User talk:Fifelfoo

Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2004-2008 for earlier years.

Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2009-2010 for earlier years.

United States and state terrorism

Recently User:V7-sport stated that the following statement from you:

"The following sections contain no claim, or sources for a claim, that the action is considered state terrorism by a noteworthy academic or expert: Indonesia's anti-Communist purges (1965–66) ; Operation Speedy Express (1968–1969) ; Cuba (1959–present) ; Operation Mongoose ; Allegations of harboring terrorists ; Iran (1979–present) ; Jundullah ; People's Mujahedin of Iran ; Iraq (1992–95) ; Lebanon (1985). This is significant as it means these sections are Synthesis. A list of abhorrent actions is synthetic; please find reliable sources of note making the claim that these particular actions constitute state terrorism.

somehow stated that you believe that for anything to be included in United States and state terrorism, that it must use the exact phrase "state terrorism". That is, he thinks that, based on the above passage, that you were saying we should exclude anything that says something like "the U.S. government did X, which is clearly an act of terrorism". I don't see how he could read that from this passage, so I responded to him that the above passage in no way said that.

I then shared with him your statement "the core issue is to make sure the sources actually hold a position that the events constitute state terrorism, or, in the opinion of that commenter, a position which is so fundamentally similar to the state terrorism thesis that it is identical." (emphasis mine). I wanted to make sure that you were saying that as long as the source is making the claim that a particular action was X, where X is "so fundamentally similar to the state terrorism thesis that it's identical" (such as saying that "Government Z committed a terrorist act"), then it warrants inclusion (this is my position). I provided him with another example, of "media consolidation" vs. "concentration of media ownership" vs. "centralization of media control", which all clearly are talking about the same thing. This is what you were talking about, no? I don't want to be misrepresenting you myself, if you weren't saying this. Could you please clear up what your position is on this at Talk:United States and state terrorism#Reboot. Thanks, and happy new year. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I've clarified myself at the article talk page. Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Oct–Dec 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of an expert

I found your reply to Wikipedia:RSN#Is_this_book_an_reliable_source_or_would_it_be_classed_as_self-published very interesting. I was thinking that we had no sources to our expertise. But after reading your comment I see we have a few as does another Tree shaper Dr Chris Cattle. Before I write up that Dr Chris Cattle is an expert on the Tree shaping article. Would you please give me your opinion on whether he has enough sources to be class as expert on the article?

• Big Tent at Falkland Palace in Scotland.
• World's Fair Expo 2005 in the Growing Village pavilion, Japan.
• In Paris, an exhibition entitled 'Matieres a Cultiver' was held in early 2008 at the Avenue Daumesnil showrooms of VIA
• 2009 exhibit, this time in the 'Salon Habitat Jardin' held in one of the prestigious department stores in Lausanne
• I know doesn't count as it is original research but my partner and I (we founded Pooktre) would class Dr Chris Cattle as an expert.Blackash have a chat 11:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a practicing fine artist / arts professional / curator. This is really a matter for discussion on a project's message board where people with appropriate knowledge sets can evaluate. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I go to the fine arts and ask if sources these are big enough to be able to class him as an expert. Blackash have a chat 12:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

I have a quick question for you (I'm asking now since I am sure that this is going to be brought up either at the ACR or the FAC, when I finally get there): you've added a "pp." for the citation given for the national defense authorization act of 2007, but the rest of the article makes use of the "p." system. Shouldn't the "pp." be changed to a "p." for conformity, or is the use of the "pp." correct from the perspective of citation guidelines? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodness, I'm sorry, I noticed "Garzke and Dulin, pp. 45–51" and thought this was the citation style you were using. There's currently a mix of "p." for multiple page runs and "pp." for multiple page runs. You can pick either, they're both good. FAC only requires consistent citation. I'm not so familiar with MILHIST's in house citation style for A-class, but FAC is simply "Consistency in chosen style." Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got both "pp" and "p" in the article because both were previously used, and I am aware that its an issue that needs to be addressed; but I got confused when you put "pp" since I was in the process of converting all instances of "pp" to "p". Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it, and I will get to work on this issue as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. My personal citation style has grown more minimal with markers such as p. pp. etc. I only tend to include them if I'm referencing non page material such as Table 1.3–1.7; Plates 2–3; or, §2¶5-§3¶1. Regarding n-dashes, I think FAC likes 'em for page ranges, and also they've got some weird thing about non-breaking spaces which I don't fully understand myself. I understand why we need to use non-breaking spaces, but I'm not fully up on the Manual of Style for its use. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not all the way up on the MoS either, which is one of the reasons why I opted for the PR instead of the ACR/FAC route since I was certain that there were still underlying issues here. Based on your comments (some of which echo points raised by Brad101 (talk · contribs) on his talk page) I made the right call :) TomStar81 (Talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man

Really appreciate the kind attaboy, the push to still raise the game, and then the specifics on what to look out for, and then the trust. We "took a turn" on our own to really look at the refs again and found several formatting flaws which we are fixing.

There are a few times where a judgment call is required like on naming the publisher or how to present a commercial report versus a technical report. But I really think we are working to the spirit of the law here, and thinking of the reader on the tricky ones. Can see the sausage getting made in the talk page.

This was a good motivator for me. And brings me back a little to me roots of doing all this stuff manually (which I used to be fast and good at). The cite templates can lead to a pattern of throwing stuff in and not looking or thinming about the output. But we did now. Also, the templates (and even different tools for using them) can lead to some little inconsistencies. But we are working to buff stuff up to a thesis level.

Thanks again.

TCO (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• No worries! Glad to help. It was always obvious from the mix of sources, the emphasis on quality sources, but the need to discuss popular sources; that you guys did have a deep handle on why to cite and what to cite, and could handle it yourself. However, having someone else pick over the commas and italics often helps anyway. I had a brief look at the Talk: page and it is going well there. Remember, I'm always about the editors having a considered reason for their citation presentation and its consistency. My tastes aren't everyone's; so if you've got an argument to make, let me know where I'm wrong and you're right! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Boaz Libertarian Primer

I'll grab a copy of Boaz' Libertarianism: A primer through interlibrary loan -- it's in our regional system, so I should have it in a few days. I'll let you know when I've verified the bit in question. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that the text is in the chapter; but, the chapter requires Author, Verification of Existence (it isn't listed in the CATO TOC), and proof that its the editor's introduction, and not a PRIMARY source for verification. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1

Hello friend. A little while ago you left a review at the above FAC. Bare comments tend to be offputting to new editors who would otherwise leave commentary; would you mind checking out what we did and letting us know if your concerns have been addressed?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

rsn - Infobase publishing

I'd be interested in your opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Infobase Publishing, if you wouldn't mind sharing it. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity reviewing Featured Article Candidates, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

If accepted, you'd be welcome to apply now, and wait until you return from wikibreak to start serving as an ambassador.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1

Fifel, thanks for taking the time to look through my references, it's always a help! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Richard Winger

I saw that you had asked about Richard Winger and his Ballot Access News on the reliable sources noticeboard but your request was archived before anyone had responded to it. I believe that Winger's Ballot Access News newsletter is in fact a reliable source for topics like the number of people registered to vote in the Libertarian Party. A Google News search indicates that he is frequently quoted as an expert on issues relating to third parties in elections by mainstream news sources such as the New York Times, USA Today, NPR, and others. Furthermore, in the case of the number of voters registered as Libertarians, it ought to be possible to check the web sites of the states and look up the voter registration statistics there to confirm Winger's data. If you disagree with the use of this newsletter, or someone else disagrees with the use of this newsletter, I recommend taking this back to WP:RSN. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, my expectation was that his expertise would overcome his SPS; which has commonly occurred with other professional pundits of election materials on wikipedia. I'm slightly concerned with the idea that verifying the truthiness of a pundit's analysis by conducting that analysis separately is a good idea: reliability isn't truth, and independent calculation by non experts (such as any Wikipedia Editor while acting as such) is far too close to OR for my take on conduct. Whereas, we can simply verify that he's an accepted expert and accept his ability to self-publish in his area of expertise. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship Peer Review

The Iowa class battleship Peer Review will be closing in the next few days. If you have any additional comments, questions, suggestions, complaints, or advise on how to improve the article, or if you wish to strike any comments you believe to have been addressed, please do so now before the review closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Inflation

Greetings! User:Wehwalt suggested I consult with you regarding inflation. I've been working on the Warren County, Indiana article in an attempt to get it to FA status, and User:JKBrooks85 suggested providing modern equivalents of some of the prices given (such as $2000 for the first courthouse in 1835 and $48,000 for the second one in 1872). I agree it would be nice to provide some context, but I don't know how to go about that and Wehwalt felt you might have some thoughts. If you have the time, I'd appreciate any ideas you might have. Omnedon (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you're on leave and all...

....but when you get back, if you feel like making (a) new citation template(s) that actually make the citations correct, I'd absolutely love you forever if you made one/a few for Chicago style. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a while. My recent frustration with citation templates has kind of hit a peak. It may well be worth implementing ccbook, ccjournal, ccthesis, ccchapter, etc. (I'm still on leave, about to do archival research). Fifelfoo (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please

Remove your personal attack Here. I object to being called arrogant. Tentontunic (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Arrogance is a behavioural characteristic. Your behaviour is arrogant. Arrogance is a form of aggression—an attack in and of itself—in your case placing your personally discovered knowledge above reliable sources; failing to acquaint yourself with the article's discussion archives; and, playing IDHT games regarding core policy. In particular I draw your attention to this comment, "... Valentio`s estimates? He is but one scholar, why do we not estimates by others?" two hours and fourty minutes after Valentino's centrality to this article was explained to you, "It does not meet the criteria for the only source presented in the article that defines "mass killings under Communist regimes"." This IDHT is the pinnacle of arrogance, and an insult to other editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have requested you be sanctioned for your continuing personal attacks, you may respond here. [1] Tentontunic (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice dispute resolution skills. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to remove your attack, you refused. Were else am I to complain. Please let me know and I`ll move the complaint there. Tentontunic (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For one, you've failed to hede any of the dispute resolution attempted with you on the Talk page of the article, such as suggestions to read policy, suggestions to stop playing IDHT games, suggestions to read the article's talk page archives which answer the questions. You are entirely unfamiliar with the core sources. You clearly do not understand core policy such as reliable sourcing, original research and synthesis. Dispute resolution needs to be added to this list. Rather than discussing the matter with me here, you have gamed dispute resolution and run directly to disciplinary methods. Its highly impressive tendentious and gamey editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And there you are again with attacks, there is no Or nor Synth. The source clearly says what I have written, instead of attacking with false accusations perhaps you ought to actually look at it? A book published by the academic press is well within reliable sourcing, to say it is not is silly. I asked a question, you attacked, I asked another and you attacked again. I am not playing any games of IDHT, or are you saying we are not allowed to look at sourcing other than Valentino? Why not try and be a little more collaborative and not combative? It is your failure to AGF which has lead to this, why not remove your attacks on me? I am not arrogant and do not appreciate your name calling. Tentontunic (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Author, Publisher, Context. Your sources are failing context: literary criticism for history, discourse theory of US presidents for demography of mass population loss in a cross cultural comparative sense going to causes. Valentino is the only source which even remotely proposes a communist cause for mass killing in multiple societies in the scholarly literature and you would know this had you read the article archives. Valentino proposes a cause (dispossessive mass killings) of which he produces an example across multiple societies (communist instances of his category dispossessive mass killings). Rummel does not go to causation, he merely notes incidence. Courtois' claim that non-catholicism causes communist mass killings is fringe. Wirth, Applebaum, etc make single society claims that are not generalisable.

Your demonstrated repeated conduct failures over rule any assumption. You are unfamiliar with policy, and it has been suggested repeatedly that you familiarise yourself. No assumption can be made when you have demonstrated you are not acting in good faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Arbitration enforcement warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. In particular, you may not continue to make personal attacks about editors with whom you disagree. See here for details about the conduct that triggered this warning.  Sandstein  16:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)