User talk:Fifelfoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2011 for earlier years.

Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2012 for earlier years.

Please see User_talk:Fifelfoo/Archive2013 for earlier years.

Happy New Year![edit]

The Winter Walk at Anglesey Abbey - - 862583.jpg Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RS comment[edit]

Hi. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you comment at this discussion regarding a source's reliability? It involves a self-published source's use in a featured-BLP article. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


Will you please take a look at the following thread and offer your opinion.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


You're needed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tiruchirappalli/archive2. Vensatry (Ping me) 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

RSN on Callahan blog[edit]

Hello. You made some comments at WP:Reliable sources/ I have attempted to summarize the comments of various editors in a table. Please take a look and make any changes to the summary of your comments as you feel appropriate. I only ask that the summary be brief. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee[edit]

Hi Fifel,

I noticed that you have been involved with the John Edward Brownlee articles in the past and I thought that you might be interested in the current featured topic candidacy for these articles. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi, since you commented on the previous FAC, can you post your thoughts on the article's talk page to improve the article. Vensatry (Ping me) 06:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as someone who took part in the previous nomination can you comment on this. Vensatry (Ping me) 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

help request[edit]

If you are mad at the Wiki, or even better...working on things that pay you, please ignore this. But if you are really sort of open for business...I remember you being incredible at footnote fixing and wonder if you could help out at Fluorine. See also peer review.-TCO (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In 2014[edit]

In 2014, Fifelfoo, not in 2014+. Bash it out and hand it in. Get the right examiners, whatever you do. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Current schedule alongside paid employment is first draft mid-2014, then two semesters of redrafting. My team is holding me to it well. If it seems long, its because I'm part-time, at least in part due to a previous Prime Minister's funding model for research students. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups[edit]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, you were involve a past similiar discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley, can you give an opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kekoolani? I don't think it will violate Wikipedia:Canvassing since you fall under "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


Firest my apologies for the mis-spelling; "streetcar-like" is one thing, but "streetcar-lice" suggests cooties. That said, as you probably know, interurban cars weren't generally merely streetcars/trams, and at the extremes - the lightest streetcars vs the West Coast SP electric stuff, for instance, there was no comparison. The only real point of overlap is the PCC and its brethren; iconic as these are now, they are still a small part of the whole interurban story, since most systems died, converted, or went moribund before the PCC was builtAnmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Specialist-baiting for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Specialist-baiting 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/Specialist-baiting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :)[edit]

Coffee and cake (8400386474).jpg Coffee and Caek.
Thanks for starting the article on Libertarian Socialism/Socio-Anarchism. I for a good while, figured I am one, this is a wonderful education for me and just reinforces that. It's good to learn :) It's not just about me though (of course!), it's about saying thanks for starting one of the best quality Wikis I've ever read. Have some European coffee and caek! (< that's faerie cake, of course!) Bananaskinz (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but could you tell me if Nancy Rubin Stuart should be considered a reliable source for the Castilian language and Isabella I of Castile? Shouldn't we be using historians for articles like Isabella I of Castile? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that she won, or was awarded, a Higher Doctorate for her monograph, and seems to have transitioned into biography via an interest in women's studies, I'm not seeing the big problem. Her presses look good and her other works reinforce the idea that she's an expert biographer of women. As always, depends on the claim. (If anything, the fact that she's working in English is my main concern). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)