User talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2012

Sock puppetry case relating to someone edit warring with you in the Battle for Australia article
FYI: Sockpuppet investigations/Ettercamp Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo/Talknic - Prepared RFC
Hi Fifelfoo. I'm banned. It'd be a pity to waste the effort we put into the RFC. If you think it has a chance of floating, please launch it.

Thanks again. Apologies for any abrasiveness on my part during the heat of our earlier discussions

Have a Happy New Year

... talknic (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The essay
Now that that's out of the way, you should start working on yours :). Res Mar 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FAC help
Hey there! User:Hylian Auree sent me your way. I was scared at first with the message at the top of your page, but seeing you've contributed since you put that up, I realize you have not retired and that the link refers to something outside of hurricane-land. (I don't deal with Wiki-dramaz). Anywho, is there any chance you could help with one itty-bitty reference in an article I have on FAC? - this is one that Auraem had some troubles with (but he was very helpful and knowledgeable about the others). Cheers! And Happy New Years! (that rhymed!) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently my tools are down, and I'm only doing the wikidrama immediately related to those tools being down. I'd suggest that you take that item to WP:RS/N and carefully read WP:SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, oh, thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks
I gave a possible title for the principle at the workshop page - feel free to suggest a different one. Collect (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 10:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The C word
I just read the above. Continuing the Chinese house example: the problem is that Wikipedia is an open house, so people can march in and do what they like. When it's egregious there are bans. But Wikipedia does not even have a limit on uploading video and images of extreme pornographic acts, so the idea of establishing community-enforced norms around the use of expletives seem to me far off indeed.TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is your point that no one should be upset about the use of the word "cunt"? If not, then I misunderstood you. If so, then... Doesn't matter if "cunt" is more acceptable in British usage. There are a very large number of Americans (including me), and in our usage it may be the last taboo. You can' offend a huge swath of the community and pretend it's OK (at least, not more than once). I'm not being U.S.-centric; I'm saying that the norms of any large proportion of the Wikipedia community should be respected within the community itself. You could try reductio ad absurdem by saying that the word "the" is taboo in Trinidad & Tobago, but that won't work because without some guidelines, the community would cease to cohere. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a very large number of Americans who can pull their heads in when attempting to force their morality onto others. You're suggesting that the norms of British use, or Australian use, or working class use, or Aboriginal Australian English shouldn't be respected.  This is forceful moralising.  This is linguistic imperialism.  A large swathe of the community can't go around being offended by words used by large swathes of the community, and get off scott free because they're moralistic juveniles incapable of respecting others.  That kind of action is reprehensible conduct.  Mutual respect does not mean forcing your position onto others.  And as the community has repeatedly stated: there are no fundamentally uncivil words.  That editor who tries to tread on my use of cunt as an emphatic directed at no person, can "ram it up [their] pim-hole, [that] fusking cloff prunker" to paraphrase Fry and Laurie.  Outside of discussing attempts to remove my capacity to write cunt on wikipedia, I doubt that I have used the word—but it is an emphatic I regularly consider when considering which emphatic to use.  It is an emphatic that I use regularly, and technically, to describe a particular kind of reprehensible object, person or process.  It is language I learnt as literally mother tongue.  I restrict myself from using it regarding specific reprehensible persons on wikipedia, because we are bound not to make personal attacks.  I am particularly circumspect about characterising other editors and their conduct, because we are bound not to make personal attacks.  Yet, at the same time, if some reprehensible person removes my capacity to say "cunt," then every time I choose not to use it I will feel the lack of the word.  I'm not willing to edit an encyclopaedia where I cannot choose not to say cunt; but, am bound not to even consider the language my mother taught me. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [ Linguistic imperialism is an entirely different topic, but I don't want to get side-tracked]. The are two issues: reprehensible people making personal attacks, and the word "cunt". As for the first, if reprehensible people are attacking Malleus, then eventually the wheels of justice will turn on those people. relatively prolonged injustice is an unstable equilibrium on Wikipedia, because our words can never vanish, since they are forever in the history of some page or other. Nothing is truly forgotten (though things may sometimes be a bit difficult to locate). As for the "c" word: communities have norms. All communities have norms. Norms are in fact a huge part of what distinguishes one community from another. What happens, then, when two communities come into prolonged contact in the context of participating within some mixed community? The norms have to be balanced out, and the usual method is: the norms of the larger groups hold sway. Ah, the discussion can go on forever. Are you OK with honor killing? Would you accept it if your neighbor, a hypothetical transplant from another community, killed his daughter because she dishonored him? What about killing and eating dogs? It's very OK in some Asian countries. If your neighbor slit her dog's throat in front of your eyes and threw chunks of it in the stew pot, would you call the police? Should we let your two neighbors go scot-free because of cultural differences? Those cases are pyrotechnic, but they illustrate a principle: someone's norms always obtain. Those cases are also not strictly applicable to the "C" word on Wikipedia, because here we have many members from many communities mixing, not just one large one and a single member from a different one. What do we do? Common sense says, if many people are offended by a word, the community has the right to ask all members to avoid saying it. –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please reread consensus in relation to your suggestion of tyranny of the majority. The last time consensus was tested (in December 2011), consensus carried against language gags.  I have no interest in your hyperbole, or in you soapboxing (or pulpitting) on my talk page any further on this matter.  In relation to justice, this encyclopaedia doesn't have a justice system, it has a board of arbitration.  In relation to your questions: no, no, yes, depends on the method of butchering, I don't feel any common cause with you in relation to murder or health safety and animal welfare in butchering, and the community has repeatedly and perennially spoken against banning the use of the word cunt. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifefoo, it seems I have hit a nerve. I am not soapboxing, or pulpitting. I am having a calm discussion. The majority is not tyrannical; it only asks for a modicum of agreeable behavior (as for example in WP:NPA, which you support – is that tyrannical, too?). But you are unable to discuss this calmly, I am very sorry to say, so I will leave you alone. Best wishes & Happy New Year (no sarcasm there) –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how hyperbole like comparisons to off encyclopaedia comparative law is relevant to a calm discussion. If you'd like to have a calm discussion that's great.  I do not believe that wikipedia ought to, and consensus has demonstrated that we must not, ban for use of particular words.  I will occasionally use "fuck" as an emphatic, and probably very rarely use "cunt" as a generic noun verb or emphatic.  Offence cannot be the core of a policy about forcibly restricting editors.  False politeness really offends me, it shits me to tears—yet I wouldn't propose that obsequious editors be restricted from what I see as offensive servility.  An editor who I do not know calling me "mate" is as specifically culturally offensive to me as "cunt" is to a variety of en_US speakers—in my language that is an immediate invitation to physical violence and an aspersion of absolute reprehensibility of character—yet, I shouldn't run to an administrative action.  Editors should ask other editors without a strong or disciplinary expectation, and educate them into norms.  Editors should learn tolerance and forbearance when they cannot accept each other.  Moreover, non-disciplinary approaches to conduct that personally offend have a higher success rate than disciplinary processes. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I seem bombastic. I will give a less bombastic example below... I never mentioned discipline. I too believe that editors should be educated into norms. I too believe that non-disciplinary approaches to conduct that personally offend have a higher success rate than disciplinary processes. There are more points of agreement between us than you may realize... My points are only these: 1) The community has the right to ask people not to say "cunt". When used in reference to other people it is considered aggressive, and in reference to the vagina it is considered vulgar. 2) Hair-trigger blocks are grossly inappropriate. Even "moderately swift" blocks are grossly inappropriate. Is there, however, an infinite number of times that people should be permitted to say "cunt" without being blocked?... Again going to off-wiki topics (though these at least seem to make you uncomfortable, and for that I apologize), let's choose something far less bombastic: what about taking off your shoes when you go into the house of a Chinese person? If you do it once, they will feel distinctly uncomfortable. It is considered not only impolite but also dirty and uncouth. They will very probably ask you to take off your shoes (though in some cases they may be too hesitant to do so). Perhaps they will try to educate you by saying it is Chinese custom. If they ask you on more than one occasion to take off your shoes and you ignore them, they will probably "punish" you (so to speak) by never inviting you into their house again. Perhaps this "shoe" discussion is more closely paralleled to the use of the word "cunt". –One Leaf KnowsAutumn (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. Due to responsibilities relating to the case, there will be a delay in replying to you.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me of this. One Leaf Knows Autumn: "The Community" has a right to stop people using the word cunt. They can try on any of the common forms. Attempts have repeatedly failed. They will fail again. And I will block consensus because I got the word off my mother, and because I wish to reserve my use of it for times when I think it apt and the best word to use. It is a common word in my language, and moreover, an especially common word in my neighbourhood. And guess what? People who use, or respect other English writer's use of the word cunt in ways that aren't personal attacks, value the continued potential for proper uses of the word on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The case
I'm sure amid all the clamour, kangaroos and noise that is a Wikipedia trial by ordeal that you will miss my question here. So iI thought it might be helpful to draw your attention to it here. Thank you. Giacomo Returned 20:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)
Hello there. Sadly, the article on the Battle of Radzymin failed at A-class assessment due to procedural reasons. All the issues were fixed but only two people actually voted for it. Since you helped to improve the article in the past, could I interest you in the new assessment? Thanks for any help.  // Halibutt 12:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fifelfoo
Hi, Fifelfoo. I hope you're doing fine. The Duke of Caxias was promoted and it's n--Eduen (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)ow a FA. This happened in part for your excelent review and suggestions you made to improve it. Thanks a lot. You're a great guy. --Lecen (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you find yourself drawn to writing excellent articles about Brazilian history in future. You should be proud of the high quality work you've done on articles you've edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism
As I read about Roderick Long in his wikipedia article he seems to have academic qualifications for sure, yet his associations are with US neoliberal spaces and names such as thinks tanks and editorials with names like Ayn Rand and the Austrian School of economics. I think he provides answers only in order to understand the US neoliberal vision on libertarianism. I am going to research notable and reliable anarchist opinions and definitions on this issue and so perhaps we could get a more balanced view of things.--Eduen (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do have a great deal of trust in your capacity to do this, but you may wish to recognise that Long's definition is open. More, that it is an open definition from a pro-Value form "libertarian"—Long's non-academic interests combined with his genuine academic credentials make his "open" definition very, very useful for an article that began and continued into 2011 as solely paen to the beliefs of extra-parliamentary US right-wingers; failing utterly to address the US parliamentary right, and the extra and parliamentary non-US lefts of libertarianism.  Long's definition lets us cover everything the article ought to cover, and provides this immediate coverage with a gravitas rooted in academia, but combined with a known political position that holds against voluntary post-market economics (even while he considers such politics to be part of "libertarianism".) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Above and beyond the call of duty
You're doing an amazing amount of work in trawling through the ANI archives, which I hope will inform ArbCom's decision. I'm just amazed that Risker had to ask for evidence, when it's all around us every single day. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad someone observes that work. AN/I is the worst archive representing disciplinary (ie: permanently recordable) actions I have ever come across.  Worse than half organised local branch minutes.  I actually think that it is considerably lax of the authority responsible for administrator oversight that I'm cleaning up this mess—and I don't have or want the "mop"-bit attached to my user account.  The lack of any core system of maintained responsibility, either Napoleonic Code style, or common law precedent style, means that we have a fucking mess of social policy.  This fucking mess encourages the lowest level discipline inflicters to engage in a fucking mess of poor resolution of perceived civility problems.  The hit rate of failed civility blocks, or unattended civility issue discussions, from AN/I (for only 2 months / 10+ pages) is frankly obscene.  The failures at the more sedate AN are even more disturbing, including an Arbitration/Enforcement redirected to AN in which no outside party seemed to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But of course the truth that very few dare speak is that civility is used as club to beat your opponent to death, or at least get him or her blocked, and ideally banned. That's been the case for as long as I've been here, so once again I'm surprised that Risker apparently hasn't noticed. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Push them CIVILly with IDHT, poor quality scholarship, SOAPboxing, and arguments from first principles until you get them to say "cunt." Most everyone is aware of this as the way to assassinate other editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I was headed this way to say thank you also, Fifelfoo. I understand why they need the evidence - although we all know this is a problem, it's never been documented before. You're doing excellent work :) Karanacs (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's why I'm here too - I'd like to echo Malleus and Karanacas. Great job Fifelfoo.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Signpost
Is this going to be in motion anytime soon? Have I asked this question before? I don't remember =) Res Mar 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly this lies outside the case immediately associated with my refusal to productively work. We'll have to see if Malleus returns to normal editing before I work on that. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, politics. Thank the lord I've avoided them (mostly). Res Mar 03:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucky you :). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
What you wrote in SOPA/future legislative input is exactly what is needed. You have the smarts, the comprehension to make changes happen. Someone like me wouldn't even know where to begin...it needs you! Petersontinam (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: your email
I note your small hatnote, but I'd rather reply on-wiki; if you reply here, please leave me a talkback. As for the action itself: an accepted use of RevDel is testing in userspace-related pages, especially if the action taken in the test is immediately undone. Moreover, the blackout was not accompanied by any statement prohibiting admins from acting in ways that would be acceptable at other times: the blackout simply removed our ability to do most things. If you've looked at my log, you've noticed that I followed the test by using RevDel to get rid of almost 800 copyvio-ridden revisions of Logan Hayes, taking about 20 minutes to do it. I would have simply deleted the page and restored the safe revisions (it would have been far faster, since normal deletion has an "invert" button while RevDel doesn't, and I had to click the delete button for almost every revision in the page's history), but the software prevents users from deleting pages that they cannot edit. As for the comment, I stand by it: I strongly disagree with the action that was taken. Non-disruptive protests and non-disruptive disagreements with community decisions are permitted; otherwise we'd get rid of User anti-anon. If I hadn't been seeking a way to take some sort of productive action during the blackout, I wouldn't have taken any actions (logged or unlogged) at the time. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I've noted it at Administrators' Noticeboard where I'll comment on it. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a page lurker... Does this mean that admins could carry on using the wiki during the blackout? I don't remember that being agreed or announced on the discussion pages. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Stewards, WMF Staff and possibly revdellers. There are "emergency" reasons for some of these users to conduct "emergency" edits: legal, BLP, threat, copyvio, etc.  In this case of site locking, there was an additional reason to meet the community's PR requirements regarding the blackout itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a list of which of these then used their powers? If it was a genuine emergency, fine, but if not it seems like an abuse of privileges. The consensus was for a straightforward blackout, and this wasn't mentioned on any of the statements I've seen. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just monitored recent changes during the blackout. Any time based "what was edited globally" should do it. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do a search later - the iPhone isn't ideal for this! What's the process if editors have abused privileges for non-emergencies? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with WMF Staff as WMF Staff you'd need to take that up with WMF. If you have a problem with Staff or Stewards violating community consensus, that would be actionable on wikipedia as they're editors like any other. (I can't really see how this would be a problem, the information I posted indicates that any potential for problems was resolved, and no outstanding problems exist).  If you have a problem with Stewards being Stewards, that'd be something to take up on meta.wikimedia.  If you have a problem with a user with any other rights for their actions during the blackout, you'd need to investigate where to raise it.  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks your help and patience - I've left a reply on the Noticeboard page. 18:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was keeping a watch on the picket line, and the results should please everyone—no "bad" edits were made; and the only "questionable" edits were made by accident or a matter editors could reasonably disagree over. It is nicto have a "no result". Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Synthesis-inline


A tag has been placed on Template:Synthesis-inline requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes ( ).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Lmatt (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I redirected this, as it is a useful name for the same template. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

IRC
Hi,

Not being an admin, I don't know what it's like in #wikipedia-en-admins. I disagree with you regarding #wikipedia-en, but I don't think I will convince you. However, for the benefit of Wikipedia, I ask that you please take the value of #wikipedia-en-help into account when you argue against IRC. Its instantaneous nature makes it an invaluable tool for helping new contributors who are often unfamiliar with wiki markup, talk pages, and our various policies and guidelines. It's also almost always drama-free, and has certainly never been involved in any decision regarding editors on-wiki (except maybe procedural blocks for usernames) or canvassing for any discussion. So it does a lot of good (help and outreach to potential editors) without doing much harm at all, and it would be a great loss if removed.

Because some editors have a tendency to scrutinise every action of other editors, I don't like the idea of logging IRC conversations, where people have far less time to phrase everything carefully before hitting enter; however, if that's what you think should happen, I wouldn't dissuade you from arguing for that. I only ask that the means of providing assistance to new editors does not become collateral damage in any attempt to weed out improper off-wiki conduct. Thank you. wctaiwan (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm writing because I think #wikipedia-en-help needs to remain linked from the Help page and AFC templates. Otherwise even if it continued to exist, people would not be able to find it, thus defeating the purpose. wctaiwan (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The other option is that all channels (other than legal/WMF office) be publicly and officially logged, and posted to Wikipedia: space, or meta.wikimedia as appropriate. Given that AN, and AN/I work in public, even a channel that non-administrators cannot access should be publicly and officially logged, and posted to Wikipedia: space, or meta.wikimedia as appropriate.  If they're official, they're part of the encyclopaedia, and should be logged.  If they're logged, I'm happy.  If they're not logged (and there has been a steadfast refusal to treat these spaces as part of the encyclopaedia for record keeping purposes) then they need to go. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on latest proposed change in 1953 Iran coup article
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of cleaning up the article to fix duplication, contradiction and bad chronology. Here are my proposed changes. Please leave a comment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The earliest date I could comment would be after January 29, if the drafting arbitrators meet their deadline, and if all arbitrators SNOW vote on the proposals, and if Malleus Fatuorum returns to normal editing on that date. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC
As the one reviewer in the last nomination, I figured I'd inform you that I'm renominating Glen P. Robinson for FAC: Featured article candidates/Glen P. Robinson/archive2. Thanks for your excellent help :) Disavian (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm interested, the earliest I could comment would be 29 January, as noted, if a remarkable series of events come to pass. Given slipped schedules, and a reasonable target for voting, it looks mid to late February (if Malleus Fatuorum isn't driven off the encyclopaedia). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I just figured I'd let you know it was happening. :) Disavian (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

aggregation of primary sources synthesis
Hello, I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit on your comment "This is illegitimate SYNTHESIS, and a MEDRS violation." Thanks, Gsonnenf (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is what SYNTHESIS is, it is precisely what synthesis is. MEDRS explicitly states that data should not come from primary medical sources, but from field reviews.  Wikipedians cannot aggregate cases, case studies, or primary points of research in relation to medical research. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct em if I'm wrong, but synthesis is: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources." I'm not seeing any new thesis being created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsonnenf (talk • contribs)
 * Gsonnenf, please stop hectoring Fifelfoo. Jayjg (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered. I strongly suggest that if you continue the IDHT behaviour, that you'll be taken through dispute resolution for disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ready to go?
Just a ping on Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Newsroom/Submissions. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Not reliable for history"
You wrote for 1956 Hungarian article

"Not reliable for history: polit.ru; Not reliable for history: "Hungarian politician Janos Berecz"''

How are the above sources any less reliable than the controversial UN Special Committee report that makes up the bulk of the article with unattributed claims like "...Soviet tanks often crept along main roads firing indiscriminately into buildings"? Berecz' book is published by Hungary's Academy of Sciences, which qualifies as a reliable source, in accordance with Wikipedia policies about "academic, peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources."

The article also cites revisionist history from The Institute for the History of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, which "in 1995, the government of the Hungarian Republic granted the 1956 Institute, until then a social organization, the official status of a public foundation." i.e. pro-regime propaganda. Yet, you say that Berecz' comprehensive book about the events cannot be used.

Also cited is the American tabloid Time Magazine from the 1950s. But you insist that this Russian editorial, which is used on the Russian version of this article, is unreliable? Please explain.

Also note that "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". Your removal of the above sources violate the relevant policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.195 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No it can't. The work of pre-1989 Hungarian and Soviet historians on 1956 is utterly rejected in the historiography. It is considered "flat-earth". Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian Academy of Science is not reliable for history prior to 1989, for 1956, for obvious reasons.
 * I have tried to get the blasted report out of the article, because it too is unreliable. "Other Shit Exists" is not a valid excuse for your poor content additions.
 * As you may know, the Institute confounds its works with peer review; and they are reviewed by a critical academic community. The same is not true for Hungarian publications prior to 1989 due to party control over the history of 1956.
 * Yes, "Other shit exists" in the article—again, that doesn't mean you can dump a load of FRINGE crap all over the article.
 * No, the Kadarist historiography is not accepted by the field and is fringe. Your additions violate policy in terms of RS, HQRS, FRINGE and WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It can be cited if the source is clearly attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.90.195 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be cited if the source is clearly attributed. You describe the Hungarian historiography of previous years as "fringe", but scholars don't agree with you. This book entertains Berecz' book. It doesn't come to hasty judgments like you do that Berecz is right or wrong, but instead says that the contents should be considered:


 * "The Kadar regime subsequently put much weight on the leadership role of the Western intelligence agencies as part of the US 'liberation doctrine. The CIA had tried to foment or sustain anti-Communist insurgencies in Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, and Albania, with a spectacular lack of success. The CIA operation "FOCUS' attemtped to destabilize the Hungarian regime through propaganda, as did Radio Free Europe. For the official Hungarian view of the role, see Janos Berecz...


 * All Hungarian historical works on the events should be entertained, not just revisionist stuff from after 1990.132.239.90.195 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing a NB discussion ?
You have closed a NB discussion and ruled against three sources, two of which were not under discussion. This NB discussion was calm and reasoned and had been open barely a day and a half. I have never seen anything so presumptuous. Further you have no right to tell an editor he can't discuss a topic and to warn him off as if you are an arb ... He isn't tendentious or disruptive and he was polite. While in the long run the source doesn't matter the process does and you have transgressed that process terribly. (olive (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * If you have your own comments to make about the source under discussion please add them. Your comments may tip the balance in this discussion which I would respect.(olive (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Thank you no. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "and ruled against three sources" excuse me? This is not a cogent reading of the closure. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Diff notes:
 * Movement over previous discussion
 * Competence failure to comply with RS/N requirements
 * Suggestion that initiator feels free ("If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment.") to ignore RS/N culture 2
 * and related ("draw") battlefield
 * tag teaming; (this) and (this) by an involved (this) and (this) editor
 * editors fail to restrict general discussion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 * over contribution by an involved editor 2 3 4 5 6 7
 * and noted in dicussion 2 3
 * Core points for the closure 2 3 (regarding the business model of the publisher) 4 (regarding currency of RS/N reliability, future reliability can be determined in the future) 5 (regarding publisher quality) 6 (MEDRS context) 7 (journal indexing) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree with your conclusion about these specific sources in this particular context, but I think the way you stated it is much too dogmatic. (On the general question of Hindawi, David E. there made a comment which is identical to my view, and very compatible with yours'.) RSN is not an arb noticeboard. If you consider the subject a matter of arb enforcement, it should be done there. I don't so consider it. what I suggest, is that you go back and do a little rewording.  DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Read Wiki rule
Wikipedia is to keep existing format, don't change it to your personal thing. When the authors create the article and they can use either American English or British English or whatever name, we have to keep that way. If you don't believe it, ask user:Berean Hunter, he also changed NLF to VC in Vietnam War article. ༆ (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't appear to be the person creating mass changes across multiple pages without consulting sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and you stop too. Keeping the names used by the creators is Wikipedia's rule. Your edits also violate Wiki rules, so you have NO right to accuse that my edits violate. If what you said is correct, then why don't you change the name of the Viet Cong article to NLF? And of course no way you can do it because in the past some1 also changed the article's title and it was reverted. ༆ (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME applies to article titles; Viet Cong is correctly named. Common name does not apply to body text. I have every right to accuse you of POINTY editing—it is precisely what you have been engaged in.   Fifelfoo (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I also have the right to accuse of disputing Wikipedia by not keeping the names used by the creators. Why do you keeping saying common name? I'm saying about keeping existing format, and that's what it's about. Keeping existing contents is rule. So you also break that rule, got that. ༆ (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, check the diffs. Two years of consensus is a long long time, and you're breaking source veracity for a personal campaign. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking sources and close paraphrasing
I'm going to go offline soon, but wanted to thank you for the detailed responses at WT:FAC. I re-read what you said in that Bugle op-ed, and it made me go back and look again at some of the examples I was thinking of. In one case in particular, I was convinced that there was something there, but wasn't quite sure what it was, so I quoted various passages and outlined my concerns. But the reaction from the nominators was mixed (ranging from ridicule to disagreement to rewriting parts of the article). Ever since then, I've been reluctant to tackle such issues, either because I got it very wrong, or they did, and I'm still not sure which. What I was hoping was to find a way to move on from that by asking someone else to take a look. Would you be willing to do that? I would, of course, need to notify the nominators that I've brought this up again, but I would want the focus to me on me and what I should or shouldn't have done as a reviewer of the article. As I said, I don't feel comfortable doing in-depth reviews like that until this has been resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to act as an external source-check reviewer. I'm kind of on a strike from "productive" work, but this kind of activity is more collegial and I'd rather wikipedia not lose the spotchecking skill-set even if I have to permanently retire.  When doing this, it would help to be pointed to a revision of the article at the time you checked it, when being pointed to the past discussion.  Obviously the purpose of doing this is improving the encyclopaedia and improving your confidence in this area—not "gunning" after anyone's editing or article.  If the check results in areas for article improvement, then that's a good thing!  The Bugle op-ed demonstrates that even Majestic Titan inside MILHIST can accidentally paraphrase too closely. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked if the main nominator minds this review being the example used. If they are OK with that, I'll provide the diff of the article at the time I reviewed it. If there are objections, I'll look for another example. Will check back on this tomorrow, or possibly the day after depending how much time I get during the week. Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (update) I've now discussed this here (permalink, live thread here). After that discussion, and after I updated a list I keep in my userspace of reviews I've done (see here), I think it might be best if I take a slower approach to this. I'd still very much like to take you up on your kind agreement to help look at source spot-check reviews I've done, but can you suggest a different approach, maybe involving other reviews I did? At the moment, the stumbling block I have is that when faced with disagreement over whether something is close paraphrasing or not, is it necessary to try and resolve who is 'right' before moving on? Or is it OK (as I've said at times) to agree to disagree over whether something is close paraphrasing or not (this is essentially what happened at the review I wanted to discuss)? The former approach can be too confrontational, while the latter approach can lead to too much relativism, and ultimately slipping standards (depending on how borderline the case is). If you have any general thoughts on this, that would be much appreciated. One bit of feedback I've received is that my reviews can be draining as I tend to do them in several sittings - I know it is not spot-checking, but reviewing in general, but would you have any thoughts on that? Carcharoth (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources/Noticeboard formatting
Yes, you may reformat my post to make it easier to read. I will check out the formatting changes and will take that into account in the future. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Your message has been answered.Fsol (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Libertarianism
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Libertarianism". Thank you. --Fsol (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Granateple (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Signpost submission
Greetings, Fifelfoo. I have reviewed and responded to your submission at the Signpost's Opinion desk. You may wish to read and respond, if/when you are not still on strike. Cheers,  Skomorokh   05:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bullet points in comments
I find it difficult to follow the indentation when you use bullet points in reply to non bullet pointed comments as you are doing in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources please could you refactor them. BTW I am not the only one who finds them difficult as they are discouraged in the Talk page guidelines.

The problem is not so much your use of bullet points to date in this section "Consistent style", but replying to your comments with the correct indentation, so that it is not confusing, is difficult to do unless the all the replies start to use bullet points. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you learn how to follow multiple styles of discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see by this edit others agree with me, but do not pay you the courtesy of asking you to change the indentation yourself. Thank you for doing so with your next edit. -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I find your tone deeply offensive. Please never post on my Talk page again, unless you are required by courtesy to note that you have mentioned me elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * No worries! I hope you can make excellent use of RS/N in future, and that it can assist your editing in other areas of the encyclopaedia.  I too am sorry for becoming curt, terse and short.  I am happy that we both managed to get along, and got you a quality RS/N response to your query. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting query
Fifelfoo, why have you now hatted my discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? What I posted there was a very much shorter version of the analysis I posted on the Talk Page. Therefore, I did in fact take note of your "warning" (although I dispute that my analysis amounted to a "disruptive soapbox"). Simon Kidd (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I appreciate your explanation of the process, and that you will devote considerable time to this. I would just like to clarify that I posted the 10 points before the "procedural suggestions". There was no deliberate attempt to circumvent any procedure - I thought that I had shortened my analysis appropriately. Finally, regarding the process on RS/N, I would like to express some concern that one of the uninvolved editors should have misrepresented statements of other uninvolved editors in his attempt to conclude the discussion. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * RS/N has a process, which involves soliciting uninvolved editors, and for involved editors to concisely state their points.
 * Edits which lie outside of that structure in form such as extensive long form commentry, regardless of authorial intention or the contents of an author's analysis, disrupt the process.
 * Several procedural suggestions regarding the method of successfully making arguments on wikipedia were put to you at talk.
 * 10 paragraphs of points in a row, in a discussion that has already wandered away from the topic, is not an appropriate form of contribution; especially from an editor deeply involved in the discussion.
 * Never the less, while closing I will be reading and analysing all points put, including reading in detail the forty some points you posted at the talk page of RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the timing issue, I have emended the title of the hatting appropriately. As you would note, the entire section, not just your contribution, was hatted—this is the nature of disruption, it causes discussion to wander away from the central point. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Any conclusion on the issue of Kevin Shepherd as a source? See new developments on AfD. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons wikipedians prefer concise arguments is because it takes time to closely analyse extensive contributions. Fifelfoo (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Your close was frankly grossly premature and disruptive in itself. There is currently no consensus for the closing statement and discussions are still continuing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appeared clear as day to me, and I have noted this elsewhere with reference to community behaviour in past equivalent incidents and to the discussion itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The case against the user in question may be clear as day to you, it may even be true, but it is equally clear to me that there was no consensus in that discussion for the statements you made. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * RS/N is not a disciplinary or administrative board; closure by movement isn't about head count consensus in a single thread either. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was: I said that there was no consensus, and that discussions were continuing, so that close was premature. Are you really saying that there was a consensus for administrative action?  Can you point to even one contributor to the discussion who proposed that?  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I already have, elsewhere, and as you may observe from the tenor of contributions elsewhere the consensus didn't lie within the thread but within the project. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, you closed a discussion with your summary of some other discussion "elsewhere". A use of the word "consensus" of which I had not previously been aware.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you maintain an active reading presence in relation to responses to gross falsification and wikipedia over an extended period of time. RS/N is neither a vote, not a head count, but a repository of past decisions and a culture of decision making.  Occasionally elements of this are codified, most often they're not.  Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

TB re IDHT
You may be watching but just in case you are not, I have replied. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck?
Hi Fifelfoo, I don't think we've run into each other before, but I noticed that you've done a lot of spotchecks and was wondering if you'd be interested in doing one for an article I co-nominated at WP:FAC? Prosperity theology is at FAC right now, and I think it might be due for a spotcheck. (I know it can sometimes take a while to get a spotcheck on FACs, so I thought I'd ping someone directly on it.) No problem at all if you're busy/uninterested though. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Go gentle ....
This was a little bit too personal, really. If I'd been Leaky, I'd have felt that it was unnecessarily snarky. Maybe you should consider re-wording it to something along the lines of "The community has already decided, by strong consensus, that there should be no language gag as such. Incivility depends on context, not just on individual words, and ArbCom can't overrule the community consensus." Would that be better? It's not so personally-directed, but still gets your point across (and to everyone, not just to Leaky.)  (>**)> Hugz. Pesky (talk ) 21:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I took your words to heart, when I looked at the comment I had made, it had already been replied to; so the negative effect of my comment had already happened :( .  I can't promise to take this on fully; but, I will make a better effort to integrate your suggestions into my editing Fifelfoo (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Awwww, hugz again. Never mind, an apology over there and on Leaky's page too, just saying "Sorry, I shouldn't have been so abrupt or so personal there ... [insert appropriate reason here, like "real life getting to me", or whatever!]"; drop a beer and / or cookies onto Leaky's page, maybe?  That should defuse the thing OK.  Sooner the better, really. (>**)> more hugzies.  Pesky  (talk ) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RSN
You have a valid point, I didn't really check what was going on, I just notice one user posted a comment, and you reverted it, and the comment did not seem to be a personal attack or anything. I will strive to be more careful in the future. Jeancey (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thanks for observing edits.  I would have accepted a hand-rolled piece of freshly written text with much greater charity than I did when receiving a template.  And I have to thank you for fixing my error as a result of the edit conflict.  Keep up the good work Jeancey. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

soviet wage reform fac
Hello! Thanks for all your help and support at the FAC for Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962 last month. I don't know if you're back doing regular editing on wikipedia at the moment or not but I thought I'd let you know that I'm having another go at getting that magic shiny star. The new FAC is at Featured article candidates/Wage reform in the Soviet Union, 1956–1962/archive2 and I would really appreciate any comments. cya! Coolug (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Commentary at RS/N
If I may make a suggestion, saying that somebody "should feel awful about [their] contribution" isn't very helpful either to the editor or to the project. Perhaps something more along the lines of "next time, try to search a little more for better, more acceptable sources" might be in order the next time a similar situation arises? - The Bushranger One ping only 14:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Tod FAC
Thanks for appreciating what has been going on with the IDHT-ish contributor at RSN and the James Tod FAC. I am afraid that their POV is being blown sky high at the moment but I wouldn't be surprised if they try to find something else. This is precisely in line with what the article itself says: Tod is still revered by certain groups whom he glorified (& the user is a member of one of those groups, by past admission).

BTw, I had not seen WP:HISTRS before. It looks to be potentially of use but is in its formative stages. Am I correct? - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * HISTRS is formative, but it is a formative reflection of years of RS/N rulings. It carries no weight other than what people at RS/N put on it, in the case of ruling on a particular instance.  It may never bear any further weight.  MEDRS took years to get moving, apparently, and was in a similar situation to where HISTRS is now for three years I have heard.  For example, HISTRS mirrors closely the finding in the most recent Tod RS/N discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It may stay in limbo for ever. As I understand things, there is a trend that is moving away from topic specific guidelines etc and back to the core. That does not negate the usefulness. I've had some on/off dealings this last week or so with . A new name for me but they have been around for a long time and may have some useful input - academic historian, by the looks of it. I am an wannabe academic historian - missed that boat when I very stupidly turned down the chance of a Research Fellowship + PhD opportunity at Cambridge many years ago. OTOH, anyone who can call Hugh Trevor-Roper an idiot to his face, as I did at my undergraduate interview, and still get offered a college place must surely have something going for them! He played croquet in his slippers, in the morning when the grass was still heavy with dew. He was an idiot with regard to that, also, although the academic dispute was about something else entirely! - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oldweather
I don't know why I wasn't able to reproduce the results, but here are a few examples that have oldweather.org as a source:
 * HMS Amethyst (1903)
 * Cadmus class sloop
 * HMS Sapphire (1904)
 * HMS Hyacinth (1898)
 * HMS Foxglove (1915)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs)

Many thanks, I'll try to look at these within a week. Wikipedia isn't the highest priority, but this is an interesting area where a crowdsourced project is moving towards respectability. (I'd personally compare to marxists.org, which I wouldn't hesitate to cite in a heartbeat despite the rather amusing occasional transcription issues). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I have some OR I'd like to share with you. I misjudged you from a wrong impression. I apologize, and thank you for handling yourself so amicably. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RSN closure
I understand the frustration you expressed in closing the BANG Showbiz thread, and I apologize for whatever part I might have played despite my attempts to be collegial; I certainly wasn't making bad-faith accusations about personal motivation, as Andy the Grump did toward me. I admit I'm concerned that we're accepting a gossip site that doesn't say where or when the alleged quote came from, or whether anyone from BANG spoke with the person or it was a copy-paste from who-knows-where.

It's your judgment to accept this BANG Showbiz item and close the RSN, and obviously I'm respecting that. If you do have any lingering concerns about this questionable source, stemming from having closed the thread because of behavioral issues, I hope you'll express it. With regards and with thanks for your taking the time to become involved, Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I used the generic second person for a reason: the thread was sick, not the editors in the thread. Conduct can become toxic without anybody intending it to, or having primary responsibility.  I think on reflection everyone can tell that thread would continue without soliciting outside opinion, or changing tone.  With RS/N's current size issue, it needed closure. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Query about your concluding statements
Fifelfoo, thank you for closing the RS/N discussion on self-published and devotional sources in the NRM area. One of your conclusions ("Shepherd's works do not cross the threshold for even this partial reliability. The devotional works do not even approach such a threshold.") seems to imply that an article such as Hazrat Babajan should be deleted, because almost every single source is either self-published or devotional (devotional in this case meaning a devotee of Meher Baba, since Hazrat Babajan played a key role Meher Baba's emergence). Although Brunton was a devotee, his book was not published by a devotee press. So unless someone can find better sources for this article (and I don't believe there are any), then the only conclusion would seem to be to delete. This would be even more true of the article on Meher Baba's father, Sheriar Mundegar Irani. Is this not the implication of your concluding comments? Simon Kidd (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * devotional works published by commercial, generalist, or academic presses weren't discussed. Devotional works published by devotional presses with a known fact checking or editorial policy (consider catholic theological presses) were not discussed. While individual devotional texts written by devotees and published by devotional presses would need to be individually examined they aren't reliable for religious history, scholarly theology, sociology of religion etc. There may be limited capacities to be reliable for the devotional content of a devotional practice, but wouldn't go to notability. Again particular cases would need to be brought, but the result would largely resemble the above. we aren't an encyclopaedia of religions that do not receive widespread external attention. Works published by commercial or general presses by devotees may or may not be reliable. Depends on the claim or notability they're supporting. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of removing the Shepherd citations from the various articles it is used as a source. I don't know if I got them all, because I have no idea who or what any of these articles are about. I didn't bother with the Sai Meher Baba Critics article, since it seems destined for deletion anyway.
 * I would agree that, at first blush, there are likely problems with other sources on the articles in question which look to be published by "in-house" devotional publishing arms of the various movements involved. But, one would have to look at them individually rather than make a blanket pronouncement. I suspect that Mr. Kidd is correct that, once one eliminates the references that don't meet WP:RS, some of these articles may not survive a RFD.
 * As an aside, I rather suspect that Mr. Castro's monograph on the Findhorn Foundation, which is cited or linked to in a couple of articles I looked at in the course of the RSN discussion, does not pass muster as a RS. It has all the earmarks of a SPS: PO Box in the author's hometown rather than an address, no other books published by the publisher; Shepherd states on his website that Castro, Shepherd and Shepherd's mother all lived in the same house in that town, but he isn't the publisher, but has distribution rights to the book.Fladrif (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You too
Excuse me, I'm NOT the only one. Check the edit history of the article, man. There was also another user accused the other guy of being sockpuppet too. So y you only reminded me. Also, happy ending only when you stop watching me and keep questioning my edits. ༆ (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have no right to demand that other refrain from watching your actions or questioning your edits. Frankly, some of your actions are rather questionable and need to be monitored. If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet, file a report at Sockpuppet investigations. Don't accuse them on an article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I also have the right to tell you that if you warn me because of what I did, then you also have to do the same with the user who makes the same edit like I did (the one that I mentioned above). Also, I already notice the suspected sockpuppets to an admin but a person relied differently, check for yourself. I know about the admin notice page. You don't have to tell me what to do like I'm a little kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ༆ (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will stop informing you about Wikipedia policies when you start following them. Fifelfoo was entirety correct in warning you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Was Marx a Jew
I know he was born a Jew, but he was baptized. If you know of any RS's on the topic can you post them here? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A Project proposal
Hi, I write because I have an idea for a wikiproject that would focus on news events of the kind that doesn't fall under the WIkipedia:In the News categories - that is news that are interesting for people who care about something other than sports, distasers or international politics. Currently there is no place on wikipedia to find news of cultural events or events that are primarily of interest for specific minorities or subcultures in the world (including subcommunities interested in academia, music, arts, or literature). The aim of this project would be to get articles that are newsworthy but doesn't fit the current ITN criteria featured on the main page - and to promote awareness of topics outside of the sports-politics-disaster triangle. I was thinking you might be interested.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be very happy to keep a reviewers eye over this, but for content creation, I've never been good and I'm busy busy busy writing this year. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Check it out at WP:SMALLNEWS.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalchuri
I posted a response here the other day, but perhaps it got missed in the helter skelter world of RS/N. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Discussion of this source has spilled over onto the Meher Baba Talk Page. I have encouraged those concerned to continue the discussion on RS/N (where I fear it will soon be archived, btw). Simon Kidd (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please could you have a look at the discussion on the Meher Baba Talk Page. From statements being made by Nemonoman, Hoverfish and Dazedbythebell (all heavily involved editors, who have been trying to gain FA status for the article since 2007 - see also the last post in this section by No-More-Religion), it sounds like they think the discussion on RS/N can simply be ignored because a consensus was arrived at in the past. Now it seems to me that either RS/N pronouncements/verdicts/judgments/conclusions count for something or they don't, and implementation of the same should be consistent. For instance, there was no discussion of consensus when Fladrif promptly acted on your conclusion to the recent discussion of a self-published source. Perhaps you could make some statement on the MB Talk Page, or should I go to a higher authority and, if so, whom? Simon Kidd (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look, but have no time at the moment. The article won't pass FAC with that quality of sourcing.  The article shouldn't pass GA, given that much of it is original research based on primary sources.  I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page.  If such discussions don't reach conclusions, follow the content dispute resolution system through. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I’ve just noted your response to Simon Kidd—after I had written the request below this evening! However, for the record I’ll leave it here. Thank you for indicating the way forward.


 * Fifeloo, I would very much appreciate it if you would kindly give attention to the RS/N and Meher Baba Talk page re discussions about the devotionally-published text, Meher Prabhu (Lord Meher). I believe that the arguments for and against the use of that book in the article have been fully expressed and explored by both parties, and that it now seriously requires an impartial, administrative ruling on the matter before it turns into a complete farce for Wikipedia. Please do also note that other texts used in that MB article come directly under the category of devotionally-published, i.e., Sheriar Foundation (“an independent, non-profit, tax-exempt foundation formed in 1989. The purpose of Sheriar Foundation is to broaden awareness and deepen the appreciation of the spiritual values exemplified in the life and writings of Meher Baba”), and Avatar Meher Baba Foundation, Inc. Both are included among the “nine Meher Baba organizations” that “anyone in the world can donate directly to the Avatar Meher Baba Trust.” I am a new editor, but I have attempted to be constructive (as I had previously used Meher Prabhu in articles) and so indicated alternative texts, originally first published by reputable publishers. With flexibility, these can be used to replace the devotionally-published texts currently in the MB article. The comments on the MB Talk page reveal that there is strong resistance by the current editors (guardians) of the Meher Baba article to concede that there is even an actual problem, despite your own acknowledgement elsewhere that such devotional texts “do not even approach” the Wikipedia threshold for reliable sources. Yet, those editors have provided no proof that the devotionally-published text is a RS in the Wikipedia sense of that term. A template was added to the article to indicate that editorial attention was required, but the article has not been revised to date. There has also been resistance expressed towards any attempt to edit the article without the consent of the current editors. The next step would be for the article to have its GA status reviewed, but the assessors would need a guideline/standard re the use of devotionally-published texts. You were quite clear in a recent ruling elsewhere on the RS/N. Because there are numerous articles (several of a sectarian nature) related to Meher Baba on Wikipedia based on the devotionally-published text in question, I believe this is a serious issue for Wikipedia. In the last analysis one is dealing with a NRM that is using devotionally-published texts to not only promote its figurehead, but also promote articles which would otherwise have no notability whatsoever. --Stephen Castro (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, the discussion of Kalchuri on the Meher Baba Talk page (here and here) is going around in circles. One of the other editors with questions about sources (Hdtnkrwll) even looked for advice on the Help Desk. Once I realised that the discussion wasn't going anywhere, I started removing references to Meher Prabhu from articles on subjects not directly related to Meher Baba. I believe that this was in keeping with your suggestion above: "editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page". This has provoked an extreme reaction from Hoverfish, an editor who has been involved in the Meher Baba group of articles for several years. He claims that I am acting without consensus, and even accuses me of Disruptive Editing. One of the reasons that Hoverfish gives in support of his actions (and criticises mine) is that he claims that the RS/N discussion on Kalchuri was not concluded. See his comments on my Talk page (and also my latest comment here for an insight into the activities of the Meher Baba followers on Wikipedia). His references to "consensus" seem to me to be irrelevant if Meher Prabhu does not cross the threshold for reliability (which you indicated elsewhere). It seems to me (and other editors involved) that a lot of time and effort could be saved if you would close the discussion of Kalchuri on the RS/N with a definite statement, as you did earlier. Looking at the guidelines for third-party sources, am I not right in thinking that Meher Prabhu fails at least one of the requirements, if not two ("Third-party" and possibly also "Reliable")? If you can't do it, then perhaps you can ask another non-involved editor with RS/N experience to do it instead. Thanks. Simon Kidd (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also ask you to take into account the remarks made by editor Presearch on the Spiritual practice Talk page. The Meher Baba followers have been quick to use this to dismiss the concerns that I and other editors have expressed, and also your assessment of the matter. Simon Kidd (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * When Bold, Revert, Discuss (BRD) discussions get bogged down, or appear to be happening in a walled garden, you take content through dispute resolution. The first place is the various noticeboards.  You already know how to use RS/N—small sentences, dot points, clear explanations.  You then use the particular RS/N discussion in an existing BRD discussion.  If RS/N upholds the previous position being argued, and other editors don't listen to external advice, then you start editor conduct dispute resolution over "I Don't Hear That" disruption.  But _every_ instance of dispute over content needs to be taken to a 3rd source, each time.  You can't rely on previous "general" vibes to raise IDHT conduct issues.  Expect a couple of weeks of discussion per point.  If someone claims that a previous RS/N discussion wasn't "resolved," then raise the issue at RS/N again, citing the previous discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Simon Kidd (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Just FYI, I quoted you at AN/3RR. BitterGrey (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Howard W. Robertson
That copyvio template seems to be blanking out quite a lot of the article, particularly the references. Is that intentional? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 13:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be doing at least the Works section. If you compare the content to the located copyvios so far, the template should probably cover the entire article. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
New info posted, please review and respond. Zad68 (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

POV
I started an essay, "How to spot a POV article". Any comments? TFD (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Menachery at RSN
In case you miss it, I have just commented on a stagnant thread at RSN - Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There seems to some sort of zealotry being evidenced at present regarding mentions of St Thomas Christians, and there is a lot of misunderstanding of both policies and sources. This particular thread has slipped through my net and it is one of those occasion when I really do wish that there was some sort of formal "must notify" procedure, akin to ANI. No need to notify individuals, but a general notification on an article talk page when a reliability issue has been "upgraded" to RSN would be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a note with one of those who initiated queries also, explaining why I think that their approach is poor. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliability
FYI Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this interests me :) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for joining. History2007 (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist UI change
Re : Please note that I was not responsible for the change - please don't assume that I must have been just because I'm not making a fuss against it (even though I don't particularly like it either). <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"> An  optimist on the  run!  06:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended that to clearly indicate the second person plural, rather than the second person singular. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ref desk question
Please see Reference_desk/Humanities --NGC 2736 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Inflation (again)
Hello, another inflation-related query for you. At note 3 of Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860, I update a university professor's salary of £1,000/year using MeasuringWorth figures as follows: Were some university professors getting the equivalent of £1.8M in those days? Or have I used a wrong comparison? Any enlightenment that you can shed will be gratefully received! BencherliteTalk 14:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for lurking! One opinion follows... The RPI figure (£73,300) captures a comparison in terms of how many consumer goods someone could buy; if you were to compare how many pints of beer, for example, the professor in 1860 could buy, and how much money you'd need to buy those today, this is the sort of answer you get. The economic power answer (£1.8M) captures the fact that there weren't many people on £1000 in 1860, though, but there are a lot more people on £73,000 today; £1,000 was a much bigger share of the UK economy than £73,000 today. Your professor in 1860 was an economically important person, much richer than the mass of the urban poor; today he'd be simply middle class. Depending on what you're trying to explain, either answer might be correct I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hchc2009's answer is wonderful. I'm going to expand and elucidate.  Retail Price Indexes capture how many "consumption bundles" of a certain kind money could buy.  Over time the standard bundle of consumables becomes cheaper and cheaper for society.  If the question is, "how many modern pints could Professor X buy using 1860 money" then RPI is the correct measure.  Share of GDP represents larger functions of money, like capital movements.  If the question is "What would we need to pay someone in 2010 money to hire an 1860 professor, lawyer, capitalist, bishop, Horse Guards Commander?" then share of GDP is a better measure.  When we're interested in highly paid individuals salaries, we're most often interested in the second question, what would we need to do in today's money to hire that person then.  And yes £1000 was a shit load of money in 1860.  Marx's examples in Capital Volume II often use piddling sums of account (£100 for example) when talking about cotton mills over multiple week periods.  Buying a Boden Professor of Sanskrit was kind of like buying a cotton mill.  Today buying a named chair professor is more like buying a sports car than setting up a semi-conductor plant.  £1000 really was a big deal in 1860. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I think the way I've done the note is OK, then – I hoped it was, but just wanted to check.  No wonder one of my sources say that there'd have been a lot more competition for the job if it wasn't reserved for Sanskritists! BencherliteTalk 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Commodity Pool Operator &c.
Hi there, just saw your comments expressing concern with my revised drafts of the CPO article and others at WikiProject Cooperation. Would you mind providing more specific examples of your concerns? It certainly isn't my goal to plagiarize any of the sources, but to convey their information accurately. If you have any suggestions about reworking the material to work better, I'd appreciate your input. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You copied content from the source and proposed including it in wikipedia's voice. While the sentence was cited, the copied content was not contained within quotation marks.  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied again—can you point to the offending sentence or clause? I don't mean to plagiarize, not remotely. Just trying to make sure I get it right. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if you are unable to spot your own plagiarism perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia for gain. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo, if you are unable to point out the content you feel is plagiarized, then your comments are moot and should be ignored. Plagiarism is serious.   Accusing another editor of plagiarism is serious.  Accusing another of plagiarism while purposely not providing specific pointers to the wordings in question is childish and unproductive.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  Learn from this and do better next time. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  07:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I clearly cited the source plagiarised on the page where I rejected the inclusion of commissioned material in the encyclopaedia. I am not responsible for paid employees of external bodies' illiteracy.  Nor do I train people in professional skills for free when they intend an immediate pecuniary gain. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You're trying to debate two things at the same time: proposed article drafts, and the topic of pecuniary gain.  The result is unproductive: because it disrupts the draft reviews, and because you're debating in the wrong place.
 * Here are two good starting places where you can join the discussion about pecuniary gain:
 * Requests for comment/COI
 * User:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ
 * (of particular interest may be the 'Why should unpaid volunteers help...' question, and my suggestion for rewording of the question at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ)
 * Now lets back to having a productive discussion about the article drafts. If you don't want to help, then recuse yourself.  If you want to point out issues, but do not want to participate further in discussions, then clearly declare your recusal after you have made your points.  Learn from this, and continue to be a valued Wikipedian who goes above and beyond the call of duty in order to improve Wikipedia. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  09:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel no obligation to maintain a collegial (as opposed to civil) attitude with people attempting to commodify my labour. As I explained clearly to you above, I do not volunteer to get people paid.  Given your sanctimonious tone and mission to commodify this encyclopaedia: please never post on my talk page except where obliged by disciplinary procedure. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdenting here. Fifelfoo, it's not my intent to commodify your labor at all (nor, I am sure, is it Eclipsed's intent, either), merely to help my clients help improve information on Wikipedia while following COI guidelines. Anyway, thanks for posting a more detailed comment about the information I used from the CFTC website, and I've replied to your comment here. Bottom line: the information is the same, but the wording is as different as I could make it. Also, you'll see I've found other possible sources than Lexology for the swap regulation detail; please let me know if one of those would work better. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you at that page relatively shortly in terms of my wikipedia availability, but immediately: thank you for attending to the issues raised. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Fifelfoo. I've made some updates in an attempt to resolve your specified issues, and explained, with diffs, here. If you're disinclined to review again, I'd understand, but I do believe others there may be looking for a response from you specifically. I hope I've been able to address your content concerns. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me you owe me for dragging me into that Titanic mess... lol
Any chance I can get you to weigh in, with whatever you think, on theRSN section, please and thank-you? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 01:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden RSN: Inclusion of CDF Dialogue for Roman Catholic Church's stance on Rydén
Hello Fifelfoo,

Again, thanks for your feedback on my RSN post. I was unaware that the entire RSN discussion was closed, I thought it was only this section that was closed. It was not my intention to be disruptive. I genuinely thought that the rest of the discussion was still open. I would like to come up with some consensus CDF text, preferably with your participation and that of Noleander that we all agree on that I can insert in the article. I was hoping for further input from Noleander on how to format the text based on your emphasis on the quality of Hvidts work. If you want I can come up with some text and post it here for your review.

Also, with your permission, I would like to keep your feedback in the talk page of the Vassula Ryden article so anyone can refer to it permanently, since RSN links always expire. Arkatakor (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RS/N maintains a permanent archive of discussions, you can find the archive list in the top right hand corner of the page, and the archive is also searchable. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware of this, but RSN links always expire. I feel that having it there, immediately viewable would be especially beneficial to newcomers who start editing the article as this is not the first time in that article that theologians who were supportive of Ryden have been treated with this kind of prejudice.  Thus I feel its important to have it immediately viewable in the talk page so that future repetition of prejudicial treatment (of not only Hvidt but Micheal O Caroll and Rene Laurentin) can be thwarted before it even happens.  However if you specifically prefer I do NOT post your response in the talk page, I will remove it, no further questions asked. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * RS/N archive links do not expire. The archives are permanent.  If you are unable to locate the link to the archive when the section of RS/N is archived, I will locate the link for you.  I assure you that such a link does not expire.  The issue isn't whether a theologian has an opinion; but, whether that opinion is published with scholarly review and considered scholarly by a community of scholars.  In the case of the Hvidt text under discussion it was.  I can't speak to other potential sources, if you have specific source queries following the RS/N procedure will get you outside opinion from editors who are dedicated to answering queries about sources' reliability for specific claims on specific articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue with regard to the RS/N links. I will link your comment once the discussion goes into the the archives. As this was my first RSN post, I was unaware that it was protocol to close discussions immediately after there was a response. There were a couple of points I wanted to bring forward based on your feedback:
 * 1) The reason I had proposed sources 2, 3 and 4 for usage in my text was not for interpretation purposes, but simply as cumulative proof to acknowledge the existence of the 2004 letter by Joseph Ratzinger. The interpretation part of the letter and the explanation of how it came into being I had intention to leave entirely to the paragraph in Hvidts book (source 1).  However if wikipedia guidelines do not allow the usage of such sources even to acknowledge the existence of documents such as Ratzingers 2004 letter, then I wont press this matter any further.
 * 2) I was also hoping in the RSN discussion that a consensus text could be forged with your participation and that of --Noleander based on the sources I proposed, though I would imagine that the usual avenue for this sort of discussion would be in the Vassula Ryden talk page. Thus I would like to ask, would you be willing to be involved in this discussion and possibly put the Vassula Ryden article on your watch list?  If so we could bring this discussion into the articles talk page.  I will also ask --Noleander if this user has time and is willing to look over the article.  If this is the case I will try and come up with some text that we can all agree on - at that point I would be happy to prototype some text for you to review.  Arkatakor (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The primary issue is one of due weight and the misleading impression that the proposed text gives. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be unaware that your constant and continuous revisiting of discussions currently going is disruptive of the consensus process. Discussion suited to your article's talk is now spilling onto my talk page.  Leave the RS/N discussion to be. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I was indeed unaware of this - I had no intentions to be disruptive; I thought the discussion in the RSN already was concluded. Bear in mind its my first RSN post so I am not aware of how things work here thus, I am presuming I will have to wait for it to be fully concluded before I ask further questions. I wont make any further comments until its over then. I will conclude by adding that the responses to the RSN discussion sofar have been very helpful. Arkatakor (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hvidts reliability in doubt
Hello Fifelfoo. I have posted an RFC to include some material based on Hvidts work (whch you stated was an RS in the RSN). It seems that once gain Hvidts reliability is being cast into doubt on the grounds that he is a supporter of Ryden. The material I want to insert is based on a paragraph of the book can be viewed on my RFC. As you have reviewed this source on the RSN, I would like to ask you if you have anything to add to the conversation in the light of the latest comments regarding Hvidt as an RS. If so, would you mind posting it in the RFC? Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair 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 template from the top of the article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RSN
I withdrew my request.I will return after preparing with suitable references and diffs....  ϮheჂtriԞe  Σagle  Sorties  08:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward to investigating the reliability of the sources you present. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your efforts at RSN and considered manner in dealing with a contentious topic. Could you conclude whether in your view the proposal is supported by the sources or what amendments are required to present a satisfactory description. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">' Ankh '. Morpork  12:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As requested - all citations in place. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^)  (talk)  03:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fringe sources
Yes, it is shocking and criminal. It's fraud on a grand scale. Especially with religious fringe topics like creationism and LGBT-rights opposition, you will meet the concept of the "Holy Lie", that outright lying is perfectly A.O.K. as long as it's done in the name of God. This is praticularly true for promotional, advocacy and apologetics materials.

I truly appreciate all the fine work you are doing on RSN, but, if I might be so bold as to offer my opinion, you do sometimes "assume good faith" where none is due, appropriate or useful. AGF applies only to other editors, not to the subjects of articles or the authors of sources. It is much more useful to assume bad faith with fringe sources, guilty until proven innocent. Actually, that's what WP:V is all about. For all sources, fringe and mainstream alike.

Remember that fringe proponents ALWAYS inflate the significance and popularity of their views. I remember dealing with sourcing on one of the witchcraft articles. After researching and tracing the sources careful, I still could not determine that the views presented were representative of anyone except the orginator of the philosophy, and that there was no evidence that the "movement" had any adherents at all besides her (and her cat, who she rambled on and on about to the point of distraction).

Same with astrology. One "movement" turned out to be a flunkie publishing an "academic book" in a "academic" "press" that he was the sole owner of, and that had published never published any other books at all.

Anybody can put up a nice looking website, and publish impressive sounding "academic" articles in slick "scholarly" journals. For pop-and-chips money in the convenience of their mom's basement using Microsoft Word. Outside confirmation is essential, and by outside, I mean the mainstream community.

Thanks for your help and input. Keep up the good work, and all the best to you (and your cat, if you have one)! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

typo alert...
Just so someone doesn't say "he does so!", you're alternet text says SHAME is ok, sort of... " I see to reason to believe SHAME's capacity to check facts "... I'd fix, but someone would probably get excited about that too. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

cfd closures
While I thank you for taking the initiative to help with the CfD backlog, current guidelines are that non admins shouldn't close discussions with a result of delete, nor contentious discussions. With that in mind, I'm reverting your closes. - jc37 02:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your projects guidelines are quite frankly rubbish, and I suggest you confer with the policy WP:CONSENSUS. A walled garden of policy is still a walled garden.  I suggest you revert yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way about Wikipedia. But the guideline has had long consensus for all deletion discussions. - jc37 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no special quality to an administrator's capacity to judge consensus, and turns a mop into a fasces. I strongly encourage you to revert yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part, I support following the guideline as it currently stands. I don't have anything inherently against non-admins closing discussions, but if we want to change the guideline then we should change it first, then implement the changes. This is nothing peculiar to categories for discussion: it's a guideline that applies to all closures, AFAIK. It also states that "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator.", and it looks to me like this is what has been done here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Even given that, I see no reason why Jc37 shouldn't revert themselves, particularly as their rationale for reverting my actions has (currently) no rationale greater than reliance upon a guideline, rather than actually being substantively put—their "review" is insubstantial. Moreover, that guideline's suggestion, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." is at the centre of the walled garden here, the issue is that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to a highly experienced an uninvolved editor.". Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it's essentially a matter of discretion, so it's up to him. If you disagree with a guideline, I think the best way to proceed is to begin a discussion with a goal of changing it as opposed to simply flaunting it (even if the "flaunting" was done by accident or done unawares, as I assume it was here). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be flaunting the guideline if I were reverting Jc37's reverts. I'm challenging the user who reverted my edits to ground their actions.  The current grounding they've put is abnormal (it makes administrator access something other than a technical privilege), it violates core policy (ie: those things "Higher" in the tree of governance than guidelines), and it exists in a walled garden—a limited area of practice not commonly exposed to critique.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with what you have stated above. I think it's more a question of who has certain tools than anything. Admins have particular tools that other users don't have; you can call that a "walled garden" if you like, but that's the system we have. I note that you closed at least one of the discussions in a manner for which you would not have been able to complete because of lack of tool access, so... I don't really see a problem with the judgment that jc37 made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very willing to accept the "tool's access" and ease of workflow argument, when jc37 makes this argument (below) in relation to closures I accept it. I'm much less willing to accept the argument "we've always done that this way," and I know from the areas of my most expert involvement that systems ossify unless they're repeatedly forced to restate their claims from first principles.  (As I've had to do repeatedly, for example, in terms of concrete RS/N rulings). Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I read jc37's comments, he did make that argument: "The point of the guideline (afaik) is essentially: If you don't have the tools to enact the result of a close, you shouldn't be closing with that result." Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And note, I did not close the discussions myself either. This isn't about some preferred outcome. This isn't about a walled garden, or any of the other accusations you've made.
 * The point of the guideline (afaik) is essentially: If you don't have the tools to enact the result of a close, you shouldn't be closing with that result.
 * And in addition (while of course YMMV) admins are supposedly entrusted with community trust, which is why they are entrusted to close contentious discussions.
 * So anyway, if you'd like to start an RfC concerning these guidelines, that's your perogative, but in the meantime, I'm merely following them. - jc37 03:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is quite frankly a walled discussion, non-administrator closures happen with great regularity in other social processes, including social processes with user-level disciplinary functions. Your second point I concede and accept in full.  Your third point is completely ridiculous.  Administrators have no greater or lesser power than any other user to judge consensus.  Limiting XfD closures by non-administrators on the grounds of workflow or double handing (don't close discussions that would require subsequent administrative action) has merits.  Suggesting that administrators have a special or exceptional capacity to judge consensus is patently ridiculous.  Maintaining a project guideline that supports such is a result of a lack of external critique of project guidelines.  In following your guidelines you may wish in future to better explain your rationales.  Thank you for your invitation to modify the guidelines, this has begun with a BRD, and the discussion is currently occurring at the relevant guidelines' talkpage if you're interested. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC on WT:NFC closure
While I am completely for the resolution that you state in your closure of the above RFC, I would ask if you comment here or there regarding the fact that several !votes were of the extent "I opposed the statement, but only because it is being made at the wrong page"? The problem that I'm worried about is that some of those that supported the statement (read: allowing the use of bank notes on currency tables) are likely (if not already) going to see that aspect as a technicality to invalidate your close.

If you are still saying that even with that technicality, the consensus was clearly to disallow currency images on such pages, that's fine, but a clear statement to that effect will help prevent the supporting !voters from trying to fight against your close. On the other hand, if that's a factor not considered, we may need another RFC to set the point proper. Thus, some type of clarity on your intention on that close would be helpful. --M ASEM (t) 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New York Times as reliable source in historical articles
I came to Talk:Vietnam_War only to deliver the bad news about the 3O request, but I'm very curious about your reliance upon WP:HISTRS as a reason to condemn the NYT as a source for that article. HISTRS is a project, not a policy or guideline, and the essay that it's largely based upon is also not a policy or guideline. The WP:CONLIMITED policy says that decisions made at a project or at some other similar venue cannot override WP policy, and to my knowledge WP policy — though I stand to be corrected — would certainly say that the NYT is a reliable source. You said there, "The editorial conduct suggested by using newspapers in a historical article against years of consensus on the appropriate sources for historical and military historical articles is absurd and purile." When that level of consensus exists it has ordinarily been transformed into policy or guidelines or at least recorded somewhere. Can you please educate me on this? I work extensively in dispute resolution at WP:3O, WP:DRN, and WP:MEDCAB and if what you say is the case, it's certainly something that I need to know since historical articles come through those venues all the time and, indeed, virtually every article in Wikipedia is historical to some extent or another. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:HISTRS reflects years of rulings at WP:RS/N about the sources and origins of historical articles. NYT lacks historiographical training, has never published a scholarly article, and lacks a relevant PhD including the research training in documentary analysis.  NYT lacks the capacity to hold a scholarly opinion or assign historical weight.  A reliable source, as you might learn from WP:RS or WP:RS/N is only reliable in a context for a claim.  The context of the history of the Vietnam War as a whole, and the claim of the significance, the weight, of a journalist's intervention or a celebrity's holiday, cannot be ascribed to journalistic meanderings in a newspaper, because newspapers do not publish history.  WP:RS/N has an extensive archive of historical articles.  For further reviews of history articles, confer with WP:FAC's fac processes on articles of historical bases, and WP:Milhist's A class reviews, and their WP:MILMOS that represents an utter minimum.  History, for years, has had sourcing standards that have emphasised that weighting, opinion, narrative and disputed facts need to arise from scholarly sources.  NYT might be reliable for news, but it isn't reliable for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So am I to take it that there is no policy or guideline which supports that position, just a miscellaneous collection of decisions at RSN? Do those decisions set up a different standard than what is enunciated in policy? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they set up the position that is enunciated in the policy. The source needs to meet the claim.  Scholarly claims require scholarly sources.  Historical claims are scholarly claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And where is that policy stated? Look, Fifelfoo, I've asked for help to be educated on this. By profession, I'm a lawyer and I'm really, really good at being able to read, understand, and interpret policy: that's what they train us lawyers to do. But I'm unaware of any policy that says "that exceptional claims (such as scholarly WEIGHT, or historiography) require exceptional sources (such as scholarly sources)" as you say here. I must have missed it and am unable to find it. Just point me to it so that I can read it, that's all that I'm asking. I may agree with you or disagree with you once I've read it, but you are absolutely right that I need to read it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims is at EXCEPTIONAL which is part of WP:V. One problem is that Wikipedia has 10 years of consensus based development with no court of final review.  It is a common law, not a civil code.  The core documents are anything that descends from PILLAR.  Much of this is interpreted as how practice normally works, and some documents that are "practical" aren't actually part of the codified structure.  Wikipedia's disciplinary system works by inflicting user centric or topic centric restrictions.  Basically, if you can imagine two people in the world glassing each other in a pub over a debate, then that area is probably covered by punative sanctions (but you normally get a warning first).   (General_sanctions).  It isn't possible to reduce wikipedia to a firm set of ordered rules, except for those rules which are commonly acknowledged by policy or practice to exist, because like parliament the community is supreme and willing to revisit itself (and like parliament claims executive and judicial functions). Fifelfoo (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about what I thought. EXCEPTIONAL says what it says, but it in no way says, "exceptional claims (such as scholarly WEIGHT, or historiography) require exceptional sources (such as scholarly sources)." Scholarly weight and historiography may be academic, precise, or technical, but they are the very definition of ordinary claims, except when they are made in a fringe manner or from a fringe source (which they certainly can be). You demand that "If you can't read the existing policy ... you ought to stop editing in fields covered by scholarly sources." (Emphasis added.) Then when challenged to identify the policy, you cannot do it and fall back onto Wikipedia-isn't-policy-based and Wikipedia-is-common-law arguments. You've created your own little only-academic-sources-for-academic-subjects system here and are trying to bluff and bludgeon people into believing that it is the rule, when nothing could be further from the truth. In light of what RS actually says about non-academic sources, namely:"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.""News organizations: News sources often contain both factual (reporting) content and analytical (editorial) content. 'News reporting' from well established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). ... For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name."(emphasis added) the question of whether newspapers or other non-academic sources are reliable sources for a Wikipedia article is a far more complicated question than what you're trying to make it out to be. Wishing does not make it so; if you want it to be that way, propose HISTRS to the community as a guideline or policy, but don't misrepresent it to be something that it isn't until you do. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is frankly bullshit. Editors stringing together facts as they please from "simple" works is original research (WP:OR), and doing so with the New York Times doesn't change the WP:SYNTH.  WP:IRS has had for 8 years an explanation underneath it of acceptable sourcing in history.  News reports are never acceptable in the context of history.  Moreover, HISTRS represents the consensus practice of RS/N and FAC.  Stop justifying yourself by wikilawyering and pull your head in. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

IPR
I very much oppose the actions you are currently taking against the sourcing of IPR in third party candidate articles. The site has been maligned on the noticeboard as a linkfarm and blog, which is incorrect. In fact, it is one of the leading source of information concerning third parties. There is editorial oversight and is neutral by policy. All opinion articles are posted by others from notable individuals within the third party movement. Also, your comment about Wikinews is incorrect. There is an intensive peer-review process on the site.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither source has adequate editorial or fact checking systems to meet RS for BLPs, nor to meet RS for political articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your criteria? Also, before you continue the purge, could you give me the opportunity to better explain myself?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is inadequate for BLP or Political articles as an RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But why not for non-controversial facts?--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they publish political material and political material is inherently non-controversial; politics is internal social contest. Besides, IPR isn't going to devolve any WEIGHT onto non-controversial facts.  Consider a political party, the Purples.  If the Purples appoint LivingMan as their Chairman, its a BLP.  If the Purples adopt mandatory ponies as a platform, IPR can't produce any WEIGHT in relation to it, and the anti-pony and pro-pony lobbies make pro-pony platforms controversial.  Yes this is sad for US third parties; but, this sadness is part of the encyclopaedic process.  At least you've got that psephologist's website and he's considered reliable due to the EXPERT exemption on SPS. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But does the fact that sources already considered reliable use it provide any weight? For example Ballot Access News, which you referenced above, often uses IPR as a source., Those are just a few examples, and BAN is not the only reliable source that uses it. Political Wire has done so., . David Leip posts the stories to his Election Atlas. Eric Appleman of Democracy in Action lists it as a useful source for third party information. IPR has been cited as reliable in numerous instances. Moreover, I can go over the merits of the article writers. Despite what you said previously, the name of the author is listed as can be seen here. What more can I do to show that this is a reliable source at least for non-contentious information, such as whether an individual has decided to run for office?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good sources can use bad sources. Good sources have the capacity to make novel claims and conduct original fact checking research.  Guardian, for example, can use wikipedia.  But this doesn't make wikipedia a reliable source.  Nor does it make.  Nor does advice from (potentially) reliable psephologists regarding the site, psephologists can recommend sources that wikipedia cannot use.  I use sources in my daily life all the time that are unfit for wikipedia; we're an encyclopaedia, our sourcing has to meet standard criteria.  Again, BLP and the inherently controversial nature of politics means that "deciding to run for office" is not an uncontroversial claim.  The only exception is going to be a case by case EXPERT exemption, when the signed author is themselves a psephologist, political scientist, etc.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the last two comments here to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you believe the whole conversation should be added for context, please feel free to add it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please be a little less sloppy with the purges? Please just try to pay attention to the stylistic changes you make.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When I removed sentences, I made sure the paragraph maintained sensible progression. I maintained this "The Raleigh News and Observer wrote that Barr had a spoiler effect on McCain in the swing state of North Carolina, winning 25,722 votes, which was greater than Obama's 14,192 vote margin of victory." because the Raleigh News and Observer may be reliable, would certainly be archived in the Library of Congress, and probably contains this content.  I'm not up on North Carolinan newspapers, so I don't know the weight assignable to RN&O's political analysis.
 * These "Later in June, Baldwin took part in anti-illegal immigration rallies while campaigning in southern California. He addressed the California Coalition for Immigration Reform before attending the convention of the American Independent Party of California. The party nominated Baldwin as its candidate at the convention. After this Baldwin was given a tour of California's southern border by Border Patrol Council president TJ Bonner. " appeared to be grounded in fact, but the conflation appeared to be original research.
 * The state chapters of an organisation, and "The party's bylaws and charter were made public shortly after, with the document listing its official name as the Modern Whig Party of the United States of America and being approved by a national council." appear to be sourceable from the Party itself under the SPS exemption—they're not extraordinary claims, and they're about the topic of the article itself.
 * All of these facts appear to be sourceable, some are unexceptional, and some would fall under clear SPS exemptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixing TJ article citations
I have no issue if you transition away from AIG to a blanket citation to the journal, but your also deleting actual content, and for many of these pages that is going to cause a HUGE issue since they're so fought over and camped. If the information is in the creationist's fake scientific journal then it probably is relevant for many of these pages, and needs stated so it can be properly refuted. FYI here is the actual journal's webpage and archive, you should directly link to the articles there, and somewhere it may state what copyright license it's under, and your citation's are improper, if your going to do this you better use the correct cite template and get the correct journal information, all found in the archives I'm sure. — raeky  t  02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't maintain source reliability on the articles you regularly edit, then source reliability will come to those articles without your editing. Namely, if you can't find that an opinion expressed in TJ is weighty in an appropriate article (real theology on theological articles; real science on scientific articles) then there's no reason why TJ ought to be refuted.  TJ's editorial policy has been an avoidance of review, even within their own community.  Contrast to AiG's ARJ that does claim review within its own community.  I'm replacing bare links with standard structured citations, go read WP:CITEVAR when there's no established citation policy on an article. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't a clue what your talking about, for the article I reverted you on is Objections to evolution, i.e. we take the MOST COMMON creationist arguments against evolution and give the scientific evidence why they're full of poo. The AIG website is the _primary_ source for christian apologetics that spout this stuff, so thats why it's heavly sourced there. You still haven't answered the, what's wrong with it part. And since JOC (or was TJ) is setup as a journal, has all the formatting of a journal then you'd use I'm fairly sure within your ref tags with links to the PDF of the journal article which you can easily get (along with all the other information for the template) on the archive page of the journal. —  raeky  t  02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no indication that AiG or TJ bear any weight at all in creationism. If citation style 1 isn't in effect, there's no obligation on me to use citation style 1.  Again, there is no evidence that TJ bears any weight in the Fringe science and Fringe theology community of young creationism.  Where's your theological article stating, "The core apologetics for YEC arise from TJ."  Where's your sociology of science article doing likewise?  WEIGHT doesn't fall from editorial inspiration, we follow scholarly weighting. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your argument is flawed, poorly thought out and not adequately discussed, and holds zero consensus with people who maintain these articles. There is no ultimate authority in the YEC movement, there's a series of journals and institution where many YEC "scientists" publish and there's a handful of sites (one of the main ones being AIG) that christian apologetics use. If you want to proceed with blanking out all sources for YEC, go right ahead, but might as well take it a step further and nominate all the YEC articles for deleteion too, since they obviously won't be sourced anymore. Ohh and be in for a _massive_ fight by the apologetics on here. Where is the consensus that your viewpoint is anyway shape or form valid? — raeky  t  03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/N the reliable sources noticeboard. If fringe christian apologetics have no established weight in sufficient (ie scholarly) sources, guess what ought to be deleted?  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I wasn't aware that WP:RS/N was the ultimiate governing authority above all else of what is or isn't WP:N and has the power to blanket delete entire sections of the encyclopedia because they don't feel they're properly sourced. Good luck with this fight. I'd recommend before you make thousands of improper edits that you wait until consensus is established for these actions since this was just posted today and that was only a couple days ago and has basicly noone for the VAST MAJORITY of articles it's proposing to edit participating in the discussion. — raeky  t  03:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't get to operate a walled garden in a nice little topic area free from community scrutiny. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since virtually every article in your list will qualify under WP:BRD your deletion of sources will ultimately result in almost all of them being reverted demanding it be discussed first, as I did already with one I watch. With my experience watching these articles, some of the most watched articles in the entire encyclopedia, and most debated, most controversial, and over-which a general sanctions action sits (all pseudoscience articles broadly construed, includes all of YEC), your going to have a VERY tough time whitewashing AIG from them, trust me. So good luck, and be sure to discuss it on the talk page of the articles that you want to delete content from before you attempt it, thanks. — raeky  t  03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Fifelfoo: Raeky is making some very good points here, and it would be helpful if you lsiened to his advice. First of all, the main creationist articles are by no means a "walled garden", and are carefully watched by a good number of experienced editors who are quite experienced with sourcing. They ae among the most watched sites on WP. Also, not every use of creationist websites like AIG is automaticaly invalid. Third, these sources and their use have been extensively discussed on the article talk pages, and it would be best if you expressed your concerns there before making major changes. Like Raeky said, the aricles in question are EXTREMELY contentious, and large-scale changes in many articles will trigger instability and edit-warring that may tax the resources of the experienced editors to control creationist apologists apologists.

I would suggest you discuss your concerns with editors who are more familiar with sourcing on these articles, like user:Hrafn, user:dave souza, user:Mann jess and User:Dougweller to clarify how these sources are being used.

Most of all, there is no need for haste. Get a clear picture of the situation before acting. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't really listen, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, just tried to have me silenced... I guess I shouldn't of messed with the all mighty overlords of WP:RS/N. Better watch yourself Dominus! — raeky  t  05:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You reinserted copyright violations, mate. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to assume at first glance long time editors of these articles are going to react to an editor coming out of the blue claiming AiG is copyright infringement as the reason for deleting a controversial claim is suspect. As a result WP:BRD is standard practice and you didn't bother to link to any discussion about this copyright claim, just stated it was and deleted it. Then by just quickly jumping to administrative sanction actions against me is pretty pointy and bad faith imho. I trust that uninvolved admins will see what you did, and even if I was in violation of this sanction, which is vastly unlikely, it involves a warning before any action can take place. Plus then we can just go back to the evidence that AiG doesn't have permission to display these articles, which I think is dubious for such a highly publicized site that would violate the copyright of someone who has already sued them once. — raeky  t  05:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why am I finding bare links, attributing to one organisation the opinions published in the journals of another, repeatedly, across articles from theology, sociology, history, YAC topics, the organisation itself and traditional YAC areas of hissyfitting? Nobody has obviously bothered to check that the links are what they say they are for an extensive period of time, and the AiG article has significant content claiming to be official AiG opinion sourced out of barelinks that resolve to objects published by completely different organisations.  "Local consensus" being atypical and different from core community consensus is the nature of a walled garden.  Maybe the community dealing with YAC FRINGEry needs to reexamine its own education regarding reliable sourcing policies.  (I would note that few if any YAC related matters have come to RS/N in the last number of years)
 * Perhaps experienced editors have stalled due to inappropriate behaviour from fly-by-night editors. Perhaps due to the article, rather than sourcing, focused nature of a topically focused community of editors, that community has missed the massive and problematic use of AiG links.  Perhaps in some instances editors are willing to assemble coatracks from primaries rather than simply deleting ridiculous fringe content.  And perhaps editors are too willing to allow FRINGE apologists to portray their apologetics as scholarly theology, because "scholarly theology" just isn't as high priority a scholarly discipline to defend as, for example, geology biology or astrophysics.
 * From what I'm seeing, I'm seeing with 1000 suspected problematic links, 500 of those are in article space, and 250 of those are real problematic uses (the largest issue being misattribution of opinion to AiG, when the opinion arises in a non-AiG source).
 * I'm happy to bump undue weighting issues to article talks, particularly on core science / history of science articles, but the copyright violations and clear mischaracterisations of opinion (attributing to AiG opinion voiced in non-AiG sources) are going. As are the HISTRS violations, and the misweighted insertion of AiG FRINGE theology into general theological articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please. Raeky. Fifelfoo is acting in good faith, though rashly. Please don't escalate the tension. He does make some good points about the sourcing and it would be worth considering his input.
 * @Fifelfoo: In all seriousness, please back off until you have a clearer idea of what's going on here. Use the talk pages, and listen to the advice of editors more experienced than yourself before making changes to many controversial articles. Taking your complaint to ARE at this point was ill-advised. Please consider withdrawing your request there pending further FRIENDLY consultation with Raeky, who is likewise acting in good faith, and other editors. You agree with each other a lot more than you disagree, and a lot to learn off of each other. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Backing off, but tbh this ARE rubbed me the wrong way. ;-\ — raeky  t  05:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good move. I agree the ARE was rash and advised Fifelfoo to withdraw it. Respect each other, and LISTEN TO EACH OTHER. You are both making good points and generally agree. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Fifelfoo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

MfD nomination of Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com
Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com, 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/independentpoliticalreport.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com 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. No offense to you or the work you do on the reliable sources noticeboard, but I don't think this page is proper at this time. William S. Saturn (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis
Note that an editor is restoring the copyright violations that you have removed: Talk:Answers_in_Genesis. History IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They've been informed about the serious business of copyright violation. The next step would be AE. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken it to Arbitration enforcement now for copyvio and edit warring in a topic under discretionary sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IPR
Can you please stick a "Keep" in the front of your comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com? Also, you probably already know, Mr Saturn is busy running along behind you reverting your removals, I just noticed another one at United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012, I looked at the source, there's not even an editor at IPR attributed to the story, which is claimed from an email... I would also say that's not RS. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Disruption and IDHT are conduct issues, and they have been warned; whether its AE or AN/I depends on coverage. Regarding the disruptive and insubstantial MfD, it is clearly out of process and Battleground. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd be AN/I. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Harsh
The whole treatment here RSN looks incredibly harsh. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd take a third party (do you have the time) to bring the user back, counsel them about why we don't deal in hypotheticals, but deal in specifics, weedle an example out of them, explain to them that LDS is actually quite good at separating divinely inspired wisdom from wisdom generated in the world; explain that LDS universities value the disciplinary structures that seculars use to generate secular wisdom in the world; explain that a review system (such as scholarly publication) normally trumps any concern regarding bias, particularly in the humanities, but it may not trump weight, etc etc.—but, yet, that still, an LDS source isn't necessarily good or bad but it depends on what article it is used on. The Catholic Church runs a variety of Universities, and the historians that publish in such Universities' presses publish secular material based on secular disciplinary standards in secular areas—and in theology publish divinely inspired content only to the extent that disciplinary theology permits such publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop
I'm not sure what I did to earn your malice, but in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines, I am posting on your talk page to officially request you cease your incivility towards me. -- Korentop (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I refer you to your previous attempt WQA to resolve these feelings of yours, where your accusations that I have displayed incivility towards you were rejected by a community of interested editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
...for re-organizing my sources at the WP:RSN discussion, and for simplifying my questions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatting Child sexual abuse
I apologise. If I had seen this, I would have made no further comments. Unfortunately the 140 IP undid your sensible work. You were right. Bielle (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Scrapbook or gallery
Hi Fifelfoo. I follow the argument about the holocaust scrapbook if it does serious POV material and how that ties in with ELNO 2. However, I don't see any relationship with the link to the Schloss, which doesn't seem POV, just a photo tour of the old castle. Nor do I see any statement banning particular sites. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the site is not reliably run, there is no indication that we can trust any of the content, and we should not link to it. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Dilek2
Dilek2's response to your warning on their talk page was to insert content into articles based on what members of their family have told them. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nemzade
Who is your Source, that she was a descendant of Seyh Bedreddin? Where are the Sources that she was born in 1913? No any Sources is given in this Article, Isn't it? eee

Dilek2 (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If no sources are given in an article, then it lacks notability. However, your persistent attempts to push sourceless information of highly dubious providence into articles disrupt the encyclopaedia.  I suggest you stop this conduct immediately. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dilek2 response doesn't seem encouraging. Edward321 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pop atheists
Overall, I liked your suggestion here. However, I see a certain asymmetry. Most of our more outspoken editors seem to be "pop-Christians", who subscribe to a very shallow collection if popular ritualistic beliefs with little to no understanding of the history and foundation of their own religion and religious texts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hardly any of our more enthusiastic editors who enthusiastically respect the bible know about the four sources hypothesis regarding the old testament, or of the major textual or hermeneutic problems.  Pop-Christianity and Pop-Atheism are the Janus of having excellent articles on Christianity written from the opinions of currently accepted theologians, religious scholars and religious text literary critics.  This is sad.  Though as someone who is a militant atheist, but loves the work of true theologians, I tend to find myself more offended by pop-atheists.  This is a bias.  I believe pop-atheists should be doing better than they do. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If the RfC on Wikinews is not legit...
Please explain what would make it legit and what the problem is. The off-topic cries of "not legit" and personal attacks just seem to be pushy attempts to curtail a reasonable discussion from taking place. If you guys would stop doing that and let a real discussion happen based on the standards in place, we might even be done already instead of having to address off-topic commentary. -- Avanu (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFC, and the section of WP:RFC I quoted. This RFC is a joke due to its construction. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reformulated the opening statement. It is neutral and based on Wikipedia standards. I hope that your futher contributions are in the spirit of collaboration and cooperation. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Your reformulation is grossly unacceptable.  This is why I offered Requests_for_comment/Request_board to help formulate a neutrally worded RFC, and started with a profile that might take up to a week to draft. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you know exactly how it is done, then why didn't you help Brian McNeil reformulate this from the beginning. He decided to try to make a go of it, and you're simply being critical. I took a stab at it and now you're just smacking me over the head now too. All of this could have been easily offered in the form of a proposed substitution of wording... after all, it shouldn't be that hard to follow a process to determine if something is a reliable publisher or not. -- Avanu (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian did not accept Fifelfoo's offer of help. There is a process for determining whether a source is reliabel or not the Reliable SOurce Notice board. The concensus on the notice board was clearly that wikinews is not to be considered a reliable sources under en.wikipedia polices. In this case a couple of people with conflicts of interest in relation to that source decided they diodn't agree with consensus at RSN and wanted another process. (One of them even stated "then consensus is wrong") They then proceeded to craft an RfC that presupposed the correctness of the conclusion they wanted, and stated their flawed and rejected arguments as facts. That is not how wikipedia colaboration works. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, check the date stamps. I made the offer well before Brian posted his RFC. Brian is still attempting to work with me there to formulate a neutrally worded and appropriate RFC. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your last statement on that page about this was: "I offered to help Brian McNeil construct a neutrally worded RFC elsewhere on this topic, yet he has opened an RFC while having rejected that offer" So, is he working with you now, or is he not? If he is, in fact, working with you now on this, then we should simply close the current RfC and wait for this new one. If not, then it should just be fixed, because the intent is more than clear, despite all the hew and cry that it isn't good enough. -- Avanu (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian last contributed to editing a draft RFC at 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC). So I'd say he's "currently active" there.  I'd like to get the wikinews issue resolved with a definitive consensus for a couple of years, so I'd like the RFC to be beyond question.  Brian would also like a definitive consensus (albeit we differ on what that should be, but that is fair).  Therefore I believe Brian and myself (with the help of others) can craft a neutrally worded RFC that will get this thing done for a couple of years, and free us from revisiting the point. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Frustration building* So why were we not just told in plain terms that you guys were working on this? I'm going to ask Brian McNeil to weigh in so we are sure this is what you two are doing, and if so, we can immediately close the current RfC in favor of a better one to come. Sheesh. -- Avanu (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought linking to it repeatedly was a good indicator that I was interested in it. Then I woke up 3 hours ago and noticed Brian had contributed, but someone else had taken carriage over the process. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be a language thing, but the meaning of the phrase "taken carriage" is a bit obscure to me. I am thinking you mean where I tried to reword the RfC for Brian to get things moving along? Honestly though, if he's legitimately decided to work with you on making a new RfC, I don't see any reason to try and carry this older RfC anymore. We don't need to rehash if he's got a new plan, and I'm not doing this because I have a particular stake in the outcome, I just feel that the guy needed a hand and a fair shake. -- Avanu (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "taken carriage of" is similar in bureaucratic Australian to "taken charge of," except when you have carriage of something you're responsible for executing it but not for choosing it. So yeah, I don't think we need the old RFC.  If you'd like to help neutrally word the new rfc that would be awesome. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The suggestion to take the request to an RfC was made prior to Fifelfoo's offer, and without actually checking timestamps I believe I'd put my request for help in doing so in-place prior to xyr offer.
 * What is the most concerning aspect of trying to have a discussion on the subject is the open hostility emanating from the Wikipedia community. William S. Saturn made attempts in the discussion on the noticeboard to rebut arguments put forward to justify the assertion that Wikinews is not reliable. These were ignored, and ignored, and ignored. I would like to work on the RfC; but, not if people clearly demonstrate zero willingness to listen to reasoned arguments that are in favour of considering Wikinews reliable for a certain subset of it's content.
 * Many Wikipedians who expressed extremely strong negative opinions on the matter (I refer to the discussion on the noticeboard) threw around so much jargon, I was left drowning in acronym soup.
 * So, yes, I am going to be involved with the drafting process. Once it started, Fifelfoo's been quite reasonable about it. I can't say the same for many others with strong opinions, and no knowledge of Wikinews' internal processes. --Brian McNeil /talk 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Williams edits to RS/N were probably ignored because they were not substantive)—in relation to putting an RFC, you want to put the best RFC you can, because then consensus will be decisively gauged. We have the acronym soup because it is work cant, it is jargon precisely because we need a jargon.  Again, an RFC (well crafted) will put the best argument and I look forward to helping put the argument cutting through the jargon.  The next edit I'm planning to the draft will be the previous consensuses on wikipedia, making that edit sometime Sunday my time due to travel (+36 hours). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The arguments were very substantive. Again, you simply prove my point that you and others did not see the arguments as substantive because you did not care to understand, probably due to preconceived notions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not going to get far here on my talk page, I think very little consensus has been formed here. I suggest that you invest the time you might use into working out clear and succinct restatements of your arguments, involving clear and detailed links to evidence within wikinews for processes you believe are pertinent, or in developing new suasive arguments for the rfc.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I will do so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Bivalvia FAC
Hi Fifelfoo, just wanted to let you know that I quoted you in the above FAC. Regards, Sasata (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, from the thoroughness of your interaction with sourcing issues in that FAC, I take your decision to quote a throw away line I made regarding overly extensive passim. page references as very high praise. Good work at FAC! Fifelfoo (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Could you please express your opinion on the definition of reliable sources in the topic? --Zh.Mike (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to discuss reliable sourcing issues at the reliable sources noticeboard. I would refer you to WP:HISTRS which is very very very strongly against the original interpretation of primary sources by wikipedians.  Very.  As is WP:MILMOS.  Fifelfoo (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia
Thanks for your input on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org

is the list of pages currently linking to Wikimapia, assistance in reviewing them would be greatly appreciated.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to check if it is ELNO or not before black-listing or clean-up could proceed. 5600 potential violations, and most of them prodable. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I did - see External links/Noticeboard . It's not spam though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like spam to me. I don't want to clean 6000ish pages just to see this crap back in six months time. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimapia results
Hi, I don't want to clutter RSN with techie stuff but I've found a way to convert this into a raw list of links without too much bother. It is limited to batches of 500 at a time but concatenation of the results is a trivial task. Is the output at User:Sitush/Sandbox3 of any use? - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This |http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=10000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org will give the lot, which is fairly trivial to grep and sort. But the cost of either solution is that it doesn't sort "==External links==" external links from other external links. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something here, I think. Here's my rationale: the issues with Wikimapia are likely to apply both to cites and external links, so what we need is a list of all uses of the string "http://www.wikimapia" in articlespace only, which is why my search result is preferable to the one that you and Sfan have been looking at. I've now got all 3400 of those listed & numbered in the sandbox, using some piped grep and sed filters. We cannot automate the removal (as and when) because a very small number of them may in fact be valid. What am I missing? - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Up until June 2012, RS/N just let large scale problems slide. Some large scale problems are solely to do with reliable sourcing, where we trust the source is correct, but can't use it because we can't demonstrate it is correct.  In those cases we want to differentiate external links being used as sources (wrong) from external links being used as external links (okay).  In contrast some issues like most of the wikimapia links are just plain bad.  We can tool this issue, but the longer term issue of breaking out tens of thousands of external or interwiki links from inappropriate source links remains.  I'm thinking here of if the Wikinews rfc in preparation clearly and definitively indicates to hold out editors that wikinews is not an acceptable source on wikipedia—I don't think anyone's arguing that wikinews is an inappropriate external link. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, there is never going to be a perfect solution to that because, for example, it is quite common in the India stuff to find that all the sources have been dumped in the EL section (or indeed some other inappropriate place) without actually being cited. The should trigger someone to add a no footnotes or to resolve the issue on the spot, but the time lapse can be years in my experience.. Basically, we lack suitably normalised data. Nonetheless, is it not true that seeding AWB or something with a raw list such as mine would significantly simplify the task? You'll have to excuse my ignorance: I've done a lot of programming & a fair amount of web design but it was a long time ago and I'm pretty rusty. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold it, we can dump large lists of articles onto automated browsers' input hoppers, which bring fresh eyes to them? wow.  Yeah, seeding AWB would be great to supplement the more experienced editor processes at WP:RS/N/L. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Search for "text file" on AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * No worries! It is the least I can do.  If you're the Shii who I think you are, then I already respect you for work you've done elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mess at dhimmitude
Maybe you can help with this. The issue revolves around the usage of what are essentially reliable sources. But these mention the term of contention only in (very brief) passing, hence the dispute. You've always been good at analyzing both the reliability as well as the usage (my emphasis) of sources so your insight would be appreciated. I can send you the Perlmutter source and maybe the Tibi source as well. Either way, more eyes on the dispute would probably be a good thing. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot
Seems pretty useless. See User talk:Moonriddengirl. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Paid editing on Village Pump
A different approach using examples instead of data. Paid editing good/bad examples publicizing.

Maybe it's a bad idea, but I guess that's what village pump is for ;-) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

G'day
Hey, I asked a follow-up question for you on the RS noticeboard. It may not be apparent from my tone but I'm not trying to be tendentious, and I'm certainly not disputing your assessment (I think you're spot-on). I am just trying to educate myself further on these things, and you seem like a good person to ask. We can take it off board if you want, since it may be getting a little theoretical now? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Copied from RS/N:
 * Fifelfoo, that is easy to fix. Are you saying that all they need to do is present a set of mugshots, add some bylines and datelines, and write in the inverted pyramid form and we've got a bona-fide reliable source saying that Falun Gong followers eat their babies and poison beggars? There is surely more to it than the surface issues you raise. Zujine's remarks (they'd been accidentally deleted) below seem apropos. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be a fix if the issue was, "Does the Falun Gong kiss babies and feed beggars?" because these aren't extraordinary news claims—its rather common that people kiss babies, and religious organisations often attempt to do works such as feeding the impoverished. Reliability is about three things:
 * The Claim
 * The Source
 * The Publisher
 * Let us assume that the City Council of Inner Wyalong sponsors a newspaper, Inner Wyalong Christian Defender. The Defender is published like an Australian newspaper.  An anti-martian article in the Defender is written by a named journalist and published in the news section of the Defender.  And in the article the journalist claims that Martians are attacking us and eat babies and murder beggars.  These are "extraordinary claims," which ought to be sourced in an "extraordinary manner."  Now, if other news sources published that the Martians attacked us, then we'd feel confident that the existence of a particular extraterrestrial life was now a commonplace, and not extraordinary.  But the baby eating and beggar murdering is still extraordinary.  The Holocaust is pretty damn extraordinary, we limit claims regarding the Holocaust to the works of scholars who are in good scholarly standing and who have a specific scholarly competence to comment.  Similarly, proving that a religious group eats babies and murders beggars requires something other than a mention in the local rag.  Even if the local rag were as truly independent a publisher as The Guardian, there is the possibility of state control of the editorial process ("D-notices")—therefore even in relation to news, a source like The Guardian loses its competence as a source when the state meddles in its editorial process.  It doesn't lose its competence because the state has an ideological position, but because the source's reliability is contaminated.
 * Does this help? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Basically it's common sense, looking at the circumstances, the claims, the way in which the information is produced, etc. When you say "the source" and "the publisher" though, what is the difference? In this case you're suggesting that the City Council is the publisher, but what about a newspaper that is just a newspaper, published by itself, like The New York Times. It's also a matter of looking at who else makes the claims that are being questioned. The Chinese state propaganda could be cited, then, if the target group did actually eat babies and poison beggars, according to a gamut of other reliable sources that documented the matter carefully, leading to arrests, and so forth - so the extraordinariness of claims mainly rests on how much they appear in other reliable sources.
 * What happens then when a group starts a media organization for a political purpose - with all the usual editorial processes of media organizations: journalists, editors, a board, etc. - how does one go about evaluating their reliability? They started the newspaper for an ideological, or ideational, reason - but you're saying that is not a determinant of their reliability? Is it then simply a matter of whether their claims broadly comport with those of other reliable sources on the given topic? This becomes an issue for evaluating the reliability of both the Chinese state's English-language publications, and also those of its political foes, on contemporary Chinese social, political, and economic affairs. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - In response to this, two things: so what determines "competency" (your example above does not address the nub of this)? The problem in the case mentioned there and the Hitler case is that the source is being accused of propaganda: making up facts in order to slander and incite violence and hatred. So even if this source was highly competent - for example, the Chinese government enlists scholars in relevant field in its campaigns - they could still be making up stuff to attack the target for political ends. Your reliability paradigm doesn't seem to account for these scenarios? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A source is the newspaper article itself; the publisher is the newspaper & newspaper publisher & any person who intervenes or controls the editorial process. Murdoch regularly fiddles his newspapers, Murdoch is in part the publisher of his newspapers and Fox.  In the case of journalism, I'd suggest that as you say "extraordinary"-ness relates largely to whether the claim is widely reported.  Some claims, however, exceed the capacity of newspapers to safely report ("the holocaust is bad" is an issue for moralists, not journalists).  In relation to scholarly judgements, extraordinary means "lying outside the consensus of what normal scholarly views currently agree."  Now there can be multiple normal scholarly views—most scholars accept that Marxist political economy exists as a scholarly pursuit (even when they believe it to be wrong); but, to use recent developments in Marxist theory of the commodity on the article about yearling suckling pigs is obviously wrong.  Whereas on the article post-Fordism, they'd be right to use.
 * Some Chinese newspapers, I'm sure, are very good about certain things. I'm sure their football stories are reasonably well edited.  In relation to the sociology of religions, newspapers should never be used.  In relation to journalistic reporting of abhorrent actions by religious groups, we should examine what scholars of the sociology of religions think about Chinese newspapers and their editorial quality, and whether state intervention or synchronisation dictates the editorial policy of newspapers on a topic.
 * If scholars make stuff up then they'll either be ejected from the community of scholars (David Irving) or scholars will controvert and contest the point until the scholarly community comes to a consensus on what really is. We simply wait for the scholars to determine using their academic systems of knowledge what is true.  (Unlike newspapers, scholars do tend to keep pulling the string.) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and helpful again. But there's still the newspaper issue: how do we evaluate the reliability of newspapers that have China-specific political leanings (i.e. those published by the Chinese state, or those published by the Chinese state's declared enemies) in reporting on contemporary Chinese affairs? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NYT runs a propaganda line for the US bourgeoisie—it is still reliable. We should ignore pro- and anti- Chinese newspapers when they're making exceptional claims, and claims that exceed the capacity of newspapers.  We should ignore pro- and anti- Chinese newspapers that have been demonstrated (by either ourselves through repeated RS/N issues, or others) to be regularly wrong on fact or other major journalistic violations.  It'll come out in the wash in the end.  The role of the US government in the Vietnam War did, even though newspapers ran US propaganda. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYT example was a key one. Yes, they are as politically inclined in their own fashion as any pro- or anti-CCP newspaper would be, on those particular topics within their ambit. So if a newspaper is pro- or anti-Chinese government, and follows normal journalistic practice otherwise, and is cited by other newspapers or media organizations on the topic (this goes for both pro and anti-CCP newspapers I can think of), we are generally fine to use them for unextraordinary claims, in your opinion? And in that case do you think it ought to be said "The Chinese-government affiliated China Nationalist Herald" or simply "The China Nationalist Herald reported"? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that bias categorisations happen in the voice of wikipedia we shouldn't produce these based on original research, such as "just knowing they're that way." We should rely on even more reliable sources in the field, when they're specifically talking about the article subject or a reasonable "superset" of the article's subject—preferably scholars in the field.  For example, "The young woman was found unharmed. (Chinese Nationalist).  The anti-Chinese newspaper Chinasucks Daily (Scholar, Book on Chinese Newspapers) alleged that the young woman was not in fact found unharmed but had been subjected to US pop culture for two hours (Chinasucks Daily)." Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think in both cases there are reliable sources giving these bias-categorizations. It was partly a question of in which cases such bias-categorization is needed. Probably the first appearance per page. The bottom line is a politically-biased source with established fact-checking and editorial processes can generally still be quoted on certain non-extraordinary claims given proper bias-categorization. I've asked you a lot of questions and we've covered a lot of ground, and I've learnt a thing or two. Thanks for your time. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, if you ever want help figuring out how to reason RS/N stuff, and I'm about, pop me a line on talk, or post to the talk page of RS/N :) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I've spent some time with Australians but you have perfected their art of dry, sardonic humor. Some may not have even detected it. Well done there. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

David Irving
Given your expertise regarding history and regarding how to use sources, perhaps you can chip in in the discussion regarding whether David Irving should be defined as a historian or a writer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Radio Interview with a Scholar
New question posted. Thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Homa_Katouzian --24.94.18.234 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Smilingswordfish
Although I disapprove Smilingswordfish's style of questions, I do not see where he was warned before you closed his question. 81.44.4.201 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to use the reference desk archives. They have been extensively indulged. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, according to [] he asked two questions, unless he's a sockpuppet of some sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.4.201 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet has negative connotations. They previously posted as an IP user, and they are welcome to post questions that aren't designed to soapbox or cause debate Fifelfoo (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Inflation question
You seem to be Wikipedia's expert on how to handle historic inflation rates - could you have a look at how I've handled the situation on Bal maiden (currently footnote i)? I'm very reluctant to give modern price equivalents - Cornwall's economy in the period in question was dominated by subsistence farming, fishing and barter, so cash wages appear absurdly low, and there was little in the way of a consumer economy so CPI/RPI based figures will have no relevance.

If you have any other comments on the article I'd be glad to hear them. The topic is deeply obscure to anyone outside Cornwall, but is quite a significant one within its field. Because I've tried to give a neutral view of the pros and cons of a system which is utterly alien to the modern eye - sending girls as young as six to work in heavy industry - it's a bit of a tricky topic; because there's a vanished culture and a lot of odd jargon that needs explaining, it's also very footnote-heavy. I'd be interested to know if you think I've got the balance right. Mogism (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is technically possible to give modern wage equivalents for the 1840s and 1850s; this would be an exercise in original research (probably worth publishing in a labour history journal, etc.) It is not possible to give modern wage equivalents for 1729 or the 14th century.  When I say "not possible" I mean precisely that—the problem is considered intractable by specialists, and those series provided such as the ones used for MeasuringWorth were created as "works in progress" while discovering the problem was intractable.  Some of the reasons are those you outline above.  It looks like a wonderful article.  I think it is a bit light on marriage and sexuality, perhaps?  Then again, most labour history is light on the domestic sphere.  I think your treatment of inflation issues at [i] is perfect.  Please notify me if you have any problems in the review phases—it is simply not possible to give a modern equivalent of a limited-life-trajectory of work proletarian in a rural barter economy without a consumer economy, even more especially given the radically different constructions of female work then and now. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it; outside eyes are very much appreciated. On marriage and sexuality, there's not much to say. Cornwall never had either the mass population influx and consequent social dislocation of other mining-rush districts in the period such as the American West or South Australia, nor the industrial-scale anonymity of New York or Northern England (Cornwall was and is made up entirely of small villages - even today its largest population centre has a lower population than a single moderately-large council estate in one of the English or Scottish cities). It's best viewed as a farming district where the "crop" happened to be copper and tin. There was only a single documented case of rape of a bal maiden in the entire period, and there doesn't appear to have been any significant element of sexual exploitation. (The certain knowledge that any woman would have her entire extended family nearby, mostly carrying farming implements and industrial rock drills, would presumably have been a powerful disincentive to any pit-boss trying to abuse his position.) Cornwall's unique status as a fief of the Crown administered by England, rather than a constitutional part of England, meant that there were no exploitative landlords (in the sexual sense; the Royal Family in the form of the Duchy of Cornwall did and continue to treat Cornwall as their personal piggy-bank.)
 * The Methodist Church and CoE were very strong in Cornwall, and because there was no mass immigration of lone males as there was in Australia, America etc there was no significant gender imbalance; other than the custom of 'keeping company' (couples entering a monogamous sexual relationship while continuing to live with their respective parents, and only marrying and moving in together once the woman became pregnant) the marriage customs of Cornwall were very conventional.
 * It would be possible to expand on the domestic sphere, but the article is already very long. Aside from the tendency to spend unusually large sums on clothing - covered in depth in the article - there doesn't appear to have been anything particularly unusual about the lives of bal maidens outside the workplace, and I don't really want to duplicate something that's already covered at length in Culture of Cornwall. Mogism (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, you're on top of it! Great article by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WTH happened while I was away?
I need some advice, as you apparently interact with editors on the noticeboard more than I. I will admit freely to some venting on the noticeboard, which most likely should have taken place on one of the endless other boards for reporting such things. However, I was directed to take my question to that board, by the editor with whom I butted heads. After what I thought was a few good answers about my original concern, I appear to have been called out on the field of honor for trying to slow things down, and then hounded on almost everything I communicated. Did I misinterpret what you and the other editors were saying, or am I really flaunting established consensus on this media outlet? I was ready to move on, I mean really, really ready. The answer to my question was, for the particular edit I posted, a more appropriate source should (and was) found for the material. In regards to blanket statements, like the Huffington Post can never ever, never, never, forever, ever be used as a source for anything, period, amen... and then some, that's just plain wrong, or have I lost my mind as well as my temper?  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't have fields of honour. RS/N interrogates specific source reliability in specific contexts.  It doesn't encourage or countenance debate between editors related to off-board issues.  There are two related issues:
 * RS/N doesn't issue blanket statements
 * RS/N is a space which forms consensuses
 * Consensuses are formed on RS/N by repeated discussions surrounding the same source with the same conclusions. Over coming such a consensus is best done by—amazingly—testing the source in specific uses at RS/N.  No RFC or "higher order" discussion is required.  Consensuses formed at RS/N can be challenged at RS/N in the same way they are formed: by testing individual sources for individual claims on individual articles.
 * The discussion wandered away from that, without apportioning any blame to particular editors, and was closed because the discussion was not regarding specific sources. Happy editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to respond in a civilized manner, without resorting to personal assumptions. I'd give you a barnstar, but I don't have time to look up the templates. Consider yourself barnstarred for neutrality and professionalism. ;0)  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  01:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is easy with me in relation to keeping RS/N dealing with the business of RS/N, because I'm a reliability wonk. Happy editing.  If you come across a source reliability issue, feel free to bring it to RS/N (following the suggested structure for an RS/N query gets you better answers faster).  Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

 * Where diacritics are commonly used in the English spelling of Vietnamese words, and where the Vietnamese word itself is used in the literature exclusively, either as the English texts loan the Vietnamese word, or as the only or predominant literature is in Vietnamese, then we should spell the Vietnamese word in the Vietnamese way. Where English has loaned a word, such as Nguyen or pho, and the English loan word is the common useage in English texts, and where the word is substantively discussed in English texts, we should use the English language form of the word. We are writing an English encyclopaedia. Where English has a significant impact in the sources, or where the object is known with an English word, we use the English word (pho). Where the subject is primarily discussed in Vietnamese, and the object is not known or not widely known in English using an English loan word, we use the Vietnamese. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, there were 16 opposed and 23 supported Vietnamese titles in that RM. Despite the rather aggressive atmosphere on the page it'd be nice to come away with more clarity on the context of the 16 related to other Latin-alphabet languages - which are 100% at use of diacritics as most of the Vietnamese used to be. I am sorry to trouble you but can you put your oppose into either box B or C or D or E in Census form as most nearly approximate to what you've said above. Evidently Vietnamese diacritics, like those for Czech, are very uncommon in popular English books. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the nature of my contribution to the discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Caste
Would you like to weigh in (even if very briefly) in this RfC on Caste. Your experience on Wikipedia will be very helpful. The RfC link is: Talk:Caste

I have invited three other editors and announced my intention to do so here. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jumped the gun a bit
Apologies for getting you riled up. I had thought that it was an uncontroversial proposal. I guess the problem is that 'mass killings' may or may not be the same as 'genocides'? FurrySings (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While they can often overlap, they're unrelated topics and I'm not sure how you could consider them synonyms. "Genocide" is the systematic destruction of a particular ethnic group and culture, and doesn't necessarily imply any element of mass killing (there are countless examples of mass forced conversion, forced cultural assimilation or dispersal, with no significant element of mass killing and sometimes undertaken with genuinely altruistic motives on the part of those carrying out the destruction - the forced "civilization" of "primitive" peoples in the 19th century is the obvious example). "Mass killing" is self explanatory and in many - probably most - instances, there's no element of enforced cultural destruction; the aim is the liquidation of a group who individually or collectively are preventing a powerful group from achieving their aims (generally either followers of a particular political movement, or the current owners of property which a powerful interest wishes to expropriate). Mogism (talk) 10:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN discussion regarding Cohen
G'day, I'm hoping you will clarify so I'm clear on what you are saying? We also seem to struggle to get a consensus of several experienced RSN editors on this one. Is that normal, or is it just the repellent nature of Balkans shenanigans? These things just come up again and again if we can't get some firm guidance we can rely upon. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

La Coupole FAC
I've posted an update regarding the sourcing issue you raised - please take a look at La Coupole and let me know on Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 if this resolves your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN overflow to Talk:Chetniks
Hello, Fifelfoo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Talk:Chetniks regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica online
Have you any idea why it is acceptable to use the tertiary Encyclopedia Britannica online in situations such as this? The EB article in question has no sources, was contributed by a general editor rather than a specialist and is brief to the point of what we would call a stub. I have seen people in the past claim that if the url includes "EBChecked" then that means it is ok because it has been checked by the EB editorial board ... but that is a dubious honour in my opinion. I am unconvinced that this always equates to a proper peer review and I have found instances when their EBchecked material has quite clearly been at odds with all scholarly sources available via GBooks etc. For an example, see Talk:Charles_James_Lyall. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An equally significant problem is that the Britannica stub is considerably amplified in the WP version. The Britannica article "Maithil Brahmans" says: "Maithil Brahman, caste of Brahmans in Bihār, India (the area of the ancient kingdom of Mithilā), well known for their orthodoxy and interest in learning. The names of these Brahmans are usually followed by the appellation Miśra; many great scholars have been members of this caste, notably Vācaspati Miśra (9th century). They have no further endogamous divisions but observe a complicated pattern of marriage among five hierarchically ordered groups, each of which may take a wife from the group below it."

This has become in the WP:version, "Maithil Brahmins are a community of Brahmins residing in Bihar, India, who derive their name from the ancient Indian Kingdom of Mithila, the modern-day territories of which lie in India and Nepal. They follow an orthodox social structure and are renowned for their interest in learning and related pursuits. They follow the tradition of building and maintaining extensive genealogical records known as Panjis which were earlier written on talpatras or palm leaves. Their mother tongue is Maithili and typically use Jha or Mishra as their surnames." Note the distortion. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had tweaked some of it but was rather hoping that the entire thing could be binned. Anyway, I see that Fifelfoo is on/off at the moment and this isn't really the sort of generalised query that is liked at RSN, so I'll either have to be specific or just fix the distortion. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The EB is not known for its mastery of sub-continental sociology of caste, nor should any non-scholarly tertiary be used in such a way. I would suggest you warn the article and relevant user of Wikipedia's caste related sanctions and prod it. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've sort-of done that. Pre-emptive warning on the talk page; revert of edits and explanation (which refers to this thread); note on the contributor page. I am not PROD'ing because I am pretty sure this is notable etc - the real difficulty is that, as with most articles concerning the various Brahmin communities, it has flown under the radar. That might be be my next big project, but probably not: it really would need quite a few eyes if we are to bring things into line with policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediation
Could you please comment on this on the MKuCR talk page. Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Opinion regarding Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement
Talk page stalkers may wish to know that I have strong, very strong, opinions regarding the abuse of process that is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article nomination of Blockhaus d'Éperlecques
You kindly commented on my successful FAC nomination at Featured article candidates/La Coupole/archive1 back in September. I've now nominated the second of the three articles in this series, at Featured article candidates/Blockhaus d'Éperlecques/archive1. I'd be grateful for any comments you could provide in the review. Prioryman (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Depending on what?
Hello

I noticed you helped me answer my question here: Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 15 but am confused by: "... though they would be considered for a Masters programme depending."

On what? thanksCurb Chain (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of things. Nominally you can enter a MA by Research on approval with only an undergraduate degree without honours.  It depends on whether a University is willing to take your money. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "...willing to take your money."? Money is the same regardless of who pays.Curb Chain (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't "... though they would be considered for a Masters programme depending." a sentence fragment?Curb Chain (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not in my regional English. Secondly, some Universities are more cavalier about letting people enter Masters by Research programmes while lacking appropriate capacity to complete than others.  Some deal with this formally, some with informal systems, some are degree mills. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete what? Did you mean compete?Curb Chain (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete the degree program. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note
Hi, just stopping by to let you know that I've quoted a comment of yours here regarding a previous discussion at RS/N. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation question
Hi Fifelfoo, You've been identified as the citation expert, which coming from SandyGeorgia, is high praise. I asked her a question on her talk page.

In short I want to reference online pages from ESPN. I noticed that some of the FA use the cite news template, rather than the Cite web template, which surprised me. Sandy indicated that the Cite web is preferable, so that's what I have been using and plan to continue to use. The second part of the question relates to the work and publisher parameters. Sandy thinks the key issue is to get the italicization correct, so I plan to use "publisher=ESPN" and no entry for work.

Do you agree? (You can answer at SG's page or here, whichever you prefer)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)