They might have deleted the template but: {User (still) doesn't trust Jimbo}
Ping me for work reviewing in the following A-class, high order peer review, FAC/FARC topics
indigenous history
non-majority ethno-cultural or colour history
women's and gender history
queer / queered history
workers and class history
economic history
historiography and theory
warcrime and atrocity history
helping new A and FA authors in history and social science achieve their flourishing, esp 1c 2c
military history of ONLY the following topics:
logistics
civvies & industrial capacity
any of the above main topics
If your article at review isn't in this list I may get to it by myself. But I appreciate being pinged for only these issues in order to counter systemic bias. This is to spend my time preferentially engaging with editors working in under worked areas.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 08:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Fifelfoo's handy principles for Wikipedia editing
Don't shit in the well
While you may want to be bold if you've got a political ideal, you'll probably be too bold about it, so don't shit in the community's well.
Reviews of Social Sciences and Humanities articles in having correctly dealt with using review articles and magisterial monograph's introductory reviews to produce high order article taxonomy and article structure
Drive by reviews in some social science and history areas
2c checking of Humanities and Social Sciences articles at FAC
1c checking of History, labour, military history articles at FAC
Technical Barnstar; Inflation and Inflation template related work; Disavian (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Beers
Libertarianism related citation and sourcing work with many many other editors. Srich32977 02:02, 22 November 2011 (via user page, rather than talk)
For defending users of en_GB, en_AU, en_NZ and other bastards, and I'm quoting in full: "For "Bloody Strong oppose this will shit up the encyclopaedic process due to the imposition of fucking stupid cultural norms derived from versions English produced by puritan wankers onto users of other version of English that, for example, regularly use cunt as the generic noun." Brilliant, laughed out loud and fell off the fraking chair. I think it's the juxtaposition of encyclopaedic and puritan wankers." Nuujinn 01:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I did bad; but, got better
Hungary 1956 FAR/C: it didn't solve the article problems, I brought the drama llama to town; learnt from my mistakes. November 2009.
Nitpicking citations in shorthand jargon at FAC; trained out of the behaviour. November 2009.
An emotional drain of taxonomic differences that are irreconcilable based on SOAPBOXing and IDHT (the editorial environment has improved through everyone using much better sourcing policy as the basis for weight lead article changes)
Largely SYNTH and COATRACK, there is a core article about a social sciences hypothesis which is clouded over by SOAPBOXed COATRACK (shows signs of improvement)
Fun and games in taxonomy to do with Ukraine exceptionalism, an unwillingness to separate historiographical narratives and historical events, and a debate over 80 years of English useage versus 20 years of Ukraine usage.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:Fifelfoo_m is my mobile account. Please use my main account's talk page to let me know stuff. Thanks.
They might have deleted the template but: {User (still) doesn't trust Jimbo}
Ping me for work reviewing in the following A-class, high order peer review, FAC/FARC topics
indigenous history
non-majority ethno-cultural or colour history
women's and gender history
queer / queered history
workers and class history
economic history
historiography and theory
warcrime and atrocity history
helping new A and FA authors in history and social science achieve their flourishing, esp 1c 2c
military history of ONLY the following topics:
logistics
civvies & industrial capacity
any of the above main topics
If your article at review isn't in this list I may get to it by myself. But I appreciate being pinged for only these issues in order to counter systemic bias. This is to spend my time preferentially engaging with editors working in under worked areas.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 08:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Fifelfoo's handy principles for Wikipedia editing
Don't shit in the well
While you may want to be bold if you've got a political ideal, you'll probably be too bold about it, so don't shit in the community's well.
Reviews of Social Sciences and Humanities articles in having correctly dealt with using review articles and magisterial monograph's introductory reviews to produce high order article taxonomy and article structure
Drive by reviews in some social science and history areas
2c checking of Humanities and Social Sciences articles at FAC
1c checking of History, labour, military history articles at FAC
Technical Barnstar; Inflation and Inflation template related work; Disavian (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Beers
Libertarianism related citation and sourcing work with many many other editors. Srich32977 02:02, 22 November 2011 (via user page, rather than talk)
For defending users of en_GB, en_AU, en_NZ and other bastards, and I'm quoting in full: "For "Bloody Strong oppose this will shit up the encyclopaedic process due to the imposition of fucking stupid cultural norms derived from versions English produced by puritan wankers onto users of other version of English that, for example, regularly use cunt as the generic noun." Brilliant, laughed out loud and fell off the fraking chair. I think it's the juxtaposition of encyclopaedic and puritan wankers." Nuujinn 01:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I did bad; but, got better
Hungary 1956 FAR/C: it didn't solve the article problems, I brought the drama llama to town; learnt from my mistakes. November 2009.
Nitpicking citations in shorthand jargon at FAC; trained out of the behaviour. November 2009.
An emotional drain of taxonomic differences that are irreconcilable based on SOAPBOXing and IDHT (the editorial environment has improved through everyone using much better sourcing policy as the basis for weight lead article changes)
Largely SYNTH and COATRACK, there is a core article about a social sciences hypothesis which is clouded over by SOAPBOXed COATRACK (shows signs of improvement)
Fun and games in taxonomy to do with Ukraine exceptionalism, an unwillingness to separate historiographical narratives and historical events, and a debate over 80 years of English useage versus 20 years of Ukraine usage.