|Fifelfoo is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia after getting that thing in in 2014+|
|My current turn around time is about 14 days, and my queue is full as of 07:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)|
Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2004-2008 for earlier years.
Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2009-2010 for earlier years.
Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2011 for earlier years.
Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2012 for earlier years.
Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2013 for earlier years.
Happy New Year!Edit
|Best wishes for the New Year!|
|Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! |
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
Hi. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you comment at this discussion regarding a source's reliability? It involves a self-published source's use in a featured-BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
RSN on Callahan blogEdit
Hello. You made some comments at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com. I have attempted to summarize the comments of various editors in a table. Please take a look and make any changes to the summary of your comments as you feel appropriate. I only ask that the summary be brief. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
John Edward BrownleeEdit
I noticed that you have been involved with the John Edward Brownlee articles in the past and I thought that you might be interested in the current featured topic candidacy for these articles. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.
If you are mad at the Wiki, or even better...working on things that pay you, please ignore this. But if you are really sort of open for business...I remember you being incredible at footnote fixing and wonder if you could help out at Fluorine. See also peer review.-TCO
- Current schedule alongside paid employment is first draft mid-2014, then two semesters of redrafting. My team is holding me to it well. If it seems long, its because I'm part-time, at least in part due to a previous Prime Minister's funding model for research students. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-upsEdit
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, you were involve a past similiar discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley, can you give an opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kekoolani? I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since you fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Firest my apologies for the mis-spelling; "streetcar-like" is one thing, but "streetcar-lice" suggests cooties. That said, as you probably know, interurban cars weren't generally merely streetcars/trams, and at the extremes - the lightest streetcars vs the West Coast SP electric stuff, for instance, there was no comparison. The only real point of overlap is the PCC and its brethren; iconic as these are now, they are still a small part of the whole interurban story, since most systems died, converted, or went moribund before the PCC was builtAnmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Specialist-baiting for deletionEdit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialist-baiting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
|Coffee and Caek.|
|Thanks for starting the article on Libertarian Socialism/Socio-Anarchism. I for a good while, figured I am one, this is a wonderful education for me and just reinforces that. It's good to learn :) It's not just about me though (of course!), it's about saying thanks for starting one of the best quality Wikis I've ever read. Have some European coffee and caek! (< that's faerie cake, of course!) Bananaskinz (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)|
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but could you tell me if Nancy Rubin Stuart should be considered a reliable source for the Castilian language and Isabella I of Castile? Shouldn't we be using historians for articles like Isabella I of Castile? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given that she won, or was awarded, a Higher Doctorate for her monograph, and seems to have transitioned into biography via an interest in women's studies, I'm not seeing the big problem. Her presses look good and her other works reinforce the idea that she's an expert biographer of women. As always, depends on the claim. (If anything, the fact that she's working in English is my main concern). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!Edit
I mentioned your conclusion about the lack of Tertiary sources from 2011 in Talk: Science#Gravitational wave astronomy Your thoughts are welcome there. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit
That addition at Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy was a really excellent point especially for academic/scientific topics. I did de-jargonize, link, and compress the material a bit, as well as put it in a more logical sequence, but it hit directly on something that the majority of our editors know nothing about. It's the source of a tremendous amount of the friction at our more technical, academic, and medical articles, especially in these days of there being over 100,000 journals, and a lot of predatory ones, plus arXiv publishing stuff that looks scholarly but would never pass peer review, and lots of mainstream book publishers putting out books on non-trivial topics but written by schmoes with no credentials, and .... It's a real morass. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind that harsh enforcement of poorly assimilated knowledge use rules mean that other methods of scholarly dissemination and review can be ruled out. I remember being interviewed by an anthropologist about oral knowledge systems and wiki. Apart from wiki being a eurocentric knowledge system to begin with, my points were pretty clear: if an oral knowledge system possesses field expertise, that expertise is esteemed, and it possesses a review mechanism then go for it. OTOH, ram raiding oral knowledge systems and taking their data is another nasty european-style cultural habit. Central point on WP:IRS territory: we care about the quality of the review mechanism, the field itself being esteemed, and the produced knowledge being field-specific. And the field itself being esteemed is important. I'm sure that some biblical literalists make claims about biblical astronomy, but that field is not esteemed regardless of the quality of review, and the produced knowledge being specific to the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You're back! I was so happy to see your name earlier today. I had wanted to ask you something during that long Fifelfoo-free drought spell, and discovered that you'd been off-wiki for a long time. I'm glad it was just a break. I hope that all's well with you, and that I'll see you around again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Romania's Fascist-named public placesEdit
Hello. You've been quite friendly with me, I appreciate that. However, I once made a comment on one of our conversations where I kinda bragged about the list of Romanian public places named after Fascists/Antisemites/War criminals I have in my infobox. Allow me to make sure that you get the right picture.
You see, I definitely understand why - over there in the West - it's the far right who's perceived as the main enemy. You guys fought a "hot" and dreary war against it, followed by just a cold war against the far left's representative, the Soviet Union. However, we had a hot war with the Soviet Union's far left, a very bloody one, whilst the far right didn't do us one 100th of the harm the far left did. The Red Army, did. 14 years of occupation and plunder...forced labor in Hellish prisons...a wretched regime which lasted us nearly half a century and we had to spill more blood to get out of it...the destruction of all our pre-war intellectual elite...Mate, there is no way in Hell or anywhere else for anyone to convince us that the far right is equally bad, let alone worse. We rally behind anyone who resisted and fought the Reds, and yes these individuals are sometimes Fascists/Antisemites, but we don't see that. Shouts like "Fascists, Antisemitic, war criminal" - they're literally gibberish to most of us. We won't see the point, all we'll see is our anti-Communist heroes and martyrs being attacked, and we won't like it. Also - about convicted war criminals - convicted by whom? The Soviet Union? Which in itself was the greatest war crime in the history of humanity, through all it did? And people in the West expect their condemnations to be on equal footing with the Nuremberg Tribunals? Nah, never. The Soviet verdict is invalid to us. It's not whether Antonescu or others did something, it's who sentenced them. The reviled, resented and illegitimate Soviet regime of occupation. That's what we see mainly. And this is why Antonescu in 2006, years after his war crimes were exposed, was still voted as the 6th greatest ever Romanian by the population: he was the most virulent anti-Communist fighter.
The US ambassador here, Hans Klemm, complained when our National Bank issued some coins 2 years ago with Mihail Manoilescu, one of our pre-war pro-Nazis and Antisemites. He declared himself disappointed, and referred to WW2 as the darkest time in Romanian history. Do you see how abhorrently entitled he is? He thinks if that time was the darkest for his country, it must have been the same for ours too. No, it was the red half-century that followed. And after over 1000 of us died to earn our freedom in 1989, here comes Mr Klemm, and other Westerners, to tell us that...no we're not in fact free. And that we still can't honor the same type of people that the Communists interdicted us to honor for decades. Which is basically trampling on the victory of our Revolution. Finally, I'd like to address why Germany and Italy and even Japan are much more "at peace", shall we say, with their pasts. Because, after WW2, they were occupied by the objectively better regime of the Western liberal democracies. But we got the Soviet end of the stick. It was not better, it was not a new model, it was a Hell. Our past regime from WW2, with or without Holocaust participation, was still demonstrably miles better than what came afterwards.
In conclusion, sorry for this huge intrusion into your talk page. I guess I just wanted to discuss this with someone, and you seemed friendly enough. I hope you see where we Romanians come from: it's not "Yay, Fascists and antisemites, let's promote them!" but "Yay, anti-Communist fighters and martyrs, let's promote them!" We're exercising our costly-earned freedom. Torpilorul (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Vietnam War myths for deletionEdit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnam War myths until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Pudeo (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an A-class nomination relating to war crimes/atrocities and my first A-class nomination. If you would like to help, I would greatly appreciate it! Catrìona (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
That is interestingEdit
I found this by accident. Interestingly, in Wikipedia we are writing what reliable sources say, but here we have an opposite situation: reliable sources write about us. This article about you and me. Have a fun.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewingEdit
|On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 16 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)|