User talk:Fifelfoo

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

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

Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2011 for earlier years.

Sock puppetry case relating to someone edit warring with you in the Battle for Australia article

FYI: Wikipedia: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 :). ResMar 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Fifelfoo: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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? [1] - 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

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hall XPTBH.
Message added 10:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The C word

• 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. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (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. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (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) –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (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". –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (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)

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 [2]. 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 Fifelfoo: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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. Worm^TT · (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 =) ResMar 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). ResMar 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)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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 (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

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: Wikipedia: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)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Ready to go?

Just a ping on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Fifelfoo: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia: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 [3]

"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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Two strange incidents and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia: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)

For a difficult RfC close

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Thank you for stepping up and closing the RfC at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Request_for_comment, the difficult one about which references and text to use in the article to describe the founding of the organization. The arguments were tough to weigh but I think your decision was balanced and neutral. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 12 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#Consistent style 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!

Sorry again for my being so short with you. And thank you for your responding to the question at hand. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Self_published_books? 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Legolas2186_possibly_falsifying_references

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 Wikipedia: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" [4] 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 Rjensen. 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 Wikipedia: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)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Fifelfoo. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:49, 5 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? 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

Hello, Fifelfoo. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Use_of_Feher_for_dating_start_of_Messianic_Judaism.
Message added 16:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Your Content Review Medal

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the first quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Menachery at RSN

In case you miss it, I have just commented on a stagnant thread at RSN - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#George Menachery. 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#Reliability_of_self_published_books. 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 [5]: 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).  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 Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Marxist_criticism_of_marriage --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: Updating for inflation using the Retail Price Index, £1,000 in 1860 was worth approximately £73,300 in 2010 (the latest year for which data is available as of May 2012). Updating the sum to represent an equivalent share of the United Kingdom's Gross Domestic Product, £1,000 in 1860 was worth approximately £1.8M in 2010. 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! Bencherlite^Talk 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! Bencherlite^Talk 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:

• Wikipedia: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#A helping hand)

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 theWikipedia:RSN#Abkhazian_Network_News_Agency_showing_video_interviews_with_Houla_massacre_survivors_.28plus_Syria_News.29 section, please and thank-you? -- Despayre  ^{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)

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 Wikipedia: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.... ϮheჂtriԞeΣagle ^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. 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#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors. 4 Points for consideration - Synonymic Usage, Quotations, Sources. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

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. -- Despayre  ^{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. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

New York Times as reliable source in historical articles

I came to Talk:Vietnam_War#Kronkite_Quote 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#SOURCES 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)

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)

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. — raekyt 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 {{cite journal}} 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. — raekyt 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? — raekyt 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)