go right for namespaces. I might have a look see to fix that. But I replied more fully at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848 and thank you for your support. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Feel free to poke my talk page about once a month with any number of articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC feedback

Hi, Fifelfoo; thanks for pitching in at FAC, where we can always use more reviewers. Nominators are having a hard time deciphering some of your shorthand, jargon and terminology at FAC, and actually, so am I :) It will be easier if you can spell things out more clearly, and also, referring to a reference by number isn't helpful to me, because the number usually changes by the time I read through the FAC. I also wanted to mention to you, FWIW, that in my three-plus years at FAC, I have never encountered another reviewer who opposes on citation formatting. That kind of oppose can be very offputting and frustrating to nominators, since they are usually trivial fixes. I used to enter a Fixes needed declaration, and if the nom didn't fix them within two or three days, then I might switch to oppose. Of course, it is in the criterion, so you are free to oppose based on that, but please consider that we don't want to frustrate nominators with nitpicking, so that they decide FAC isn't worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a think about this. Some of it amounts to, hmm, not a basic civility, but an outright encouragement. I'd like to take that up. Sometimes, however, a citation formatting decline is due to fundamental errors. I think a Comments with a lapse is better for the first type. I'm still sticking with Decline for the second type.

A third case is 2c errors concealing 1c errors. Often real 1c checking can't begin without appropriate citations. Perhaps this is a subset of the second kind of problem, where citation formatting consistency causes a decline.

Jargon is harder. Citations are a jargon driven field. This is mostly where I'll be thinking about it.

In terms of actual line-by-line referencing, the problem is that when I want to say Burdett2009Hateful for Burdett, Example. "My hateful dreams about ducks." In A Compendium of Duck Hatred. Ed. Janice Fowlloather (London: Avianloathe Press, 2009): 209-249. Often the nominator turns up with "Janice Fowlloather (2009). A Compendium of Duck Hatred. Avian." or some other partial attempt made worse through use of the citation templates without understanding the basic concept behind citation for verification. If I quote it as fn27, it breaks rapidly, if I quote it as Fowlloather2009Compendium, it should actually change.

In paying off verbosity against wordlimits, I suppose I need to shift back towards verbosity, but "This is an Encyclopedia article you're quoting, that makes it a tertiary source, the only really reliable tertiary sources are ones aimed at an academic public, written by academics. The way we determine this is usually are do the articles contain a specific by-line by an academic specialist in the field acting as an author of that specific article you quote. Are the articles "signed". Your citation doesn't indicate this is an academic work, by academics, signed by academics; it is an unsigned tertiary source. Please provide a full citation so we can judge it."

Let me keep thinking. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me second what SG is saying. I look at FAC reviews every day in order to update the FAC urgents list and I find it very difficult to decipher your reviews. For nominators to take full advantage of them, it would be best if you were as explicit as possible. I run into this problem all of the time myself in image reviews. I think I am being clear, but nominators interpret my words differently than I do. Precision and explicitness are imperative in reviewing. Again, thanks for you help at FAC! Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay if I make some templates to expand shorthand for my own use then, perhaps, after I find the recurring themes in citation reviewing? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess we would have to test them and see, eh? Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the WP:FAC instructions say not to use templates, because they cause the archives to exceed Wikipedia:Template limits due to the transcluded pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. What about subst:'d templates? I just feel like I'm going to be explaining the difference between Cite book's multiple authors, and the very human Fred and Jones multiple authors alot, similarly with the full-stop (US: period) at the end of short cites versus not. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another way to do it is to just set up a subpage in your user space, and link to that in each FAC, telling the nominators to have a look there. I'm pretty sure it's no templates ... for some reason (beyond my comprehension) they get double-counted, so the archives pass the limit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. If they appear useful in the longer term I'll essay them. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

siege of jerusalem 637

hi, I have made some changes to the article as advised in the review, please check it again for further suggestions if any. regards... الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that exist in Wikipedia only because editors support them. I have nominated the following articles for deletion: Communist genocide, Left-wing nationalism, Small-c conservative, Small-l liberal, Small-l libertarian, Vichy liberalism, Conservatism in North America, National liberalism and others. In every case there are editors who claim that the concept exists and can be found in the literature but in no case find supporting evidence. Editors then pile on usually quoting the number of Google searches and then totally ignore the topic. One of the first articles I nominated for deletion was Neoconservatism in China. Neo and new are translated the same into English and there was a group in China called the "new conservatives". The article referenced a book written before the term neoconservative had become prominent. A whole flock of editors descended to defend the article but none actually provided any support to it. I renamed it as New Conservatism (People's Republic of China) but as you can see the people who argued to keep the article have not contributed at all. During the AfD I learned that the concept existed but was misnamed, so I renamed the article. It will probably be difficult to delete the C genocide article until WP enforces its own policies on article creation. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. Two months of bloody research to prove a negative assertion, that there is no such research object as cross cultural communist genocide studies / cross cultural communist [mass nasty stuff] studies. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Winter War review + open questions

Hi! The issue: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1 and your review. Message: I was wondering, do you think the issues you presented have been answered? I am not sure, how to answer issues 1c.3 & 1c.4. Do you think they still need some work? Maybe some guide? And issue 1a.3., I changed ize -> ise, but I have no ability to deep UK English grammar. Peltimikko (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that I can't properly act on those items for at least 24 hours. I'll be striking what I can, and fixing what I can't at about that time. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Advise at your convenience

Hi there! Looks like you are busy. Don't worry, I'm not here to saddle you with more work, at least not the kind that involves nitty-gritty details. I have just completed the first cut of the rewrite of Mandell Creighton that I began nearly three weeks ago on a subpage. I'd like to know what to do next. (That is besides letting the article sit for at least a week before I do anything major.) For example, how does one get a promotion from the start class rating that the article currently has. After a promotion, do I request a peer-reviw, do I go for a GAN, do I ... Please advise at your convenience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know you are busy, but was just wondering how the Mandell Creighton peer-review was going. If you have any questions, general or particular, please let me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely still in mind, but I've needed to rest it, I'll be coming back and finishing a review in the next week. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1

I have started a section at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hungarian Revolution of 1956/archive1 to hash out the scope of the article. What I've put up is a bit of a straw man, so please join the discussion - I know you have views on what should be in the article, so see how it fits the framework I've proposed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sly & the Family Stone

Check the FAR. SandyGeorgia suggested a previous diff that doesn't seem to have any glaring problems in it. Do you think that it would be a good idea to revert to that diff (with some minor tweaks to remove a redlinked category or two, of course)? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of cats with fraudulent diplomas

If this is what you're referring to, it was a mis-placed template on a talk page and User:Edgarde realized the error and blanked the page (i.e. G7). Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

You have been mentioned in this discussion. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On that point, I noticed at your comments here. You wrote "Your short cites of Noll and Blumhofer (eds) is inexcusable". It might be better to say "confusing". Such mistakes are, of course, excusable if someone is unfamiliar with citing sources, or confused about the nature of the book they are using, or just having a bad day. :) Pointing out the error is sufficient, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to learn to watch myself much more closely. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FAR

You can nominate another one if you want, as your first one has moved towards the end YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries; but I really want to spend my FAR time getting Hungary 1956 right. Its in slow discussion at FAR talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

All fixed now. Many thanks for your carefull consideration.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa FAC

Can you please explain this by showing me an example? I'm a little confused on what you are referring to. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(The 2nd point you made, not the periods) CTJF83 chat 21:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respond as soon as you can. CTJF83 chat 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait what

Huh? ResMar 00:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've switched out the academic refs for Person (et. al. if applies)-Year format. Is that enough as far as ref-names goes? ResMar 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Appreciate your ArbCom endorsement though I am a decided underdog with half the ArbCom clerks corps running, plus some very prominent editors. I've been very happy at your recent reviews, very productive indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate anyone I can have strongly felt disagreements with and continue to respect: especially when the reason for that respect is their respect of due and appropriate process. I need to watch my mule like tendencies when I start to feel heated, they make me look like an ass at times. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Training Fifelfoo

Me, again :) If I'm having a hard time parsing your comments at FAC, they must be very frustrating to nominators, who as volunteers, might not understanding citation formatting. I'm not seeing the problem with the Strike, Joe citation; what is it? Reviews are getting extremely lengthy, bogging down the page, so it would be helpful if specific issues and examples were given in plain language on the talk page of the FAC, to keep the reviews brief. Thanks for all your work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I've become sufficiently frustrated with the depth of citation issues at Povenmire that I can only throw my hands up in the air.

as far as jargon, I'm reporting bad templates a fair bit (journal, video)...

...then there's the regular misuse of cite web... ...which is appearing on academic and popular articles...

...it would be easier if a number of our nominators learnt the principles of citation, rather than rushing to use flash templates.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Povenmire is the first time I think an article should go off FAC for 2c issues. The 2c is deep enough that it makes the items difficult to review for 1c... and sufficiently incorrect that they can't be used to certify 1c. MILHIST has an academy... I feel I might expand their "How to Cite" section. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But the overriding question, per WP:V, is "can the information be verified". We can ask nominators to clean up citations, and hold off promotion until they do, but if WP:V is met, we shouldn't have the pages bogging down in detail. I'm not seeing the issues on Povenmire that you see (wrt verifiability), so unless you can explain it to me, I can't evaluate your oppose. Incorrect citation is irritating and should be fixed, but I've never seen another reviewer oppose on citation formatting, so it's natural that nominators aren't up to speed. We don't want to discourage nominators; we do want to encourage verifiability and correct formatting, but gently, and explained in a way they can understand. For example, I used to just say "citations are incomplete, all sources should have title, publisher at a minimum, author and publication date when available, accessdate on websites" or something like that, and then just mention that the correct templates need be used, giving an example. Your jargon is still a bit hard for nominators (and myself) to follow at times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To a certain extent this is the balance between a jargon (ala: image copyright) and flooding the page with correction requests. The fact that the Povenmire FAC gets the author of a cited work incorrect is simply mind boggling. An editor obviously saw a "Contact:" name on the web page concerned, and inserted it as the author. Concepts like "Corporate authorship" "Staff authors" etc... sigh. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It happens quite often; when I was a reviewer, I checked for that sort of thing, but no one has been doing it lately. But ... if you'll just tell nominators in plain language, "incorrect author or title given in citations", with examples, and then ask them to ping you for a revisit when they are *all* correct, it will probably be more clear to everyone what you're asking. I used to reserve opposes for when the citations were so bad that the information couldn't be verified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Povenmire case I think its down to the difficulty of believing the citations represent external reality. They show a sufficiently dense number of errors and fundamental conceptual problems, that I lack the faith in a connection between what's cited, and what's purported to be cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

For an example of how bad 2c sinks an article: [van Rensselaer] has an OR problem due to the miscitation of commentary within a book of primary sources: the editor has cited the book of primary sources itself. The assumption, from the source, is that the material to be verified off is necessarily reprinted Manuscripts (ie: Primary Sources). Correct citation in some instances goes straight to verification. Rensselaer has another, massive, OR problem in the direct use of primaries to establish facts. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Recall that the nominator there is a first time nominator, and has probably never encountered the issue before; the better you can explain the concern to him in plain English, the more likely he'll clean up the article and re-appear at FAC with a strong article, rather than give up on Wiki :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a first time nominator, but I'm coming to the conclusion that in the light of some of the recent cryptic opposes (not just from Fifelfoo, he's just the most obvious example) FAC is arguably no longer worth the effort. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the concern; the page is becoming so bogged down in technicalities, that I'm afraid major isues (like verifiability and prose and comprehensiveness) are being neglected. My readthrough this weekend wasn't fun :) The Earthquake, for example, has drug along at the bottom of the page for eons until it finally got a prose review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I could move to reviewing in the style: Comment, 2c please attempt to resolve the issues at [Talk: article#2c] (fiddle issues / serious issues / template misuse) => "Talk: 2c" detailed plainer English account of issues.

This could clear FAC for the (imho) more important 1 criteria, especially the prose stuff. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That might help, but instead of putting them on article talk, I'd prefer the FAC talk, so that everything is kept in one archived place. The page is seriously bogged down in detail, such that I spent several hours this weekend moving things to talk to encourage more reviewers to engage, and to improve the page load time (which is a problem for me now, even on a good connection, but will be impossible for me if I travel and am forced to dialup). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Following your example I've been bailing resolved commentary around my issues to FA Candidates Talk pages. I can start the majority of technical commentary at FA Candidate Talk pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good ... just be sure to always leave mention on the FAC and a link to talk. When I do my first pass through, I read the full FAC page, which doesn't show the talk tab on transcluded FACs, so I won't always know if something is on talk until I get to the point of being ready to promote, and then read the entire FAC thoroughly and individually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Following your style on this point, I've been always including a [link to the talk with a section anchor]. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The writing's been on the wall for some time though SandyG. How much time and effort is wasted on alt text, for instance? Detailed tracking of dates of death for images that were clearly taken by someone long dead? We've lost track of what's really important; an accurate, verifiable, and engaging article on a notable topic. The rest is just huff and puff. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Enforce a GA with favourable prose review, limited FA to a technical nightmare? Split FA's technical elements into FA(T) [1ce, 2bc, 3, 4], leaving FA proper [1abde, 2a, 4]? If so do you need to meet Technical requirements before FA? And if so, does a not FA Technical not qualify for frontpage (the main payoff)? Dump problematic criteria (1c, 2c, 3)? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who believes that the "main payoff" of a sucessful FAC is a frontpage appearance has obviously never written an FA that's appeared on the frontpage. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You got something against booby prizes?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite a fan of boobys in general, but if it were possible I'd probably elect not to appear on the mainpage. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No such thing as a free lunch (especially where boobs are concerned :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec response to Malleus) But, but, but ... FAC (and Wiki) depend on volunteers and consensus, and each editor has a hobby horse. Last year it was MOS :) One year it was PersonData (I think that was before your time). I have to respect consensus: remember the excruciating lengthy discussions over the change to 1c of WP:WIAFA, which I knew was going to end up in my lap in a dispute? Just doing my "job" ... but wishing we'd get more prose, verifiability and comprehensiveness reviews. Fifelfoo, asking GA to change, or asking nominators to submit first to GA before FAC, has proven an unfruitful battleground in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the problem you've identified many times before. The review page gets so clogged up with detailed stuff that it gets too much trouble to read; why should another reviewer bother to waste time on the article anyway, if it looks like it's already been sunk by some imagined non-compliance to yet another invented set of arbitrary rules? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC has gotten harder, but I hope there's some payoff in how much better current FAs are holding up in terms of the mainpage and longevity. I keep watching my promotions vs. demotions :) and we haven't had a big "how can you run this piece of crap on the mainpage" scandal in a very long time. But, heck, I haven't even added alt text yet, and I was supposed to be setting some kind of example for years :) I keep hoping Eubulides will take pity on me, since I haven't developed the artform of describing pictures to blind people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is though that "blind people" isn't a homogeneous population; as the target population for alt text is therefore undefined, its unclear what constitutes "good" alt text. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe some polymath will come along and start slating hundreds of articles for not being comprehensive. It's easy to see an article is not well researched by looking at the refs, but I doubt that will be regarded as being sufficient unless the bad/missing content is explicitly explained YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry to butt in guys, but just one question, what are the rules for naming refs? I never knew there were rules for naming refs, and either I'm blind or I can't find it at WP:CITE. FACs are really really hard yes but I think once I got past Loihi Seamount I finally figured out what was needed. Its a lot -_- Signed, a nobody, ResMar 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Oh and you guys need some reviews direly. It took me several efforts to get enough votes for Loihi to pass. Ditto with Rumford Prize but that cleared up at the end. I hate it very much! ResMar 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see that, but it doesn't tell me with Fif is telling me about "proper biographical detail" in ref names. As far as I understand, cite journal and book are supposed to have AUTHORS-DATE format, and that isn't mentioned anywhere...ResMar 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as bibliographic styles go, you ought to follow a citation style. Wikipedia's [cite foo] templates form a comprehensive style. Other citation styles are available in style manuals, and would have to be used manually rather than through templates.

Examples of problems with your citations include misidentifying objects, such as "Duncan, R. A. and Clague, D. A. (1984) The earliest volcanism on the Hawaiian Ridge (abstract), EOS American Geophysical Union Transactions, volume 65, page 1076." which fails to italicise the journal (indicating the journal is unpublished in common wikipedia style), and which uses a spelt out volume and page identifiers which are not common to your style.

"Age and chemistry of volcanic rocks dredged from Jingu Seamount, Emperor seamount chain". Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project 55: 685-693.. 1980. Retrieved 2009-04-04. lacks an author, the year is misplaced, the volume and pages are listed as part of the title of the containing work.

^ "Kure Atoll". Public Broadcasting System - KQED. 2006-03-22. Retrieved 2009-06-13. lacks the name of the containing work, Jean-Michel Cousteau: Ocean Adventures. Voyage to Kure: The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands [website] Though you could treat Jean-Michel Cousteau: Ocean Adventures as a series title, and render as "Kure Atoll." Voyage to Kure: The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands [website] Jean-Michel Cousteau: Ocean Adventures [Series].

Citations allow for work identification and work verification

To identify a work we require:

Authorial data

The Authors or for more than x (minimum 3) "et.al." or "and others". The Editors. The Translators (Optional). The Series Editors (Optional). For non authored works we need to know what kind of non authored? [pseudonym] [anonymous] [?Questionable Author] [Staff author] (for assumed cases, Staff author for definite cases. For collective authors, like the USGS, we need them indicated by their proper title or highly known acronym (USGS is fine, for example, AFL-CIO would be fine, ACTU is starting to get a bit country specific, CFMEU (Forestry Division) is too specific).

Title data

The title of the work actually cited. If an encyclopedia article (as you cite) we require the title of the cited article and the title of the containing article. At worst you can get "On Nokia Mobiles, Part 1: 3310" In Encyclopedia of Mobile devices Volume 1: Mobile Telephones. Oxford Series of Portable Things, issue 14. as a book. Depending on the type of object, the chapter title and work title can often be sufficient. There are rules about naming chapters when they're authored by the same authors as the whole book is, and no "other" authors (except intro, preface, afterword) authors exist: you don't. Journal titles should be spelt out in full, unless in a field and using a style guide that contracts titles, and then the standard field contractions should be used.

Provenance data

Publisher, Location, Journal Series (New Series, Old Series, etc.), Volume, Issue, Part, doi.

To verify a work we require:

All of the above, especially author and provenance

Location within work

Volume number, part number, page number, if unpaged section title §The on key of the Nokia 3310. For unpaged works with long sections or no named sections Paragraph name or number ¶330.12.3.a. This allows the location of the verifying material to be demonstrated.

At the moment your citations need serious workshopping. This low quality web resource, "^ "Gardner Pinnacles". Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 2000. Retrieved 2009-06-11." cannot be differentiated (ie: verified) from your citations from this high quality resource: "^ "The hotspot reference frame and the westward drift of the lithosphere". Mantleplumes.org. 2005-10-01. Retrieved 2009-06-07." (The second actually has authors listed...)

Your citations aren't correctly indicating author, title, provenance or location; neither are they consistently styled. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

...Whoa. Wow. Um...just wow. I don't even know how to respond. And how come I've never seen or hear of anything like this before? WHAT IF NO AUTHOR IS PROVIDED???ResMar 00:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What style? There's a style? For something barely important as this? We have to use P? WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Omg do you exist to give anyone at FA hell >< ResMar 00:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no chosen style. You can use any consistent style guide for formatting citations, as long as you're consistent.

Most style guides provide excellent things to do if no author is provided.

Have you checked that the Author isn't a Corporate (ie: organisational author). For example. PBS. "Looking at Fishes" People look at things First broadcast date: 14 May 1970. Or from your bibliography. USGS.

When authors aren't specifically provided, and the work is edited, then the editors are the authors. Johns, D; Johns, M (eds.). "Introduction" Encyclopedia of Fish.

Pamphlets, screeds and libels should be indicated with proper authorial data, using squares generally to indicate that the authorial data isn't contained on the work. [Anonymous]. How I hate Fishes. London: Backyard press, 1975.

Wikipedia's cite templates use APA (more or less). Harv and citation use Harvard (more or less). Chicago and Turabian are popular styles as well.

Given that this seems to be causing you inordinate wikistress, can I extend an offer to manually format your citations to a consistent style? This means I will be asking you to tell me what your book's title pages say / bibliographic pages say, if I can't access the works myself. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That would work - once. And what about the next time? If they want this followed then they have to set up a guideline for it (I really perfer they don't!) Otherwise it's a lot of pain (90+ manual refs) fror little gain. It's the prose that makes and breaks an article. Not the citations. ResMar 00:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Learn to cite; find a collaborator who can cite; work in a project who's internal review system for A class requires a high quality of citation or has a Manual of Style to meet (MILHIST for example); work on articles which can be exhaustively researched using cites that fit entirely within cite web; learn to cite after finding a manual of citation style that has a minimal requirement for citation quality; learn to cite using one of the two wikipedia citation template systems while learning basic elements of citation such as identifying a work type, identifying required fields from a work, and inputing required fields against the citation template correctly. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ironically enough, I tried several times and quit WP:MILHIST because of their incredibly stingent demands. They basically throw every web resource out the window and burn it. I don't have a huge library of the stuff so that's why as such as I love it, I'm never writing stuff there, preferably I write with WP:VOLCANO, because that has USGS resources and geological resources and whatnot online. Ok, so I would love if you could handle this one for me; seems awfully nice considering how angry I got r.r But in the meantime can you point to an article written to these standards? ResMar 02:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST's stringency is there for some very good reasons. Their area suffers from fanchildren, hobbyhorse web sources, and has an abundance of high quality reliable sources. For an article that cites very very well, try Inner German Border which deals with quotes in books, museum exhibits, appendixes referenced by section, multiple authors, editors, chapters in books, books in series. Or check your own article out in a short while. Or Convention of 1832 which is very well done. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok ok, so what I'm getting so far is that I'm supposed to use |origdate= and if authors are not listed, "Staff". Too bad it's not in my citation toolbar...ResMar 13:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I just don't want to deal with it anymore, first WP:ALT, now this...hey wait a moment as long as all this crap isn't in the MoS I don't have to care. Yay loophole. What's on cite templates doesn't matter. ResMar 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Van Rensselaer FAC

In light of our disagreement at the FAC, would you be agreeable to move the discussion to the talk and leave the finalized citation issues I've noted on the page? This is officially WP:TLDR and that's bad for an FAC. After reading the above discussion, I would like to add to it a bit. Your reviews at FAC are invaluable, having skimmed a bit to see what your deal is. It's great to see that you want FAs to be the absolute best of the best, I would just suggest that the way you go about it be changed a bit. I'm far from a new editor, but if I were new and was treated at FAC the way you treated me, I most likely wouldn't come back. It's not the content you present, but how you present it. I have to second Awadewit up here. That said, amends it is if you're agreeable. And thanks for going thru the article with the fine-toothed (zepto) comb. upstateNYer 06:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to dump the entirety of our conversation to the FAC Talk: if that's okay (if not, please figure it out). I'm going to characterise it as, "2c issues are primarily resolved, though Fifelfoo would prefer that VRBM chapters be indicated due to the mixed primary / secondary nature of the text. 1c issues with what Fifelfoo describes as primaries are unresolved, with Fifelfoo and the nominator presenting arguments on both sides which are fully explained at talk. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check the move and characterisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Winter War review 2

Hi! The issue: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1 and your review. Your latest FA-review response was given two weeks ago. After that, there have been several minor grammar corrections and other edits. Could you please see the article again? Next Monday (30th November) will be the 70th Anniversary. Peltimikko (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Checked, satisfied, supported. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Breaking up other editors' comments

In this edit you broke up Kung Fu Man's post so much, without restoring signatures, that in many cases it's no longer clear who posted it. Please find a way to refactor your comments. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

apologies, thought it was implicit, will in back and sign. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Invincibles

I've removed the pic, no need to waste time YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 12:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Can you create a new section and move the things you are happy with and segregate it, so that it's easier for everyone? Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Teh Soviet invasion of Poland might be in your sphere of interest YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 18:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your good work on rescuing National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia from deletion. KUTGW Australian Matt (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the status?

What's the status on Hawaii hotspot? Also, can you PLEASE write a clear, consise guide for 2c somewhere? I can't do it meself until I understand it :) Cheers, ResMar 03:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You could look at the time costs involved in the references I've fixed so far. As far as citation style manuals go, there are a wide number. Consistency with one from any of them is an expected standard. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please please please pick your favorite, then, and write something consistent on it? Everyone appreciates the noble effort however it's driving people over cliffs because they don't understand it, and we need someone (point point) to write it up. You do a lot of it yourself but you can't do ALL of it. How about User:Fifelfoo/2c [style here] style. It would be a huge help (btw if it helps can you do the inline-cite one first cause thats the one I'm using :) ) After the FAC close I'm coming around to fixing the issues and I wanna fix this one too but I can't cause I don't know how. Thank you, ResMar 01:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's {{cite book}} related styles follow an APA-like style with some modifications. Given that I would be engaging in copyright violation to duplicate the style on Wikipedia as a textual instruction. Personally, for professional reasons, I prefer Chicago or Turabian as these are more complete citation styles for some purposes and have a few citation ordering issues which I prefer. Neither Chicago nor Turabian are supported by an automatic style. Further, Wikipedia has a policy that citation styles should not be forced onto others. Any citation style is acceptable if its used consistently and correctly. The biggest issue in Hawaiian hotspot is correct identification of work type, ie: book, journal, bookchapter. The second biggest issue is correctly filling in essential fields within the citation style. How to identify a book is a difficult problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you can;t just leave us in the dark! How about a list of required fields? ResMar 02:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This depends entirely on the work. Generally a citation takes one of two major forms (these examples following Turabian):

1. Independent works

   Author. Title. Location: Publisher, Year. Page reference. Works with multiple authors obey different rules, so many authors until et.al. and and others (and how many authors before the use of et.al. in a nine author work?). Anonymous authors obey a series of rules. Corporate authors are given as corporate authors, even if they're the publisher. Year of first publication where important is usually required. Locations obey a set of rules.

   More optional fields include: Many people prefer to see a DOI: where available, or ISBN. Unpublished works don't take italics for their title. Published works do. Books with multiple named volumes where only one volume is being cited normally indicate that only a particular volume is referenced, and name the volume. Numbered only volumes are numbered. Second editions or translations are usually noted. Books in Series are normally noted as such, and the series editor given. Translators are often given.

1. Debord, Guy; de Maupassant, Guy; Inspector Clouseau (pseud.); and others. A story about a cat. Volume 2: the cat's whiskers, trans. M. Thatcher, Stories of the World [Series] B. Brown (series ed.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 2007 (1984 English. 1977 French). See in particular 4-14.

1. Works contained within other works obey a different set of rules

   Author. "Title." In Containing Work containing work editors or authors. (Location: Publisher, Year): Page reference. OR

   Author. "Title." Journal or Newspaper Title. Volume (Issue) Year. Page reference.

Go buy a style manual, or read a style manual on "how to cite" online. Historians are rather good at drilling what you need to cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have Diane Hacker's "A Pocket Syle Manual" if that counts. half of the book is devoted to citation stuff but its not the kind of stuff I'm used to using. The stuff you just told me is good though, thanks :) ResMar 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It covers MLA, APA, and Chicago style. It's mighty useful for special stuff like interviews, presentations, etc. But it's incompatible for the most part with Cite stuff templates...ResMar 02:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rely on a style guide for what elements of a citation are mandatory or essensial, and on how to identify what kind of work an object is. The actual templates like {{cite journal}} are pretty good on explaining which fields do what, but they're less good on explaining which fields are necessary. If in doubt: try to fill in every field that is valid. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what are the rules for anons and corprate writers? I'm starting to get you more clearly thatnks to what you just told me. :) ResMar^Hohoho 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Authors are institutions which take the by line of a document. On the title page of a book, for example (not the "fly leaf" which contains only the work name, and often an author name), the authors will be listed. Corporate authors are identified by their institutional name as they write it on the title page. For example, "US Geological Survey" might commonly identify as "USGS" which could be obscure, so then you'd need to annotate it as such, "USGS [United States Geological Survey]". Your annotations, if required, go in square brackets to indicate they're not part of the author's own identification. Corporate Authors can be part of a group of authors. Morrison, Moris; Susandaughter, Susan; USGS; National Library Australia; Frankson, Frank; UNHCR [United Nations High Commission for Refugees]. Anonymous authors depend on the identification. A book could be widely known to be by someone, but they've published it as Anonymous; in which case attribute with square brackets [Marx, Karl]. Someone might merely be assumed to be the author [?Marx, Karl]. Someone might be published under the Authorial line "Anonymous." Anonymous, Anti-scientology rant on Youtube.. Someone might not have put their name in the authorial line at all. [Anonymous] My cat is a fine cat.. For corporate authors of Newspapers, sometimes articles are attributed to Wire services or Staff authors, or lack a by-line. AAP. "Article" Newspaper. Staff. "Article" Newspaper. For an assumed staff author (no by line). [Staff]. "Article" Newspaper. Editorials are different. The Editor. "Editorial: I love cats." Newspaper. Or. Newspaper "Editorial: I love cats." Newspaper. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, how about that fancy stuff you were showing me with indicating sections and lines that are un-named? ResMar^Hohoho 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If dealing with an object without pagination; you can indicate the section of the document being discussed using § Section names or numbers or ¶ Paragraph numbers or text starting "If dealing with an object...". You can also cite lines, as in "line 13". You would use the |pages= field of {{cite book}} for this, but also need to specify a "|nopp=" (just leave it blank) to suppress the pp. header. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is using pp. good though? Or is it too limited? (btw I'm gathering up what you tell me and putting it away so I can use it :) ) ResMar^Hohoho 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, imagine we're going to cite a booklet, without page numbering, but with named sections. Which looks better. Marx, Karl. A contribution to a critique Moscow, USSR: Progress, 1961, pp. §Money. or Marx, Karl. A contribution to a critique Moscow, USSR: Progress, 1961, §Money. pp. stands for "pages." § stands for "section" you can't have pages section Money. That's why when citing the point the verification exists at in a work, you have to use |nopp= or your |pages= will display funny. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand; but if you use the § or (possibly and?) ¶, will you have to convert the rest of the refs out of using pp.? ResMar^Hohoho 03:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No! The preferred method is pages. So if the book has page numbers, use those. If you need to cite a footnote on a page, then p. 14 fn. 27 is fine, or "p. 14 footnote." Only when sequentially numbered pages (like on a long web version of a text) are unavailable, OR, when multiple standard editions exist (say, Karl Marx's Capital) is it preferable to use identifiers other than pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have a singular issue with one of the refs; the page number for the online Abode version is different from the actual print one. Currently I add (digital pp. x-y) but is there a smoother method? ResMar^Hohoho 21:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, how about alternate titles? For example, Frankenstien is also called The Modern Protheus. ResMar 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The essential page number is the page number printed on the document. Its nice to indicate the PDF page if they haven't page numbered the PDF correctly. pp. 3-6 (pdf pp. 6-9).

With other titles, go with the title as printed on the title page. If the title is "Frankenstein Or The Modern Prometheus" then the |title= is |title=Frankenstein Or The Modern Prometheus . This could be changed by the MOS about capitalisation of course. Some style guides about rules about capitalisation in titles in citations. Some style guides have rules about 16th century type titles where the title is a paragraph long, and on how to shorten them appropriately. If the work is known by two names, but only one is on the title page, do the following Titlepage name. [Other name known as]. So for example Das Kapital: a treatise on value formation and political economy and cats and horses and ponies and things about Kevin. [Capital]. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If something was written by USGS, would you say author=USGS, Corparate authors, or something else? What are the rules for saying the name of the publishes, anonymous, Corparate authors, etc.? ResMar 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bump. ResMar 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Bale Out revisited

Hi Fifelfoo, you had previously commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bale Out/archive1 with a bolded-Support. However, there now appears to be some confusion [8], [9] as to whether this was indeed a "full support". Perhaps you could clarify, at the FAC page? Thank you very much for your time, Cirt (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind! :) And thanks again very much for your input, Cirt (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory

Many thanks for your work reviewing AT.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

M22 Locust

Hi there, Fifelfoo. I'm hoping to take M22 Locust to FAC at some point in the near future, and have opened a Peer Review for the article here. As I realize I'd be running into you at the FAC anyway, I was hoping you could give the sources a look over and make an FAC-type comment on them, although I'd be grateful if you could make them a little less jargon-y than you do in the actual FAC reviews - I find those difficult to read at times! Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope the peer review helps? Fifelfoo (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful indeed, thank-you; I've left some preliminary answers there, and will give a detailed analysis/argument over Tucker and Bishop as soon as I can start looking them over. I'm fairly confident that even if I can't prove they're particularly HQRS, I can cut down the number of times they're used at any rate. Thanks for the help, and any future help, Skinny87 (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've left further, detailed, comments on the sources used in the article, which could use your nattention when you get a chance. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I've answered all of your questions on the Peer Review now, so when you get a chance to look it over I'd be greatful. Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

(od)Just to let you know I've sourced everything from Tucker to Chamberlain & Ellis, leaving only them and a single citation to Bishop. If I could just get your opinion on whether C&E are an HQRS (I think so, and another reviewer didn't see any problems with the article's sourcing) and how to fix the Bishop citation, that would be it for the review - unless you had further comments, of course. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

apologies for not getting back to you earlier, will attempt today at lunch. Had 6hr unexpected travel etc Fifelfoo (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, it's only a peer review, not like it's an FAC or anything. Only when you have time. Skinny87 (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Hope I'm not disturbing you, only the Peer Review will end in a couple of days, and I'll be busy at work after that, so won't have a lot of time in the nwext week for wikipedia. So I was hoping you might comment on the review before it ends and gets archived. To sum up for you: Bishop and Tucker, the two more dubious 'illustrated' Reliable Sources have been banished and replaced by Chamberlain & Ellis; which, although 'illustrated' is, I think, much more of an HQRS - much better and reliable publisher that is actually military-orientated (well, now it's a military orientated part of a larger company, but still), the authors have written several other books on the subject and manage to get all of their facts correct, unlike a lot of other sources. Any attention you could give would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Invincibles depth

Replied again YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway FAC

Thanks for the comments on sources; I've left some responses at the FAC, which I think answer your concerns. --DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the FAC will be coming to an end shortly, and it would be helpful to know if you think your concerns have been addressed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division FAN

Hello. I have responded to your concerns at the 7th Infantry Division FAN page and was wondering if you had any more. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 19:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

If you have the time, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1 needs a good check for citation consistency (which is all over the place) and citation quality. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on a Grecian Urn/archive1

I just wanted to let you know that the FAC for Ode on a Grecian Urn has been restarted after several additions have been made and would like to encourage you to take a look at the changes that have taken place since your previous support and let us know what you think. Thanks again for your effort. Mrathel (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Inherent notability and heritage listings

I have removed the {{notability}} tag you placed on Houses at 37-47 North Fifth Street because the issue is not in doubt and is backed up by essay and precedent. For the former, see here. For precedent, see these AfDs (more than those you linked to at the talk page:

• Ashley House (Fall River, Massachusetts),

• Henry F. Miller House,

• Alban Towers,

• Terre Haute House,

• Black Point (estate),

• CCC Shelter,

• Margaret Mitchell House & Museum,

• Maine State Building and

• El Rancho Hotel & Motel.

This principle has been extended to listed buildings in the UK and other national-level heritage designations as well.

This should have been explained with more appopriate links at the time as well. Sorry.

If, as you seem to suggest, you have issues with that consensus, then take it up at WT:N, not on an article-by-article basis. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready...meep

Well, all my excuses and side-projects have been sucked into the abyss that is WP:GAN...I would have to turn back to Hawaii hotspot eventually...sigh...this is going to be a nightmare...going over 90+ refs manually is not what I consider fun...ResMar 02:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been active on this, I had a large amount of travel recently for work. I've got a largely clear weekend and access to a variety of useful support services to help me get stuff fixed. So expect action on it shortly. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, question; you said we have to indicate authorship even if it's the agency involved; if no author is given what are the rules for using anon, staff author, etc. As far as I can see that's the only signifigant problem with it...ResMar 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've checked the Title Page for authors, and no author is given on the title page (not the fly leaf), AND if the work is a result of a government agency, THEN the authorship is corporate, and that agency. IF the work is not a work of an agency, corporation, collective, political party, trade union, ngo, etc., THEN the authorship is [Anonymous] as the author hasn't authored it as Anonymous, and we are presuming an anonymous author. What's the work in question? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority is USGS. ResMar 03:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it neccesarily have to have the brackets? ResMar 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah... double check to see if the report was authored by an individual, or if the chapter in question was authored by an individual. The work can still be edited by USGS. ... anyway... I promised, so sometime in the next two days I'll start running through your article :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Given unanominity, would "Staff author" (or staff authors...?) be ok? ResMar 04:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If the USGS has unnamed employees write it for the GS as part of their employment, then its the USGS who wrote it Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the rules for naming refs? Do I have to use official author-year refs for published stuff only or for everything? ResMar 22:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean refnames themselves for repeated references, not simply the display of a short citation? I don't think there's any rules, but what helps them stick in your mind is good. In my field that ends up being LastYYYYTitle_word, like Thompson1964Making. For short citations for display, it depends on your style. I prefer something along the lines of E.P. Thompson, Making of the English Working Class, p. 7. But that's because I'm from a humanities field. Someone from a more sciencey field might find the year more important than the title, Thompson, E.P. (1964) p. 7. Those are both just examples. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

but would something like "USGS-Hotspot Geo" be bad? ResMar 00:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For refnames themselves, they never appear except to editors, like you, or me. So if you reckon that USGS-Hotspot Geo would be the most memorable way to refer to the source in that context, do it! Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Awesome ^^ ResMar 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in WP:Edit War

Such as the blatant ones here. Especially when it involves the mass deletion of sourced material.Mosedschurte (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the article history, including the hard won consensuses developed regarding the article direction, before you accuse me of edit warring. Being BOLD regarding a consensus, and protecting it three times, having engaged editors who have recently come to the article instructing them regarding the nature of the article is far from edit warring. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mosedshurte reported you to ANI after your fourth revert. You probably lost count and should reverse your last revision. Very sneaky of Mosedshurte to warn you after your 4th revert, then report you.[10] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The administrators may not see it that way. You should reverse your edit and agree not to revert but instead set up an RfC. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Given that the "fun" of blow in editors who haven't read the archives has already commenced, lets RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And done. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is disappointing how POV pushers can hinder the creation of good articles and there is no action that can be taken against them. At some point they must find a way to pre-screen editors and stop editors from making articles biased. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

editors bothering to read article discussions before becoming a keyboard rambo reconstructing cold war emasculations, the wonderful world of fringe methodology pushers being closed off by community application of weight and rs and administrators acting on repeated conduct issues would ameliorate my frustrations. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note outcome of 3rr report.[11] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the no consensus outcomes of the AFDs were mischaracterised. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests.
Message added 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soviet invasion of Poland/archive1

I was able to address a few issues, and commented on the rest. In some cases I simply did not understand your point why the reference is not good enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Chamberlain

I've addressed your concerns regarding Nev. Many thanks for poking through it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

HQRS

• what does HQRS mean? • Ling.Nut 04:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• sorry, 1c's high quality reliable sources. Citing physiology from a newspaper, or conversely, celebrity gossip from a physics article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So...

How's Hawaii hitspot coming along? :) ResMar 17:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

non-humanities twonks

This thread about non-humanities twonks was brought to my attention at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Termer after another editor suggested [12] like it has been me who has been under the discussion over there. Well, just wanted to let you know that I'd need to disagree with such an assumption. I can't see anything in your remarks that I could possibly relate to myself personally. At the same time however, even though posted at a user talk page, such remarks may be considered personal attacks by some editors. Therefore I'd suggest to blank your comments on contributors over there ASAP. thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ta. However, given that I've already expressed it, I should leave it there for the mark that it is for or against me. I don't believe it to be a personal attack. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 5)/archive2

Could you review the artical for FLC.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

3rd Ashes Invincibles

• Thanks for the kind words. I copy/paste all the notes to a text file, remove all the named ref "a b c"'s and all formatting, copy/paste to MSWord, insert the text into a table and sort the table. Then I compare the table to the reference section, top to bottom. One day or other I'm gonna write a Python script to rmv all that formatting instead of doing it by hand (I do a similar process to check the body text for spelling/grammar errors, although I then check by eyeball as well), but I just can't get motivated. • Ling.Nut 23:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. I could have sworn they weaked the webpage in the last year YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cleomenean War FAC

I think that I have address the comment that you have made on the article's FAC. It would be great if you could check the article and see if I have addressed your concerns. Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

Communist genocide is not the only article created by EEML. I think the best approach is to wait until the ringleaders are restricted, identify the articles they created and submit them to the community for consideration. It is unfortunate that the Wikitrial is concentrating on procedural offenses - conspiring off-wiki - rather than injecting a POV into articles. User:Collect is a sort of Cliff Clavin who shows up at articles I edit and argues against me. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Collect has a POV. We all have a POV. Collect has a hobby horse. We all, in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) articles on Wikipedia, have a hobby horse. I'm confused by the heightened level of tension from Collect and Martintg, all I've really wanted is for Termer to be briefed about the apparent quality of his higher order reading comprehension skills (summary, characterisation, quotation, representation). I don't see the POV as an issue, except where its sock, meat or happenstance-puppetting, and even only then when it is used to prevent article process, such as adequate research, or demonstrating that the object of the article actually exists.

It is somewhat shameful that EEML has focused on the off-wiki mode, rather than dealing with the habit of controversial issues in HASS and the strong and lively (and necessary) POVs associated leading to poor editorial behaviour. It could have been the spur for HISTRS, and concepts like empowered third topic mediators (my attempts at working with competing national mythologies in War of the Pacific at the end of the day would have been more effective with the addition of a brass ring). But I've always been process focused instead of outcome focused.

My concern with the article is largely focused on the SYN issue, which leads to the OR issue, which leads to the article ought not to be existing (though at the moment, I'm convinced that I need to read Valentino to determine if this is correct). I'm also very irritated with Valentino as an academic for working in the social sciences mode and for having a poorly designed typography; he's half way to making a large research claim theoretically but has arsed about on it with partial theoretical findings that aren't contributory to his major finding. I'm rather waiting on a junior Historian to break their bread in this field with a nice PhD, but I suspect the disciplinary area needs a few more failed attempts at grappling with the research object before someone will be sufficiently irritated to write the major field review.

Perhaps I'm too sanguine about the world of ideas and the pathetic contests therein. I suspect this comes from looking at ideas as a job, rather than as the verifier of reality.

And I agree there probably needs to be an oversight of EEML edited articles, if only to investigate the quality of these articles in the light of a demonstration of collective editing decisions which didn't exist transparently on wiki such that they could be investigated at the time. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces—as I recall I lobbied repeatedly to only put in "Communist genocide" what reputable sources stated about it. (That includes, by the way, genocide against communists by non-communists if you survey the literature.) Then the lede simply summarizes the article. No one was interested in that, in fact, opponents contended the 100+ books matched by Google didn't exist, contended "no definition," etc., so don't cast aspersions as if you are the neutral party here. My talk is always available for those willing to discuss topics on the merits of reputable sources. I would request you refrain from disparaging remarks such as "ringleaders" if you wish discussions to remain cordial. "POV" is not "POV" if it reflects reputable sources fairly and accurately. Do not use "POV" as a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, why do you think I should care that you included details about "genocide against communists by non-communists"? You should understand that the world is not divided into fascists and communists, there are political ideologies between them. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you are a killer! This black-and-white approach is the backbone of EEML. Vecrumba also claims he waits already "years" for an answer to this question. :-) Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not best to continue this conversation on my talk page if its going in the direction of specifically discussing the article; and, superior to proceed with discussing detailed article stuff on the article talk. If you want to stay talking meta, then please do both continue. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I'm also very irritated with Valentino as an academic" In real life I work in the area of exact science, and had I been asked to write a review on Valentino's works my conclusion would be that his approach has nothing in common with science. However, neither my nor your opinions matter here. I found some positive reviews on his books, and we cannot ignore this fact. Of course, that doesn't mean the whole article has to be built based on his "concept".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I work in humanities. The irritation with Valentino isn't with his methodology, but with his scoping of claims / object of research and with the clarity of his writing regarding theoretical claims. His methodology is just fine, and I'd be surprised to find hostile reviews of his work. Like I said, the irritation is that he hasn't stated his largest theoretical findings clearly enough, at least in what I've been able to read so far. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What theoretical findings do you mean? He just just proposed new terminology, and based on that re-examined existing facts. I see no new theory here at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is grounded theory for social science. The typology he proposes involves arguments as to causation. Also, he's generating a theory of motivations for mass killing when the Strategic perspective on decision making is applied to the government actions. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain

Hi, Brianboulton has questioned your comment on the proper measuringworth.com indicator at Talk:Neville Chamberlain. Would you mind replying to him? I'm indifferent to which should be used, but would like to see the matter resolved. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please visit here and comment as appropriate.

Peer review request

Hey, if you get the chance, could you review Wikipedia:Peer review/1939 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1 for accuracy of sources? Thanks in advance and happy holidays! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Present day value conversions

Any ideas on how we can sort this out? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously happy for you guys to use Measuring Worth. Eventually there'll be an adequate article on the problems of using any time series, but Measuring Worth provides best practice within the known limitations (like saying, "Historians are limited by their sources which is a real problem about representing the past world as actual, but within those limits, Historian X is far better than Historian Y"). Until there's the article on the general limits of time series (which I'll probably write out of MW), don't bother linking. If stuff comes to FAC, you might want to double check via me, or someone appropriate, that you're using the right kind of series from MW. CPI / wage-price are good for the price of beer. GDP per capita for relative impact on a person of a non-working class consumption item, like taking a personal loan, or purchasing uncapitalisable land (like a modern private house), or giving loans. Share of GDP should be used for capital goods generally such as capitalist investment, except for mega projects. Mega projects ought really to be expressed in terms of multiples of the unskilled yearly income as the "base" origin of labour costs, or as share GDP, depending on "how much it would cost today to remake" versus "how much of the economy was dedicated". In summary:

1. Keep using MW, its the best free series I've seen
2. When there's an adequate critique of the general problems of time series for money / values / price / cost / worth, link in the foot where you cite MW as the source of the series
3. For expenses:
   1. For the price of eggs: CPI / Wage price
   2. For the non-consumer personal costs: GDP per capita
   3. For capitalists / investments: Share of GDP
   4. For mega projects:
      1. To recreate today: average wage
      2. Social importance: share of GDP

Or hassle me to suggest the appropriate measure. The reason why you need to use the right measure is that money operates differently over time as consumption versus capital. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the appropriate measure is obvious, and sometimes it isn't. What about the price of a wife in 1913, for instance? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends if its nominal costs (equivalent to a peppercorn), or if they're seriously purchasing a wife, which you'd want to treat in terms or equivalent standard earnings. The first is basically a consent way to transfer a marriage and the money isn't relevant (give me your wife for a slab of beer), the second would be a significant purchase of the permanent labour of a woman. To figure out if the price is nominal or real, compare the wife price to average weekly earnings. I'd think that serious prices would begin around a years unskilled labour (which is still undervalued if you calculate the potential benefits of being married in general, or even, being married to a particular woman). I just checked, a pound isn't a real evaluation of the benefits of a particular woman. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding your intent here and, if so, please forgive me, but could one not use the {{formatnum}} and {{Inflation}} functions built in to Wikipedia? Using these in an article permits one to write, for instance:

This had a value in the middle of the 19th century of ‘£5,000,000 in the total quantity of bread made, annually, in the United Kingdom’ (£603,800,000 in current terms).

In this example, the £5,000,000 was given in the nineteenth-century source material quoted, but the current day valuation was created by the two formulas being entered as follows:

{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|5000000|1865|r=-5}}}}

If I’ve misunderstood your goal, sorry to have butted in. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, this is an example of what not to do. The conversion template is based off CPI. What if you need to inflate a non-consumer good, like a production good, or capital, or a non-commodity form item like land which existed as peasant renthold exterior to the market, or non-commodities like ransoms? What if you need to inflate money acting as capital, rent, loan? What if you need comparative utility? Or proportion of total social product (How difficult was the apollo program for the US in current dollar terms?). "Inflation" hides the different forms that money takes on in different exchanges, or repositories of value, or consumed items. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

a few suggestions on "Measuring economic worth over time"

I fully realize that this is a work in progress but thought a few suggestions could be useful. I'll post some specific ones on the talk page but more generally:

1. Please don't take it the wrong way but I think quite often your writing style reflects academia too much - as if you were writing for an academic journal. However the intended target audience of the Wikipedia is different than that of a bunch of academics so care should be taken to avoid unnecessary nomenclature and jargon, as well as to avoid "academic phrasing" in favor of simple formulations. More importantly I think one should be careful with introducing terms and concepts into the text that have not been defined previously and that a lay reader may be unfamiliar with, for example "social cost" or "social production".
2. Speaking of "social production" it'd be useful to standardize the terminology when it is being used. For example it seems like by "proportions of social production" you refer to income shares of various classes (workers, capitalists, landlords etc) - if so, then that should be stated clearly, if not, the difference should be clarified. Likewise comparing the article title and the lead I think you're equivocating between "economic worth" and "social worth" which could be/are distinct concepts. Also because I'm probably coming at this from a different background I'm wondering what exactly is the relationship between "social product" and more standard measures of production like GDP, income, etc.
3. "Both contemporary and historical wage price series are inherently controversial, as they speak to the standard of living of working class people." - I'm not sure if contemporary wage and price series are really "inherently" controversial in the sense of being outright rejected by many researchers; at least that doesn't seem like the appropriate word here. Likewise, I don't think the reason why they are controversial/deemed important is because they concern "working class people". They obviously concern all members of society whatever their class status. In a similar way the idea of "economic worth" can refer to entities such as firms, charities, nations or even physical objects such as machinery and equipment.
4. Proportion of gdp and the questions given as examples aren't really related. For example the question "what was the opportunity cost of a £50,000 investment in 1840?" is not obviously or directly related to the question "what was the social power of capital in 1840?".
5. Some ideas for expansion: "Theoretical problems" sections should link and perhaps briefly mention things like the LTV and marginalism, maybe something like the aggregation problem (though that article needs some serious work). "Wage price series" can be expanded to include discussion of how these kind of data are generally collected (btw, I'm not sure what a "real price" is here. An individual good price divided by a price index?). For historical wage price series there's also a good bit of data available for the Netherlands and to a lesser extent France and Germany. There's also sporadic data for a wide number of different societies which don't really constitute a series but do provide "snapshot" views of the economy/society in time (all the way back to ancient Sumer). The main difficulty of comparing aggregates across time is the changing nature of a consumption basket and time usage, in particular introduction of new goods and disappearance of old ones (like Malleus alludes to above) - this should also be elaborated upon and made more explicit.

I'd really hate to barge in and edit a new article while it is still being written so I thought bringing up some suggestions here would be better. Thanks.radek (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like an excellent idea. But I would tend to agree that it will make life easier for users if you stick to simple terms whereever possible, and avoid jargon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of at the limits of jargon. Most common words relating to the production and consumption of goods are jargon terms in one economic or political economic tradition or another. Which makes it difficult, because "price" has a number of specific meanings in people's minds associated with a theoretical framework. Same with value. PITA. But the criticisms of the article and my writing style are right on target. Many thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm a lawyer and that fact very much shows in my writing. I have to suppress certain word choices sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to economics articles I'm the same way and face the same problems - it's always good to go back and reword what you wrote in order to avoid excessive jargon. At the same time this isn't the simple Wikipedia and I think we can trust our readers to put up with *some* jargon (and in fact, to learn it) - but the key there is that if you're gonna use it you should either first define the jargon terms or at least wiki link to the appropriate articles (if these exist). And yes, it can be pretty difficult, which is where the "art" of writing Wikipedia articles comes in - it's defiantly an enviable skill to have and one I wish I had more of. Will try to do some help on this article in the next few weeks and if you ever feel I'm messing something up, please let me know.radek (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Greetings of the Season
		A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky and the Five

Thank you very much for the input you gave on this article at FAC. I have taken the suggestions you made to heart and made the appropriate changes. If you are so inclined, I would greatly appreciate your support in favor of this article's promotion. Thanks again for all your help and hope you have a Merry Christmas. Jonyungk (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the errantr footnote. I've made the appropriate change. Jonyungk (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

clarification on clarification

By "two failed AfDs" I was referring to just those in which no (or just one or two) members of the list participated. Basically the last two AfD were 'no consensus' with no or minimal input, only on the first one can one make an accusation of "canvassing" - and of course even then, everyone who voted voted the way they did because that's what they believed and would have voted anyway. But yes, there've been three 'no consensus' AfDs, and since the default of 'no consensus' is "Keep" that pretty much means there've been three failed AfDs (and if they weren't "fails" why do those unsatisfied with the outcome keep persisting in forum shopping this? You don't see the "supporters" of the article relisting it for AfD in the hopes of getting a clearer "Keep" vote).radek (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But I also haven't seen supporters of the article doing extensive research. I've seen one "supporter," though I really hate to assign this editor to the supporters of the article, provide repeated poor citations of poor quality content grossly mischaracterised. Other supporters have been fine (although I disagree with them strongly). Some of the AFD attempts have been too soon. While I feel the article should be deleted, it should only be put to AFD after a serious attempt to improve it has occurred (which is ongoing.) The reason seeking a clarification came up in relation to calling an AFD, was the question of "which editors ought to be pre-polled before an AFD could be legitimately launched," in order to include those who feel it ought to be kept, but to avoid involving them in breaking a ban. Personally, I am not looking forward to having to read Valentino with this afternoon's research, but at least I'm reading it for a debate with an editor I respectfully disagree with. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But that's an argument over whether the article deserves to be deleted or not, not whether there is a legitimate reason to exclude certain editors from the process, or whether or not the article is being forum-shopped into deletion. Ok, the second part of your reply sort of addresses these issues. But taking a "pre-poll" in this particular context, combined with the bad faithed "request for clarification" looks very much like an attempt at collusion and gaming in order to succeed where previous AfDs have failed. I don't think the intent of the clarification is what you think it is. I know you're acting in good faith. But that doesn't necessarily generalize to others who agree with you.

Personally, whatever the outcome of the "clarification" I'm staying away from the article either way, so I can't commiserate with you on having to read Valentino.radek (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its a bloody mess of an article anyway. Valentino looks like dry, poorly theorised, US liberal-bourgeois sociology from the chapter's I've read. Not enough meat. I've strongly considered just leaving the article to fester and doing WP:RS/N and citation reviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacrifice (video game)/archive1

You have commented about 2c for this article at its FAC. I have differentiated the publisher and work. Could you take a look at the article again? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland FAR

can you take a look at this please? note that Piotrus and many other editors have been banned from editing those articles for a year, so can't work on them anymore YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look, and I don't see how I can edit out the bad, especially over complaints, without the detailed specialist knowledge of the sources. Some of these complaints go to Polish sources and I'm monoglot anglophone. What were you suggesting I do? Because the only course I can see is to write off the article at the moment as I'm incapable of repairing it. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Valentino's "dispossessive mass killings"

I see that the talk page section has been archived. Are you still going to respond to my points? AmateurEditor (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I intend to as the last contribution to that article. Wednesday is the earliest I can get to it in the library due to RL deadline demands.  :(. OTOH involvement in the article has left me happy about what I'm intending to do on wikipedia in future. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Transwaction Publishers

I think Transaction Publishers began as a reputable academic publisher but changed as it began publishing conservative pseudohistory. I could find no information on its reputation. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Valentino

Hi Fifelfoo, good to see you again. Re your comment, it seems plausible to me that regime type does not turn out to be the causative (or at any rate the most closely correlating) variable, once you get down to evaluate this statistically. On the other hand, as both the paper and the article mention, Valentino himself used a category of ‘communist’ mass killings, which somewhat vindicates the present article title. Popular conceptions and scientific truth are often different; article titles arguably should defer to popular conceptions to some degree. I'd support adding a bit more detail about causative variables though, and mentioning that the scientific validity of the category of "mass killings under communist regimes" has itself been questioned, and why. (Disclaimer: I am not very well-read in this topic area.) --JN466 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the validity. Valentino does produce a "type" of communist mass killings, its a descriptive subcategory of his actual type "dispossessive mass killings," and there's no specifically communist feature to his category either, arising out of the communist nature of these states, as he accepts: his claim is that attempts at radical social transformation involved dispossession, and one strategic approach to dealing with this was mass killing. But this doesn't account for the lack of mass killing in, for example, Vietnam or Hungary, (the killings surrounding 1956 don't nearly qualify as "mass," they were selective), where radical dispossessive social transformation took place. And Valentino is aware of this. And I have been repeatedly and clearly making this point about Valentino for some months now. In anycase, I have yet again lost the library slot to read Valentino in full and present this in incredibly boring length on the article talk page, or present a surprising and unexpected recantation of my position, due to work. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar István (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler

...is an article at FAC in need of some citation/bibliography oversight. I've made a fuss about it at A class review, but didn't get very far. Perhaps a fresh pair of eyes would help. Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Dodd at FAC

Hello. Please celebrate Australia Day by checking out this article about an intriguing yet obscure Indigenous Australian, and contributing to its feature article candidate discussion, before it fails owing to a lack of reviews! Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of December 2009. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-communist mass killings

This article, which you participated in, is currently up for deletion, editors are welcome to share their opinion there. thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

I thought you'd disappeared after teh history of the ACT argument with Rebecca, as you went offline the next day YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some people have a concept of a wiki-stress meter. The combination of stress, getting caught up in consensus-difficult editing topics, and over commitment to sub-editing burnt me out. I'm sticking to reviews, citations, and a reasonable wikiload this time. Some topics I would enjoy being involved in monitoring are just too subject to US-centric POV biases. And while I greatly admire content creators, I'm not going to put the effort in. Futzing over sub-editing in milhist reviews is more emotionally rewarding! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is good to see you back. You keep us honest.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I like to imagine we remain honest to the lies in our sources, and that we honestly attribute and characterise such lies! What greater honesty could we request of editors of a tertiary reference work? Plus, I have a disturbing love for high quality referencing styles. On a lighter note, Wikipedia's standards of referencing and citation are very high at the moment for reviewed works. It takes a great deal of effort for me to find serious errors in citation style that misrepresent works these days! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we try to be. Still good to have someone looking over shoulders. Trust but verify.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

...what the section header says. :-)It's nice to see you putzing around ACR and FAC again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

John Kourkouas review

Hello! I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Kourkouas, and there is a problem with the citation of one quote. If you could give any advice, it'd be a great help. Regards, Constantine ✍ 12:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thai shirt

I see from your shirt you have some connection to north Thailand. Lovely area and people. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly the shirt was a classical modernist gift, in that it was utterly disconnected from its cultural heritage when given. It does work very well during stupidly hot summers though. About my only connection to Northern Thailand would be a vague historical awareness of the complexity of ethnic claims and modern history in the region, and a nice shirt! Fifelfoo (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I love those shirts. My wife is Thai and I've been there 5 times. See my use page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Regardless of the issue, please keep in mind WP:3RR. You appear to have gone well beyond it on this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will step away from the user in question now. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) A class review

Hi, I've responded to your comments in the A class review for the Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) article. Could you please confirm if you now support the article's promotion to A class? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to support things when my reviews are really limited to one criteria (something I've been trained in at FAC), but I've modified to reflect the issues are struck and the A1 looks good! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot FAC

Hi, you recently commented on the FA nomination for Slipknot (band) and I have responded to your comments and made edits accordingly. I would appreciate your opinion once again and any further comments you may have, thank you. --REZTER ^TALK ø 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood update

Pls review my updates. Have tried to address your concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious Note

Which of the diff's that you placed on User_talk:BlueRobe was actually a violation of WP:NPA? Other than the possible suggestion that you might have done drugs, there's nothing there that warrants any warning, and in fact is a bit of poking the bear. If you think any of those were a violation - especially one worth templating someone - you might want to logoff and go for a walk. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem, he accuses me of being delusional, of using drugs, and of being an anarchist. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

L'Orfeo citations and references

I have responded to your concerns. See Talk:L'Orfeo. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural FAC

Hey, I think I have addressed all your concerns related to the article. I feel that the source for Eclipse Magazine is reliable because it is approved as a reviewer for Rotten Tomatoes. Further info regarding this can be found at the top of the FAC page. Thanks. Ωphois 04:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

CNT-FAI

Hi, Fifelfoo, can you tell me are these reliable sources?:

• Nationalism and the nation in the Iberian Peninsula: competing and conflicting identities (Clare Mar-Molinero, Angel Smith)
  • P. 138 "The libertarian movement was composed of the anarcho-syndicalist trade union (CNT), the purist anarchist group (FAI) and the libertarian youth organisation (FIJL)."
  • P. 141 "Ironically of course the rapid political eclipse of the libertarian movement (CNT-FAI-FIJL) removed the force which more than any other on the Left had a discourse and practice of community"

• The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, Volume 2 (Robert Alexander)
  • P1045 - "The last major clash came in the plenum of the Libertarian Movement ...This was a meeting of representatives of regional organizations of all three elements of the movement, that is, the Confederation Nacional de Trabajo [CNT], the Federcion Anarquista Iberica [FAI], and the Federacion de Juventudes Libertarias [FIJL]"

If not what type of thing should I be looking for? Cheers. Iota (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fullcites? Author, title, publisher year?  :)

Nationalism and Nation Berg Publishers 1996, Berg says "Welcome to Berg Publishers. We are an academic publisher of books and journals with a strong focus on visual culture." Thats a HQRS

Anarchists in the SCW Janus Publishing Company 1999, Janus are

For many new authors, publishing is a minefield. In this section, we try and distinguish between the different types of publishing services that we, at Janus, provide.

   * Subsidy publishing
   * Non-subsidy publishing
   * Self-publishing

Not so good, significant possibility of SELF. Check academic journals for book reviews, and check for other imprints (ie: other publishers) of the same work, worldcat can help.

Reviews are not good Fifelfoo (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will try to provide the full citations in future! Iota (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your time scanning the citations at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RCU_page_reliably_sourced?, it was most helpful. --Chris Purcell (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OR

I thought I'd bring it up here, since I really do not want the notice board to fill up with yet another long discussion on this topic. My reading of WP:SYN limits it's application to "A and B, therefore C". C is an conclusion, and an article or a title is not a conclusion. Also, I do see a continuum from lists and categories through summary style to "normal" (for lack of a better word) as to how tightly bound subtopics are to an article topic. This issue has been and is being debated vigorously in a number venues, see Talk:Judaism_and_violence, Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_27#Descriptive_.26_segmented_article_titles, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_78#Alternative_article_names and Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism/Archive_9. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Violence and Judaism should or should not exist, nor am I making a claim about it's quality. FWIW. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I went through six months plus of Mass killings in communist regimes. It was an uphill battle to replace FRINGE with the few comparative cross-cultural works which actually deal with specifically communist causes. Half the article is still SYNTH; and the article still doesn't adequately tell the story of the development of a scholarly and popular literature which claim communism causes mass killing. It left me with a strong dislike for cramming incidents (not depicted in secondary sources actually describing the topic of the article) into an article. The moment on WP:NOR/N I had was simply the emergence into my mind of the structure of the debate representing six months of intensive source based editing poured out onto dust. I agree I shouldn't have raised the point there, thanks to links to other previous debates which I'll look up now I've had my epiphany on the structure of the editorial debate! Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I watched some of the discussion about Mass killings in communist regimes, I admire your fortitude in trying to deal with it, I though about getting involved, but frankly the idea alone wore me out. FWIW, I think raising the point there was fine, I just did not want the discussion of the particular to get sidetracked into one of the general. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any one who even touches the heavily contested issues on wikipedia articles surrounding the state of Israel has my respect for their fortitude! I agree about avoiding side tracking the issue for discussion. I opened a thread on Wikipedia talk:NOR about the thought, which seems like the best place to put such a thing. To avoid further distracting, I didn't link to it on the specific WP:NOR/N thread. I think I've said my piece there fully already :) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Fifelfoo's Day!

User:Fifelfoo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fifelfoo's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fifelfoo! Peace, Rlevse 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. :and Grace Sherwood is now FA. Thanks for finding the sources. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Olson

I don't think a tertiary is good for 25+% of an FA, and yes, Olson really is error riddled. It got the surname of the Tay Son wrong, and lots of other really obvious ones. Same in both "Where teh domino fell" and "dict of VN War". YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Its at an FAR? Oh dear. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Hi Fifelfoo, does Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_5 look okay to you now? --JN466 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --JN466 15:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua has pointed out that the proposal is slightly longer than the present text. I've tightened parts of the wording a bit to address her concern. Does it look okay? --JN466 10:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by and commenting. --JN466 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi Fifelfoo. I didn't want to post on the Mass Killings talkpage, as I have AGF issues with a few of the editors there. I just wanted to say that I think your proposal to refocus the article under a different name is very sound indeed. I've always felt that the topic is going towards the boundary of what wikipedia can and can't do (which is why I got involved in the first place - it was a challenge to work on a topic that I instinctively had reservations about). My one suggestion is a snappier title - but I'm sure that's crossed your mind too. Keep up the good work. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Alton WPMILHIST A-Class review

Hey, I noticed that you've participated some Military History A-Class reviews. The review for Battle of Alton is coming up on its time limit, and it needs more eyes. Would you mind taking a look at in the next few days? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V 2

Hi, you recently supported a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

MKUCR POV tag

Fifelfoo, I belatedly responded to one of your posts about the POV template. TFD suggested that the way I did it might be easily overlooked, so here is the diff. Thanks. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did notice, I considered replying on a number of occasions, but felt that my reply would work to increase my wikistress beyond acceptable limits for an article that has already sucked far too much of my time. The content of your post didn't do this, at all, by the way, but it did help me realise that I'm unwilling to invest the level of personal energy required to significantly improve that article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. But I hope you change your mind. Perhaps an incremental approach to improving the article, rather than a wholesale rewrite, would be easier (for everyone involved). AmateurEditor (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thi

I didn't explain a couple of points you made in a rather technical way YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Macaulay FAC

Thanks for your comments so far, and I think I've addressed all except the Times one, for which I'm happy to go with the majority. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Black Army of Hungary

Thank you for your contribution on the peer review of the article. It has been transferred to a to-do list on the top of its talk page., which will be updated gradually with the upgrading of the article (and also they are commented there). I'll try my best to get it somewhere after fixing the references section (actually I'm stuck on where to improve it any further, since the era has very little accounts available, and because I don't want to get lost in a "Military History of Hungary"-themed article).Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I sympathise with your position. Rescuing an article from inappropriate citations can be a horror. My recommendation is to start with the highest quality secondary sources published in the academic mode, and produce the article structure from these, incorporating lower quality sources only for factual assertions, and limiting your use to their level of reliability, very carefully questioning remarkable factual assertions present in secondary sources, and abandoning secondary sources that are not on topic (ie: guide books). Good luck. If you need another review in a couple of months, and I'm active, please ping me. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mário de Andrade/archive1

Would you mind going over the article again and seeing if your concerns have been addressed? I've done a lot of work on it, with your points primarily in mind. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ARA Moreno

Hey Fifel, would you be kind enough to review ARA Moreno for me? It's been up at FAC for awhile, and I think I'm going to need additional reviewers if it is going to pass... Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this as a request for review. Might want to watch the potential for CANVASSing in "if it is going to pass..." but I'm assuming your concern is to get a resolution one way or another, and improve any commentary or opposes. Also, because it hasn't received enough reviews declaring a position, I'm going to review it to a conclusive position. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have chosen to support the article, pending a resolution of a problem with Measuring Worth. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. My question was poorly worded, but you correctly assumed my intent – if it is to have a chance at passing, I need more reviewers to look at the article. If they oppose, I can fix the issue(s), but the problem is getting them to read and comment! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

stop stalking me, or face the wrath of the Rabbit of Caerbannog

• I saw you on Talk FAC and the template talk. Stop stalking me, or face the wrath of the Rabbit of Caerbannog. • Ling.Nut 04:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Help! I am currently iron-y deficient. Is this humour or genuine complaint? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • In what version of reality would someone mention the Rabbit of Caerbannog in the middle of a legitimate complaint? • Ling.Nut 05:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • USENET, or internet culture generally? I am very irony challenged today. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Fear not, then – I am joking. • Ling.Nut 05:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Hooray! I'm sorry I didn't get the joke :). Just one of those days. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
            • It's Wikipedia, we see crazy weird stuff like that every day when people are being serious. I wouldn't blame you. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nguyen Chanh Thi

STreamlined the remaining sentences, I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, can you look at the list of articles at User:Ed! and hte current FAC. Seems like a 90%+ dependence on popular history sources, which concerns me YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Measuring worth

I was much struck by your comment on the William Walton FAC page about using the average earnings measure of the five on offer at Measuring Worth. I have never known which to use, and why. I'd be most interested, if you can spare the time to explain, to learn why average earnings is the measure to use. Best wishes. Tim riley (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Inflation is a tricky beast. When we compare money from one time, with money in another time, we're really answering a question about what the meaning of money is. The way money over time operates when buying sausages is different from when paying people is different from when dealing with capital goods. This is because while the money may be interchangeable at the moment "1 May 1970" from sausages to wages to battleships, the relationship between sausages and sausages, wages and wages, and battleships and battleships from 1 May 1970 to 2 May 1970 is different.

First things first. Never inflate an amount of one currency in another. Inflation calculations are only good for the _economic unit calculated_. British money is not US money is not German money. You can't translate £ into USD in 1910, and then inflate by a USD 1910-2008 series.

Second things second. Never inflate values prior to ~1850. Prior to 1850, capitalism was not the predominant form of social economic relations between people in the UK or US. Local petty commodity production and non-market production and consumption predominated. Money, being the instrument converting alienated waged labour into capital, and back again, expresses the wage relationship and capital relationship after about 1850. Prior to 1850, money could simply represent vast feudal hordes, or semi-feudal hordes, etc. Measuring Worth is only good for the modern era.

Third things third. Figure out what kind of money you're dealing with: personal consumption, wages, capital goods. I recommend the following:

Kind of money	UK Measure	US Measure	Japanese Measure	Chinese Measure
Household consumption by people who work for a living (see list below), sausages, rents as paid for personal lodgings excluding conspicuous consumption	RPI	CPI	CPI	CPI
Wages and income earned or received by proletarians, lumpenproletarians, owner-operators, employers of fewer than 10, self-employed professionals, household consumption by people who don't work for a living	Average Earnings	Unskilled Wage	Average Wage	GDP Per Capita
Capital and Government Expenses, income earned on investments, profits, rents as received for personal lodgings, commercial industrial agricultural rents	(relative share of) GDP	(relative share of) GDP	GDP	GDP

Fifelfoo (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! That's beautifully clear - thank you. I shall copy and paste it into a crib-sheet for future reference. - Tim riley (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. I fixed the chapters in the FAC too :). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So I spotted, and am most grateful. I have added those wrinkles to my crib-sheet. At your service if I can ever be of help with PRs or FACs etc. Warmest thanks. - Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Marx's Exploitation Theory

Hey Fifelfoo,

I am debating whether or not to research and begin editing Adam Smith, hoping to improve it to such a state at which it can conceivably be nominated as a featured article candidate. While I am not sure if there will be any room, or any need, to discuss the relationship between Karl Marx's exploitation of labor theory and Adam Smith's labor theory of value, as well the primacy-of-wages concept, I am interested in reading a non-Neoclassical/Austrian history of this relationship (that is not Marx himself). I am currently reading George Reisman's Capitalism, but he is a Neoclassical/Austrian and of course sets it up in such a way that he can then refute it. I would appreciate if you knew of any good books on the topic. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for? High quality scholarly comparisons of Marx's LTV to Smith's LTV in theoretical and economic history terms? I'd need to have a good think, I'm not instantly aware of any. I'd throw up the names Mandel and Harvey though, they might have something. Clarify and I'll see what comes to mind / hand? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More than a comparison, an analysis of Marx's influences. That is, the relationship (influence, both direct and indirect) Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations had with Marx's Capital. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I can find such a thing :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado Ar E.381.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado Ar E.381.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy of England in the Middle Ages...

Hi! Hope all's well. I've added some more bits on class and the implications for the economy in today. In the longer term, I think there's definitely room on the wiki for a decent cross cutting article on class and feudalism in English medieval society, linking some of the governance and political elements into the social. I've ordered a key book for this to read next week! In the meantime, how do you think we're doing towards the GA standard for this one? I think it's slowly getting there... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadong Ambush ACR

Hi. I have responded to all of your concerns here. Please let me know if there are any other things that need addressing. —Ed!^(talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

BE

Have you checked the book by LAwrence JAmes? his wiki bio says he is a popular historian. Wikibioo cliams BA but not a PhD apparently YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

We would like your help concluding the FAC for Roger Waters. — GabeMc (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Reviewers Award
		To Fifelfoo, for helping keep sourcing standards high at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent reviews are much appreciated, as is their new softer tone. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm prouder of having a softer tone, than I am in my reviewing :). I'm glad they're useful and not BITEy. If you have any tips, improvement suggestions, or suggestions about what not to do, please do let me know as early as convenient. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

VN War

Put up another ROV era thing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hill 303 massacre FAC

I have responded to your concerns by removing and replacing the refs in question, as well as cutting any material I couldn't independently verify (None of the information removed amounted to more than minor details) and I think this has addressed your concerns. Please let me know if any further action is needed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arado Ar E.381.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 23:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Watch your rollbacks

[13]. Thank you. Courcelles 10:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks you beat me to reverting my bad rollback. I was fighting the imposition of the mobile version of the site on the device I'm using. Frustrating and shameful and more than a little upsetting the site wasn't honouring the no mobile status. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered a second account, without the rollback flag (but with reviewer) for your mobile? I know I almost never log in on my touchscreen because the rollback button is so easy to mis-touch. Courcelles 10:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

British Empire FAR

Hi. Your sourcing concerns about the use of Olsen as a tertiary source - and a not very good one at that - have been addressed by Nikkimaria. Please can you check to see of your concerns have been resolved. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop making false allegations against me

Fifelfoo, please stop making false allegations accusing me of posting promotional material and advertising. Even a cursory examination of my history will show that I have done no such thing. 122.57.126.131 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have to ask... advertising??? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • uw-advert is the series put aside for soapboxing, of which advertising is a sub-component. Using the user-warning escalation method for vandalism seems much more polite than simply taking IPs to WP:AN/I after the second instance for a block. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR

You should use your skills to proactively hunt out others such as Kengir YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956/archive1 I am very reluctant to attempt to carry any central or eastern european FARs.  :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but in some cases, the author has retired so you don't have to worry about the ethnic cabal keeps. Also the person who closed that FAR doesn't do FARs anymore and tended to give the benefit of the doubt to the incumbent in a big way YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't displeased with the close. I was displeased with my personal ability to handle a large complex FAR. And with my personal emotional capacity to handle communities of emotionally involved editors in the Central-Eastern European field. I'll have a think of hunting some smaller FARs. I suspect one reason why Kengir is going well, is that it was Soviet Citizen on Soviet Citizen revolutionary / complex violence. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Act_of_Independence_of_Lithuania#Pre_Featured_Article_Review_discussion Fifelfoo (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my answer here

I hope that this means that the publication is not SPS(the red text is just part of my statement as I didn't knew how to links this without adding other person's comments) [14].If needed I can add other academic publications that cite him. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And please see my reply. The book is relaible. However Poliszczuk's work within that book is, according to the table of contents, placed in the section called "Reviews and Polemics." It's not considered a factual work and thus not a reliable source for anything other than Poliszczuk's opinions. therefore "facts" taken from Poliszczuk's polemic shouldn't be used in articles.Faustian (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Faustian-a scholarly polemic is certainly reliable as is a review or criticism of a book devoted to historic subject.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

worth discussing but worth discussing on RS/N Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: [15]. Best, Faustian (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube used as source on Deadwood (TV series)

You made some excellent points on RSN as to this matter. Unfortunately, the discussion has now been archived because the conversation ended. Catpnono has mentioned the possibility of a RFC. I hope, if this occurs, you will participate. I feel that the matter is still unsettled, both in regard to this specific video, and the use of YouTube in general. Thanks for your time and efforts. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know about such a discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: My Talk Page

It was a mistake, as I've indicated twice. No idea how it happened; I apologize. upstateNYer 05:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

no worries. Such things happen. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is this a reliable source in your view? For use in a FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the question!

The work is: David Henry Hwang, Flower Drum Song: Educational Study Guide based on the book by Oscar Hammerstein II and Joseph Fields (authors); based on the novel by C.Y. Lee (author); Oscar Hammerstein II (lyricist); Richard Rogers (musician); San Jose, California: American Musical Theatre of San Jose, [undated].

There appear to be severe reliability issues with this text:

TERTIARY / TEXTBOOK: it is a chapbook, study guide, or textbook aimed at Educators for a pre-Higher Degree audience, and in fact, aimed at an late primary student audience (the vocabulary contains the word "ancestors")

Educationalists publish in a scholarly mode, or in a professional mode, aimed at each other when they impart reliable findings. They do not promulgate theatre or pedagogical information by producing chapbooks to teach late primary learners.

As such I do not consider this work to be reliable at all for: the works in question, theatre, American Chinese culture, educational theory.

The American Musical Theatre of San Jose appears to be able to publish reliable sources for Theatre history, as a practicing theatre company. I would question if AMToSJ is capable of publishing high quality reliable sources, it doesn't appear to be a research venue / regular professional publisher of theatre history and theory.

A chapbook published by a nationally touring company or national theatre, aimed at professional actors and theatre artists, or distributed through professional channels as a samizdat from a nationally touring company or national theatre I would treat as a high quality reliable source.

Pedagogical articles aimed at practicioners or academics in a professional or academic mode would be reliable and highly reliable respective to the mode of publication.

American Chinese culture should be reliably sourced from news media or reliably sourced from high quality sources such as sociology or history publications.

Sorry if this means someone needs to resource, the document appears to have citations and further reading sections which may help. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm working on Flower Drum Song and had gotten up to the part about the 2002 revival and wanted to check before investing time in sourcing to this. Thank for the answer.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Bugger. I understand the angst of source location to wikipedia (and FAC) standards
• As it is, it would be a SELF acceptable source (but not high quality) for the current modern production it discusses (if the current modern production was by AMToSJ) in statements like "The librettist for the revised Flower Drum Song is [the award-winning playwright and screen-writer,] David Henry Hwang."(p7.) or "Gabriel Barre (Director/Choreographer)…Vince Pesce (Choreographer)…Jamie H.J. Guan (Chinese Movement Specialist)…William Liberatore (Musical Director)" and for "Meet the Cast" Though the award-winning status and bios would need separate citation. Is there a database of Theatre with a reliable status?
• Did they produce a theatre bill (a high quality source for their own production?)
• Is there proof that this was a pedagogical theatre bill for a juvenile audience? If it were an official theatre bill then it would be reliable for the bios too (just because there's content aimed at the kids, it doesn't make the bios suspect, as long as it was distributed as the official theatre bill for a performance it doesn't matter it was for a juvenile audience). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. I have other sources for the 2002 production, which is all it is needed for, but I'm going to be heavily relying on one source. Sometimes that happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• In the case where single sources are known to be highly fact checked (like attribution of roles, or performer biographies) that sounds okay. Professional Theatre Companies are more like Fine Art Galleries than they are like Self-Promoting Novelists when it comes to this kind of thing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the bibliography of Flower Drum Song, it is the Lewis book, as should be clear from a glance at the footnotes. It's the only source I've found that covers the history of the musical in any sort of detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Holodomor

I know you are working to improve this article but your reverts have exceeded 3 which violates WP:3RR. Many would have immediatly blocked your for that violation. But because it appears there is work being done to improve things I decided not to. You are not reverting vandalism but content issues which are under discussion. Please use extreme caution. JodyB _talk 17:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Troughman

-- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref advice

Hi Fifelfoo, I've replied to your comments over at Talk:Mwng, would you be able to take a look when you have a minute? Thanks Cavie78 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC help

Hey, if you're not busy, would you mind reviewing the article Taare Zameen Par for FAC here? Thanks. Ωphois 18:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Economy of England in the Middle Ages/GA1

Hi, are you planning on concluding this review. It has been 63 days, which is rather a long time. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I'll be closing it Real Soon Now. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Now came. It is a Good Article. Thanks for Prodding. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Fifelfo

Do you think this user looks suspicious? He even welcomed himself. —Soap— 00:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do think they look suspicious. They're not me. They're making controversial edits in Central and Eastern European History, an area where I occasionally edit. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:Fifelfo#Please_change_your_username. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kissinger supporter on the loose

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) Can you look at this guy. All his edits are whitewashing Kissinger and Nixon etc, and sqwuashing their death toll downwards YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Badump ching. This is whack-a-mole for badly sourced, unscholarly, political discourse in the late 20th century. As we can see here though quite often it is simply moving between one low quality source, and another low quality source of a different complexion. (I don't trust "dictionaries" any more than I trust non-scholarly mode publishing from Yale). The best thing to do would be to pass the editor under the wing of someone who understands Reliable Sourcing and Verifiability policy, who can develop their capacities. The editor obviously has a capacity worth using for the benefit of wikipedia, and access to sources. I've found one early copyvio they made on a talk page, and requested ANI delete it from the DB. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had a closer look, and I lack the personal energy to buy into this. It is frustrating behaviour, but wikipedia lacks policy and tools to deal with tendentious editing of humanities and social sciences articles without requiring higher levels of emotional buy-in than I am capable of giving the project. The central problem appears to be the user simply replacing one verifiable narrative with another verifiable narrative. They're obviously interested in "the true" rather than the totality of verifiability. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it sucks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I touched a few of the edits where I could see clear and immediate sourcing problems (SPS). I noted the user's talk page, and the article pages. I seconded your request at Milhist. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He used the silly Mekong.net thing on Cambodian Civil War and blanked out the part about it being a humanitarian disaster. I've burnt off my reverts, and the article is Rm Gillespie's A-class article YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't deal with this mess: [Indonesian occupation of East Timor], some of the new content is sourced, some unreliably sourced, some deletion of reliable sources. Too long a fixit job. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been talking with the user on their talk page, to try to save the editor for the encyclopaedia. I'm being reminded strongly of my behaviour around Hungarian Revolution of 1956's failings (and its still current failings). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

Just to say thanks for all your efforts with the Economy of England in the Middle Ages article: I know how much detailed work went into that review, and it was deeply appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters FAC

FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• We could use your input at the Roger Waters FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Australian women during World War I

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Australian women during World War I requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Osarius : Talk : Contribs 11:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A7? I can't see any non-peverse reading that construes an object of historical study as "a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content," nor how the article's statement of encyclopaedic importance (existence as an object of study in a historiography) could be overlooked. Please do reconsider speedy tagging. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please sign your posts using the four tildes (~~~~). Cheers Osarius : Talk : Contribs 11:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage at Talk:Man

The conversation regarding more diversified images at this page has restarted if you'd care to be involved. I've been going by the lists of possible alternatives generated last month at the talkpage there. I dug up a few today and am waiting for input from other users before I go any further. My general plan has been to get consensus on a set of 10 to 12 images, and then get consensus on placement of those images into the collage format. Pop in any time and see what you think. Regards, Heiro 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

World War II opened

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War

I'm happy that you added your comments to the review of the article and i want to address the issues you listed but since i'm quite a N00b in the professional abbreviations used in Wikipedia i can't seem to understand many of the points mentioned and therefore find it hard to comply with them. If you could maybe clear them up for a layman like me to understand i'll be very grateful.--Macarenses (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thx a lot for your added info! I was wondering whether a publication by the Hoover Institution is acceptable? It is regarded as conservative but it's public and a part of Stanford.--Macarenses (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hoover Institution is a fine scholarly publisher! I certainly don't agree with their aims and perspective, but they're a clear member of the scholarly publishing community. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice about User:Delicious carbuncle

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Cirt (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

HI

Hi Fifelfoo. I found your evidence and thoughts in the WWII arbitration quite interesting and valid. Did you read my comments on the Evidence talk page? Anyway, I think this might interest you.[16],[17]. Regards, --Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not impressed; people are overstating the value of good normal semantic computing work. Needs secondary sources from linguists. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked wording

Hi Fifelfoo, I tweaked the wording of the proposed principle concerning accurate sourcing after you indicated that you agreed with it: [18]. I think that the change is minor (I added 'inaccurately' as it it's quite possible that reliable sources do say the same thing as an unreliable source and tweaked the section's sub-heading), but am letting you know in case you to change your comment. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasonal Greeting

--Nuujinn (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding resolving the appropriateness of collapsing comments to end discussion. The thread is Disruptive_collapsing_to_end_discussion_that_is_not_unambiguously_disruptive.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Libertarianism. Thank you.

Hi

I disagree with your reasoning on 1953 coup, I hope you'd study this further and possibly reconsider your position. The image depicts a famous scene from that day (club and knife-welding mobs, accompanied by soldiers, on a tank on their way to attack Mossadegh's house) , described in many secondary sources and reliable first-hand accounts of the events of that day. To better understand the context, please watch this old clip from NBC News. In the report, you can see video of the same image/crowd, accompanied by reliable witness account of a New York Times reporter who was present at the scene. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hill 303 massacre

Hello. Last month you contributed to the FAC for Hill 303 massacre. I just wanted to let you know I have reopened the article for FAC, if you wouldn't mind taking another look at the article and seeing if you have more comments. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hill 303 massacre/archive2. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Fails verifiability"

What the hell does this mean? I don't think I've ever seen anything referred to "fail verifiability" before. How does the fact that IMDB and whatever this is cover it mean it's not "verifiable"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a reliable source; your detailed knowledge of "whatever this is" which appears to be "짜장소녀 뿌까" [Pucca], [television programme notes] Champtv.com, undated; is not independent reporting of impact of existence. Go read wikipedia policy, it is straight forward. It even has specific details on the notability and verifiability requirements of fan-cruft versus items of enduring encyclopaedic impact. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. An article describing a television series does not seem like it would "fail verifiability".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of independent editorial control, the "article" is a puff piece for a television station: the source is unreliable, it can't verify, and it certainly doesn't establish notability. 203.51.46.197 (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Promotional material?

Hello dear editor, can you please tell me where, specifically I posted "promotional material"? Thank you in advance. V7-sport (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt answer, however I still do not understand how citing US law is posting "promotional material". Wouldn't "posting "promotional material" be something like "Count Chaucula stays crunchy in milk" instead of -

(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country; (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism; (4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and (5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the blah blah blah...."

Seriously, where is the promotional material? And while we are at it, what justifies taking that down? Thanks V7-sport (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What I am doing is posting information from a reliable, indeed authoritative source. US law. The article as it stands now is the very definition of a soapbox, and even though that little exclamation point graphic awesomely awesome, Stating that posting US law on terrorism on the article that it directly pertains to is hardly adding promotional material. Honestly, is this what has to be resorted to to keep the slant that this article has intact? V7-sport (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Commodity fetishism

I appreciate your attention at this article. As it stands the article has a long string of quotes from Marx. My concern is that these quotes are strung together to forward an original argument - the text inbetween quotes often editorializes (I removed one of th most egregious examples a few days ago).

The thing is, I am familiar with most of the marx quotes and I acknowledge that they are relevant to the topic. But I am not familiar with what I am sure is a vast secondary literature on the topic, aside from having read Lukacs and an aticle by Pietz a very long time ago. So I do not feel qualiied to lay out the different significant views. Jurriann has a habid of making snide remarks about Althusser (even in the article itself - I deleted one of them) so I imagine Althusser too has a particular reading of Marx. (Jurriann used the same method in editing the article on reification, so Lukacs's views are hardly presnted, just long quotes from Marx).

I am not competent to fix these articles. I am hoping you know the appropriate literature, or know other editors who do. These articles really read like personal essays, not encyclopedia articles, yet thy are on topics that really are cntral to marxian thought - WP should be able to do better. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources.

The citation I posted is from clearly from a secondary source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/terrorism/welcome.htm Please reverse your latest edit on United States and state terrorism or explain why you are removing properly sourced material.V7-sport (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)