User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

"Diplomacy", eh?: Staying after school to write at the chalkboard

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Pipes

Please be more NPOV in your edit summaries. Corvus cornix_talk 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right: Referring to IPS as looney left was inappropriate: I am sorry. However, WP article does seem to plagiarize one of the less reliable pages at IPS, which is no mean achievement: IPS is not usually regarded as a reliable source. The WP article's referring to 1976 as "during the cold war" seems to me to be even more problematic and POV then my summary, also!

Also, the idea of citing Sheila Fitzpatrick as a source to attack Pipes seems to reverse the usual estimation of their scholarship by professional historians of Russia, at least among my friends, who are usually not considered to be reactionaries .... The statement that Pipes portrays Lenin as "merely a sociopath" should embarrass an intelligent and honest person, although therefore not necessarily a communist. He certainly was a sociopath who used terror against innocent civilians, in addition to being a meglomaniac, etc. The attacks on Pipe should be an embarrassment to WP, and certainly violate the policy on living persons.

To leave on a friendly note, IPS used to have an association with Barbara Ehrenreich, (Ph.D. in Botany from Rockafeller Institute) who is a great person, and Roger Wilkins did provide wisdom to the brave-hearted IPS softball team as it faced its annual thumping from the ex-Marines at Heritage Institute. And the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award from human rights honors great organizations, like WOLA, so greater respect was due.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

About edit summaries

I'm a bit concerned about the wording used in your comments and especially your edit summaries here and here. I don't disagree with your assessment, but it's best to refrain from expressing it so, ahm, vehemently. After all politeness is a basic pillar of Wikipedia. LK (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I transposed a few words from a famous polemic by John Hammersley, "On the enfeeblement of mathematical skills by so-called 'Modern Mathematics' and other soft intellectual trash taught in the schools and universities". I am rather fond of soft intellectual trash such as modern mathematics, btw,!

I should have summarized the contents of the edit in NPOV and gentle fashion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do try to catch frogs that escape from my mouth---er, keyboard, and remove or strike out intemperate remarks, probably no more than once or twice a week, I'd guess.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RE Requests for adminship/Dylan620

This was the second RfA where I commented (following joyful support of Smartse). I opposed the candidate thinking that a teenager has better things to do than fighting vandals with admin tools: My initial expression of this concern made an erroneous assumption, which was diagnosed by NYB below. Second, according to Malleus, administrators have access to deleted material, which has been removed for violating WP policies; I believe that we should reject all minors (those under age 18) and require an affirmation of being 18 years old, for obvious ethical and possibly legal reasons.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 04:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Potentially misleading comment at RfA

In this edit, you made a comment at Dylan620's RfA (one of your dozens of edits to that RfA) which some might interpret as trying to suggest that Dylan had made inappropriate edits to the files and article that you mentioned. In fact, he had made no inappropriate edits to them. Please could you explain the meaning and purpose of your comment? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Masochists may enjoy the following discussion, simply by clicking on the "show" button, to the right (K.W.):

He has experience working with files, as I documented, following a statement that questioned his having experience working with files. (Close to a weaselly answer,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Of course, since the question of maturity has been raised, the content of the pages is relevant:

• 2 image-files (of 5) involved penises.

Here is his COMPLETE list of file experience, which is supposed to be one of his concentration areas:

File

2 - Muggu.JPG

1 - RelaxedPenis.JPG

1 - TiananmennBrutality.jpg

1 - Dust_Bowl_-_Dallas,_South_Dakota_1936.jpg

1 - Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg

• One of his few mainspace pageswas Fart, although 2/3 of those were apparently using other accounts (only 1 seemed to have been made from his account).

Here is the COMPLETE list of his talk-page contributions (posted at his Rfa):

Talk

11 - Rocko's_Modern_Life/GA1

7 - Hurricane_Paloma

7 - Rocko's_Modern_Life

6 - Timeline_of_the_2001_Atlantic_hurricane_season

5 - Hurricane_Ioke

5 - Timeline_of_the_1996_Atlantic_hurricane_season

5 - Hurricane_Kate_(2003)

3 - Fart

3 - Hurricane_Ioke/Poll

3 - Syriana

His lack of contributions to talk-pages should be grave concern.

Others can infer appropriate conclusions. My conclusion is that he is as mature and as immature as expected from an intelligent young teenager, which is to say, less mature than we should expect from administrators.

Now would you explain the meaning and purpose of your question?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What a curious conclusion. The file edits were reverting vandalism. How does that reflect on maturity?

"One of his few mainspace pages was Fart" - this doesn't seem to make any sense; he has over three and a half thousand edits to the mainspace. Looking at the history of that article, it has been edited by a number of adult administrators and other adult users. I certainly wouldn't question their maturity.

The purpose of my question was as stated - I wanted to know whether you were using misdirection to try to insinuate negative behaviour by the candidate, or if your comment had some other purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandals strike many pages, the candidate's choice of battles differs from mine and many adults.

I understand your concern, and today I would have written the remark with greater clarity, to show my respect. Please note my reply to Dylan.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you're extensively altering your comments after I had already replied to them, which is less than transparent. However, even with the alterations in place, your comments are materially incorrect. For commenting on future RfAs I suggest that doing basic research would assist you in getting the facts right. Puffing yourself up as the self-appointed defender of minors' interests and spraying the RfA with dozens of arrogant and dismissive comments doesn't compensate for failing in that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I used the usual indenting to show that I had added content. I neglected to indent doubly the quotations of the candidate's contributions. (DONE)

What error of fact did I make? A correction would be welcome, but cannot you spew bile elsewhere?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a curious fellow: Your statement that you used to be spanked and used to spank boys stood out on your user page. Perhaps our concerns about young men differ.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it didn't take you long to descend to ad hominem. Have you worked out the factual error in your comments yet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

State my error, briefly, and then go away. You are presumably familiar with the policy about leaving user pages when asked.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such Wikipedia policy, no. Possibly you meant something else. However, there are other venues available for raising issues of repeated problematic or disruptive edits; raising concerns on the editor's talk page is merely seen as a polite first step. So it's no great inconvenience.

As regards your factual difficulties, I really am quite sure you realise it's not true that 11+7+7+6+5+5+5+3+3+3=186, if you had spent the time to think about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote about "pages" and "images" (which I shall now embolden to help you). You should first master reading my words before you presume to guess my intentions.

Finally, you are not welcome here, and I ask you not to post again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to the last word, as it seems that attempts to explain your misunderstanding are doomed to be futile for whatever reason. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your error was simple: You imputed to me a concern about the distribution of his edits, when I had written about the pages listed.

I preferred you when you wrote your mind rather than retreating with a passive-aggressive "for whatever reason".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Here is the COMPLETE list of his talk-page contributions" -- your emphasis.

Since you mention it, I chose not to speculate about the reasons that you were unable to understand your mistake, purely because it is better to comment on content than on contributors. That's an approach I highly recommend. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I quoted exactly the summary that Dylan posted on his Rfa, no more no less, to save time and for fairness. I repeated the words "pages" and "files" many times. Now go away!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Time spent on WP: Error by K.W.

On a different aspect of that RfA: it seems to me your optional question to Dylan620 contains the assumption that he is sacrificing his social time and study time to editing Wikipedia. I don't know that there is a basis for that assumption. Dylan620's editing level actually seems quite reasonable (this itself has been cited by some opposers as a ground for opposing). This amount of editing could fit comfortably within what would otherwise be Dylan620's hobby time or his video-game time or his Facebook time, without eroding the more important things in his life. (I was going to point this out in a comment on the question, but instead will be interested to see what Dylan620 has to say for himself.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall review his level of activity. I use few tools, and it may be that I grossly over-estimated his time spent on fighting vandals etc. If so, then I shall revise my statement(s).

BTW, your essay seemed excellent to me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You were correct and I was wrong. The candidate seems to have had appropriately limited levels of activity for some time. I corrected my remarks and withdrew my question. I am sorry for my asinine assumption, and very grateful that you corrected me, especially with charity.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

GLOSS: "Asinine" as in "to assume makes an 'ass' of U (you)' and me'. 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sexy Cora

(K.W. Introduction: In the Rfa, after I was accused of favoring censorship or "legislating morality", I referred to my only experience with controversial content, where I favored leaving something off the main page. I did not suggest that the article be deleted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

I'm commenting here so as not to needlessly sidetrack the discussion at Dylan's RfA (which they really ought to close one way or another; it can't be fun to be kept hanging on like this.) I recall the Sexy Cora DYK issue well, and I agree with your perspective on that. In fact, I was the one who put it out of its misery. 28bytes (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not recognize you. You must forgive my senility: I did try to declare that our cognitive faculties degrade after 28 years old.

Thanks again, for your help with that DYK. I just wanted to explain how limited my experience is, and affirm non-censorship with the one WP experience I've had. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I don't pay much attention to the "adult" side of Wikipedia, to be honest. I'm aware it exists, but my editing interests are elsewhere. 28bytes (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

As you requested: WP:Multiple Accounts. An undisclosed alternate account could be used after a clean start (a complete break with a previous account, with the expectation that the user will not continue to edit in the same areas), or to make edits that might have an adverse effect on the user's real life. (User:Iamcuriousblue is an example of such an account.) I'm having a great deal of difficulty conceiving of a valid alternate account that has the sysop flag, especially because administrators are expected to disclose alternate accounts. Innuendo about having an alternate account with the sysop flag is thus disturbing. Is this helpful to you? Danger (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, an admin could disclose an alternate account only to ArbCom (ie not publicly) and still be within the rules. You can't have two accounts with sysop flags, and you can't use your sysop account to "help out" an alter (unless it's publicly disclosed, but even then it's questionable). Many admins have alternate accounts, with varying degrees of disclosure. In fact, some argue that admins should have an alt account to avoid potential compromise when using public computers. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (rarely-used alt account: User:Nikkimariana)

True. Those are, of course, merely theoretical considerations, as the account in question here would not, as far as I'm aware, be considered a valid alternate kept for privacy reasons and it is not a disclosed alternate for use on public computers. It is possible that the user behind the account in question is a former administrator under a clean start, but then said user would not have access to deleted material currently. --Danger (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your answers, which were very informative. I believe that Malleus is familiar with these policies, so I won't notify him of your helpful replies. Thanks again. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD

Per WP:BRD, I am waiting your response at Template talk:Statistics. Frietjes (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, my initial comment was removed, I would appreciate it if you would respond it it. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored your comment, and noted that it should have been left. Please always add edit summaries. I changed my user preferences to give myself a warning when I forget: I have commented elsewhere at my unfortunate senility.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, these good-faith edits seem to have been very helpful. I don't understand why an apparently formal change messed up the color of the statistics navbox. The other navboxes already had a uniform color, and nothing changed. In general, projects are touchy about their show-case navboxes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathematicians: 2 Ph.D.s

I added Chichilnisky and Janson to a category mathematicians with (a Ph.D. in mathematics and) another Ph.D. in another discipline: Maybe this could be made into a list:

* Sergei Natanovich Bernstein (Mathematics from 2 universities, because of anti-Semitism)

• Joel E. Cohen (Applied Mathematics, and Population biology)
• Graciela Chichilnisky (Mathematics, and Economics
• Svante Janson (Mathematics, and Mathematical statistics)
• Yuri Matiyasevich (Doctor of Research, a higher degree)

* Seymour Papert (Two Ph.D.s in mathematics, from different universities)

• Marcel-Paul Schützenberger (Medicine, and mathematical statistics)

All of these did highly mathematical Ph.D.s for the other degree, so perhaps this is not so interesting after all.... 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK mathematicians: Ekeland, Phelps, 2 pseudonyms & Elfving

Ivar Ekeland: DYK nomination

• ... that Ivar Ekeland inspired the discussion of chaos theory and fractals (like the Julia set, pictured) in Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton?

• Reviewed: Polyfluorene ([1])
• Comment: Ekeland wrote about the Feigenbaum bifurcation etc., but not the Julia set (whose brilliant illustration would compel DYK attention, and so is preferred).

• ... that, by writing about fractals (pictured), Ivar Ekeland inspired the discussion of chaos theory in Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

5x expanded by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 10:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for maybe making this harder work for you than it needed to be, but a good result in the end I think; well done! Jheald (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had made a mistake on the short entry for the Ian Malcolm character, where I had mistakenly substituted Ian Stewart for James Gleick, so in double-checking my work (because of your concern) I realized my error. Further, as David noted, and as even I admit, it's good to mention Gleick besides Stewart. (I was afraid of having to mention a gaggle of mathematicians, when I resisted mentioning "others".) Thus, you were right and indeed helpful. Thanks for your kind note.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ivar Ekeland

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Phelps

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter Orno

Blessed be the peacemakers

Kiefer, I had/have no intention of derailing your DYK. It is clear that you and I have slightly different opinions, and if you look at the other comments, you'll see that neither you nor I are alone there. Reasonable people should be able to agree reasonably--for instance, I am not holding it against you that you are interested in math and Ohio State, whether the more reasonable person (that is, me) knows that the combination of English and the University of Alabama is much more righteous. But we can continue this struggle next year, hopefully in the BCS title game. In the meantime, I hope and expect that you will get tons of hits at DYK when it runs, which I am sure it will. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Drmies,

It's kind of you to write a personal note here, besides the last note on the DYK page. I am skeptical about the value of the articles on Orno and Rainwater, which amount to professional horse-play by mathematicians: Certainly such articles are excluded from printed encyclopedias. I started them after laughing at Phelps's article on Rainwater, and publicizing the (hilarious) stories of Rainwater and the puerile story of Orno was my main motive. Both would best appear on April Fools' Day, I think.

I certainly understand any concerns about maintaining quality and encyclopedia tone, by presenting Wikipedia as a sober source 364 days each year.

Again, I'm sorry for being irritated with your sequence of concerns. My allergies are killing me and my irritation was in retrospect more due to a headache, etc., but certainly not to any bad-faith by you.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In another life, I could have been a English-literature graduate-student working on John Milton! I was delighted by Quentin Tarantino's discussion of Jack "King" Kirby's Silver Surfer in Crimson Tide. I was happy to defend the honor of Alabama's statistics professor Jean Gibbons some months back, btw. :)

Ah, all's well that ends well. Let's hope your dissertation, if that's where you're at, won't be derailed by your headache. Then again, if you are in Sweden, you must have a chronic headache mandated by law, no? Ju längre ekorren desto större nöje! Speaking of Miltonian headaches--many years ago I sent out an article on "Methought I Saw My Late Espoused Saint" and it got laughed out of court, so to speak, by no fewer than two reviewers (for Milton Studies, maybe). For revenge, I tried to pervert mankind, but with only moderate success. Good luck with the allergies, but medicate in moderation.

PS, both Milton Studies and Milton Quarterly are redlinks. Someone ought to take care of that. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Let Euclid rest and Archimedes pause, and what the Swede intend", indeed!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to think that Constantinos A. Patrides would have approved of this footnote: "Diestel (1984, p. 259) places Peter Orno in his index under the letter "p" as "P. ORNO", with all-capital letters in Diestel's original."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC) He had enlightening and tasteful glosses of Donne's "out do dildos" and Aeropagitica's defense of free farting....

BTW, I moved the Peter Orno discussion to the April Fools' DYK page, following EdJohnson's suggestion of nominating it there, instead. (I withdrew the main DYK nomination, thinking that Peter Orno may not be the best way to introduce WP to the public.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Then Folk are want to go on pilgrimmages ...., although professionals call them conferences

Congrats--I'm sure you'll get a lot more hits than I get for those odd medieval manuscripts. All the best! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The mathematicians' silliness, Peter Orno, is prudish in comparison with Chaucer's Wife of Bath or The Miller's Tale---or with David Lodge's trilogy (Changing Places, Small World: An Academic Romance, and Nice Work, and lastly Thinks ..., which I still have to read)!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Gustav Elfving

Hi – thanks for your note on my talk page. I have verified your alternate hook. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Hassocks, for your great DYK auditing and article suggestions. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gustav Elfving

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)