Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:35, 28 September 2009

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

Warnings September 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Socialist Alternative (Australia)‎. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Socialist Alternative (Australia). Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did to Socialist Alternative (Australia), you will be blocked from editing.

Rather than adding uncited material, I was removing uncited and dubious material as indicated and within debate at Talk:Socialist Alternative (Australia). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Social class and health in the US

I have nominated Social class and health in the US, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social class and health in the US. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mblumber (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One Big Union

I have reverted this edit, , for unnecessary duplication, WP:NOR, errors, and other reasons that i have explained on the TALK page. Please read the explanations, and also please read the current content of the article, including observation of the (now carefully referenced) historical basis for the OBU, before you edit here again. thanks, best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My Addition to Russian Revolution

Hi Fifelfoo. I added the following to the article about the 1917 Russian Revolution: The New Bolshevik Government

Although having triumphed in the Russian Civil War, when they took charge of the government they had new problems. The Bolshevik party was composed mostly of laborers, not many members had much leadership expirience. The party was not the most unified, although it did encourage discipline and unity. Within the pary there was opposition by both individuals and groups. This really frustrated Lenin, so he changed that situation. The Bolsheviks were also faced with criticism and opposition, and the Bolsheviks showed no tolerance at all. The Bolsheviks believed very stongly on the evil of class. They favored the classes that used to be mistreated and were very much the enimies of the former elite class. Because of their dislike of class, the bolsheviks eliminated it and created the opposite of class in society.

I noticed you undid it and called it patent nonsence and unsourced. I would like to point out I did source it, The Russian Revolution Second Edition by Sheila Fitzpatrick Oxford University Press Copyright Sheila Fitzpatrick 1994 ISBN 0-19-289257-6. I would like to what you meant when you called it patent nonsence. If it could be improved, please consider taking the piece I added and improving it. Thank you, NRB.12345 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia

Please see the talk page. From my part I don't really think I was being bold - I certainly didn't delete anything, I merely reworded the lead and slightly expanded. As indeed you yourself did... Equally if you look there is a discussion thread on the lead, albeit a small one. I look forward to your contributions on the talk page. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Palmer (publisher)

A tag has been placed on Helen Palmer (publisher) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Palmer (publisher)

A tag has been placed on Helen Palmer (publisher), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Palmer (publisher)

A tag has been placed on Helen Palmer (publisher), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ya

Good move I think removing some of the non notable fiction stuff on the article that you did. I found a couple of things that I thought were pretty fascinating and added them to the article also, hence the confusion when placing some things as to order and editing timing... and and no doubt you know all about this fascinating guy also Maybe you can use some of the sourcing for your project, keep up the interesting edits, Regards, skip sievert (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not a weapon

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. It is not uncommon to come across Wikipedians who think that Misplaced Pages is a democracy. However, they misunderstand Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages policy does not forbid an editor from making edits that go against some consensus that's been arrived at by other editors. A editor may make an edit go against the consensus of other editors any time he wishes. So, when an editor tells you not to make an edit that goes against the "consensus" that he's a part of, inform him that that's not good enough. What is the reason for that group of which he is a part to disagree with your edit? Just the fact that he and a few other editors have an agreement amongst themselves on what's best for the article is not good enough reason to refrain from changing their edits. No editor is bound to any consensus of other editors. Moreover, not even is any member of that consensus bound to it. Of course you should try to work to gain a consensus with other editors on the talk page in order create a good and stable article, however always bear in mind that when you do eventually arrive at a consensus, there is no policy that forbids anyone from coming along and disagreeing with the consensus that you're part of and making edits accordingly. Thank you and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Introman (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Generation Α

The article Generation Α has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Merely a suggested name at this point.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb -- timed 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lukacs

Not so. Virga only restored bits from a previous version - I can't tell who had added it originally. Back in February, I had only removed info that was obviously added from neonazi sources; I also noticed that the entire text on his political career was under likely to have used the same crap as its source, only it was virtually impossible to tell apart with all the good-faith edits in between. The solution would be to revisit the entire article with proper references, but I can't be expected to do that myself just so that the tag can be removed. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Between 6 and 10 December 2005 Hanshans23 edited Lukacs with that information. They appear to be good faith if internet researched edits. I will mull and return after further investigation.

Well, the text still would need sourcing and citations if it's to go anywere. On the other hand: sure, if you review the article and find that the problematic stuff is entirely gone, by all means remove the tags; or, if you detect any more egregious crap and can edit it out, please do. I just did not want the tags to be removed without proper scrutiny, and the scrutiny is more than I myself can offer that article (at least for the time being). Dahn (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Lee Ass Wipes

Read headline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.230.55 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction on "Encyclopedia" page

Just felt like seeing what Misplaced Pages had to say about the term "encyclopedia" and found a comical introduction – made me laugh! What a shame other people who religiously vandalize articles and pages don’t share that element of humour but instead make a lot of people believe that what they are reading is serious, factual and verifiable information.Moshe-paz (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Multi-level marketing

Why are you removing material from a credible source (the Direct Selling Association) through a reliable source (USA Today)? If anything, as a marketing association, the DSA should inflate the median earnings; hence it should probably have a cavaet saying at most $2400. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism RfC

Fifelfoo, I am actually never been to a situation like this. So my reaction might not been in the best form. However I think that a RfC is a necessity on that article (Albanian nationalism). Can you please guide me on the process? Should I stay away from the talk page for a while? Thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Depression RfC

Thanks very much for your comments over at Great Depression. I note with regret that you were unable to judge the WWII section as it was removed in the version that you reviewed. I have reinserted it, leaving the rest the same, and would appreciate it if you could update your comments to include that issue as well? Thanks very much, LK (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your quick responses. I really appreciate the work you're putting into RfC's. It's an area that sorely needs more volunteers to work on clearing the backlog. LK (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bourgeoisie#Stereotypes_in_the_United_States

Please do not add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mootros (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

given I was editing down another editor work please cite the defamatory diff and why talking about a social group other than a protected category can be defamation. Without that diff I reject this warning as ungrounded. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

ungrounded for defamation. After reflection I accept the warning as a civility warning, thanks, taken on board. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Steven Zhang 04:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Anarchovegan had it coming

I am shocked that you encourage adding fabrications and allowing twisting facts out of context. I urge you and everyone else here to do some fact checking before adding (or encouraging) the addition of fallacy and derogatory fictitious propaganda. Eli+ 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

since when a conversation is an attacK????!!!! Eli+ 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Eli+ 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

When I am told "You encourage adding fabrications and allowing twisting facts out of context" after noting you personally attacked someone in your edit summary for a justified edit, and am told, "to do some fact checking before adding (or encouraging) the addition of fallacy and derogatory fictitious propaganda." I take this as a personal attack, and an indication of a lack of good faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass Killings

Thanks for the note. I understand the impetus to change the title of the entry (based on POV issues), but I think unfortunately it was a serious mistake. Either something like "communist genocide" or "communist mass killings" is a notable concept linking a political ideology to genocide/mass killing or it isn't. Renaming the entry to something which encompasses much more than the intended content simply opens the page up for OR and SYNTH concerns. If you have a look at WP:NAME you will see that the new name fails almost every basic guideline, especially compared to the one it replaced. Issues with the old entry, as some who even voted to move it conceded during the discussion, are separate matter from the naming problem.PelleSmith (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest restructuring of Bourgeoisie

Good effort -- useful starting point in developing this article. Many thanks Mootros (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can understand wanting to avoid wikidrama, and I do appreciate the thought you've put into our discussion. But just want to explain that we're not biting a newbie. Skip's been on since May 2007 and he should know better. He's also been doing a lot of biting himself on economics articles. See for instance, this, also check out his interaction on the talk page of Talk:Wage slavery, Talk:Paul Krugman and on Talk:History of economic thought. Try to see it from our perspective, he's been essentially trolling and insulting the economists here for the last month. It's really no different from a creationist hanging around Wikiproject Biology making disparaging remarks about evolution and sabotaging all attempts for rational discourse. Anyway, just want to explain why it's happening, and hope that you don't think too badly of us. Best of luck on the RfCs, like I said earlier, I appreciate the work you've been putting into it. regards, LK (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thread about Engels article and genocide

You said on the Mass killings under Communist regimes talk page that you couldn't see the thread in this link? If that's because it's a user subpage, I could copy it here for you if you'd like. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your clarification. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: September 2009

I suggest you re-read what NPA constitutes. I've reverted your frivolous warning and hope you will not continue this as it can become a form of harassment. Swearing does not automatically fall under NPA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you can put your veiled threats back where they belong, which is outside of any communication with other editors; I am seriously sick of the disciplinary function in which many wikipedians work and the variability of standards combined with petty moralism and natural in group formation. I strongly suggest that if you want to play dominance games you shake it out somewhere in your real life. Swearing as invective and exasperation is not appropriate in an encyclopedic context. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Um, what veiled threats are you referring to? The only useful sentence that you've typed here seems to be the last one, and perhaps strangely enough, I completely agree with it. That said, NPA is something is else altogether. If you'd simply put your last sentence as a reminder on Jayron32's talk page, you really could have avoided this, and I'm sure he would have responded to you a lot differently than with this. Please reconsider your approach when "warning" established users. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I responded to Fifeloo's concerns on my talk page. I have some additional questions as well, so perhaps you would like to continue our discussion there, so we can keep it in one place Fifeloo? Oh, and Ncmvocalist, thank you for your concerns here as well, but I think that Fifeloo and I can discuss this matter civily, and reach an agreeable solution. Thanks for watching out for my talk page, but I've got it from here. --Jayron32 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"labour and socialist history"

Just saw your userpage - anything to do with British labour and socialist history? I've been meaning to get our article on the Campbell Case to GA for ages. Ironholds (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Drive by" review conducted. Interesting case, I think I remember it. Unfortunately I'm Australian ;) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--B@xter 15:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of vandal. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)