User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright and RS/BLP/NPOV concerns

Freedom House

Thanks!

For the improvements on Freedom House. It made the article WAY better. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi OpenFuture!

Thanks for the "'attaboy"!  :-)

There are even worse problems (e.g. apparent copyright issues) at the article on FH's Freedom in the World, which I trust shall be resolved soon, by a wise administrator.

I'm a statistician and admirer of North Carolina's fine Sociology Department. Looking at those FH/FitW articles, I immediately saw the name of Ken Bollen, the writer of the best book on LISREL/structural equation models. Ken certainly would not jeopardize his reputation by writing what our articles said he did.

I get headaches just contemplating the clean-ups needed to because of right-wingers pushing stories about menacing networks of Jews/neo-conservatives/Trotskyists and left-wingers pushing stories about menacing networks of Jews/neo-conservatives/CEOs/cold-warriors/anti-communists/Americans etc. And now I realize that most of these POV articles have been plagiarized from websites like "RightWeb" and "JewWatch".

Oh the times, Oh the morals ....

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I saw that you edited Nissan Pivo. "Pivo" means beer in Ukrainian, Polish, Czech, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I know. However, I'm sure the name comes from "pivot", not because they drunk czech lager. :-) See also Honda Fitta (which was quickly renamed). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Now, that would have sold well in Nordic countries!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Closed discussion

Freedom in the World

Wow. Is this what I can expect on retirement - editors believing they can piss on my reputation from a great height because I won't be around to deal with complete nonsense like this? (a) most of the text you have issues with is in quote marks. It's not "closely paraphrased", it's the same as the source. Obviously. (b) you want to delete the article because you have issues with a section? no. (c) you demand page numbers for some things, despite clearly having access to the original text, so that a simple find in page would give you the answer. (d) evidently your problem is not copyright, but POV. Deal with it by editing and/or talkpage discussion or other forms of dispute resolution. PS Yes, it was clearly done in an over-quoted bullet-point fashion to save time; it should be rewritten, but that's a totally different issue. Rd232 ^talk 08:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned only with your having introduced an unreliable source into the article by extensive paraphrase that violates WP policy on copyrights/paraphrasing. It is not just quotation, but extensive quotation from one page and not using other sources or other ideas that makes the problem severe. It is obviously a violation of copyright/copy and pasting/or related policies.

The source is unreliable. Just look at his mis-use of Bollen. There is no point in my adding page references to unreliable sources.

You edited your talk page 3 days ago, I noted when I left the message. If you have forgotten that you still are active, then such lapses would explain a lot.

08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(a) I'm trying to leave, and I'm officially retired; you couldn't be sure I'd respond. Don't pretend otherwise. (b) you seem to have to trouble with the concept of paraphrasing. (c) Academic sources are WP:RS, unless much effort has gone into proving otherwise. That hasn't happened here. (d) part of the reason there's so much quotation from that source is that it summarises a bunch of other relevant sources. It would be better to go to them directly, but that's a lot more work. No-one's stopping you! Now, withdraw this copyright bullshit, or I may be provoked to postpone my retirement briefly in order to investigate what other misuse you have made of Wikipedia policies. Rd232 ^talk 09:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

WP policy suggests leaving notices about copyright violations on user's page, to allow assessment of whether there be a pattern.

I'm telling you that there are huge problems with that article. Look at the misuse of Bollen and act responsibly. I'm a statistician and know Bollen, and it was obvious that you and your source were misusing his work. Comparing Bollen with your source will reveal other worrisome things, which cannot be discussed on WP.

I am well aware of the policies you mention. Investigate as much as you want. Scrutiny is welcome.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

" it was obvious that you and your source were misusing his work." - I strongly object to the word "misusing". I was relying on a reputable academic source. If you have issues with that source, fine, deal with it in the usual way. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't see the copyright violation. 2. rd232: Stop being hysterical. Nobody is "pissing on your reputation", that's absolutely ridiculous. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation issues are an excellent way of very rapidly losing the respect of the Wikipedia community (and rightly so). It is therefore not an accusation to be made, or taken, lightly. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Look Rd232, I'm sorry for not editing the template to remove the warning about blocking if copyright violation occurred. I have known that you are an experienced and trusted editor. I have never believed that such extensive quoting, even with quotation marks, was symptomatic of your editing. I just believed that I should follow policy and leave such a warning, with its convenient links to the article and the sources, on your page. I should have specialized it for you.~Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not the issue of blocking, it's that there was no copyright issue here at all; you had a POV issue and saw some quotation (substantial quotation, yes, but not "extensive") and decided to make a copyright issue where there isn't one. I'm happy to concede a quality issue (that the article would be better if the section was rewritten without bullets and less quotation), but that doesn't require my attention. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are a sysop and may well be a Time Lord for all I know. But in my simple-minded experience of temporality, I believe that you have the chronology backwards. ;) Check the history. :-)

I first did the tagging of the article because of copyright violation concerns. Later, I tagged the unreliable source and complained about the absence of page numbers.

I had wished that my having stated my concerns about NPOV/RS before an administrator ruled on the copyright violation would be a sign of my good faith, that would (0) spur you to add page numbers, which would aid an administrator responding to the copyrightviolation bat signal, (1) warn the administrator to be cautious about my possibly having a POV bias, and (2) prevent questions about my good faith being raised later if my understanding of copyright/paraphrasing/etc. be wrong (in which case, I would raise a fuss about the article you are using).

At the last few RfAs, User:SandyGeorgia's fire-and-brimstone sermons scared the hell out of everybody, and it may be that I have over reacted. If so, then I would be especially sorry for my errors, even more than I am sorry now for having interrupted your shuffleboard sessions! ;)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm only moderately clear what you're on about but I do note that you still haven't withdrawn your request to have the entire page deleted for a non-violation of copyright within one section. And you know or can easily check the page numbers, and otherwise improve the section through editing, since you clearly have the source to hand (which I don't). Now, I'm retired, I've made my points, do what you like. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Violating copyright is a fast way of losing respect, yes. Being accused of it without actually doing it is not, so cool down, OK? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you bothered to compare the articles? Cooly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

An expert on copyright policy rewrote the "criticism" section with problems. She thought a few problems existed but that they all were minor. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Committee on the Present Danger

Moonriddengirl, our hero, yanked the tagged paragraphs from that article. My batting average ain't too shabby, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Below, I was attacked for tagging a slew of articles as possible copyright violations (after I noticed that they had copied verbatim passages from RightWeb (also an unreliable source) and had been uploaded by one IP one day). I was accused of misusing the copyright-tags for nefarious political purposes .... I was very pleased that Mrg, WP's copyright expert, that such extensive copying made deleting text or extensive rewriting prudent, so much so that she deleted one section and rewrote another. (Curiously, nobody has retracted the allegations that I was misusing (possible) copyrightviolation-tags, especially for political purposes.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard drama

Closed discussion

Personal attacks

This is my last request to you to stop making personal attacks against other editors as you did here. If you continue to make personal attacks against other editors, I will report it to WP:ANI. TFD (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not make a personal attack. I am trying to understand why have repeatedly imputed erroneous interpretations of my sentences. I am trying to assume good faith about you.

I have poor vision, and I can understand that for persons with similar vision without a large screen, the rate of error must be much higher. I admire the King of Sweden for his public poise and good humor about his dyslexia. I certainly meant you no insult. Is it not possible that I am seriously concerned?

It is not a personal attack for me to state that Busky's book is bad, and that continued good-faith reliance on it must be naive or involves paraconsistent logic. We have the history of our discussions of SDS and Leninism, and several other topics, where you have criticized me: I would welcome a scrutiny of our respective contributions and compliance with WP:NPA.

Regarding Lipset as a reading assignment: You yourself cited a book co-authored by Lipset (but whose coauthor should now also appear in your American Left footnotes, please): Despite having some errors, Lipset's JSTOR-article's description of SDUSA in the Reagan years is better than Busky's, and you should read his brief accounts(s) before inserting text on the issue of SDUSA and Reagan. (He erroneously and without citation describes SDUSA as pro Vietnam War, btw.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for taking up the editor's burden, and fixing those Lipset/Marks footnotes pronto! Well done, Sir!

I shall see you tomorrow, after a good night's sleep.

I trust that our cease-fire shall hold until the morning.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are being discussed at ANI. TFD (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This is about the 4th time that you have cried at a noticeboard. Every time you do, you seem to face more criticism than the last. How many boomerangs must whop you upside the head before you learn ...? (forgot to sign earlier,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

Good question

For how can you compete
Being honour bred ...?

Noticeboards, Schmoticeboards

Closed discussion

buddy stuff

advive to go lil slow on such comments as You came at the beck and call of your master, and did his bidding. You overlook and refuse to criticize your master's misbehavior, particularly his allegations of bad-faith and political bias not great at ANI. i believe you adviced me as such last time some idiot hauled me up and sulked to the admins, and it worked for me. (dubious as it sometime is) but i should like to reciprocate the support and advice. WP is a strange world..;)

although I've since realised why: WP is not an encyclopaedia as i was originally led to believe, it is social media. now that i understand it helps getting past the BSLihaas (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lihaas,

Thanks for your help and friendly advice.

I was attacked and accused of violating NPOV, when I cleaned-up articles.

Now User:Moonriddengirl has responded to my worries about a possible copyright violation at Freedom in the World, rewriting the section to comply with Wikipedia policies, of which she is a recognized master: She did not think that it was a major problem, but she did the revision nonetheless. Shall a stream of apologies be forthcoming from those who accused me of manipulative tagging of spurious "copyright violations", duplicitously to further some political agenda, now that a master has noted that some rewriting was prudent?

Normally, I try to ignore violations of AGF and NPA, when directed against me. (Somebody calling an editor a Jew/communist, or you a fascist is another matter, as you know.) However, ANI is perhaps the most central public forum on WP, and letting charges go unanswered would encourage further calumnies. (For outside readers, I note that those charges had been made against me, only some by the faithful agent, before I replied in kind.)

Your being bothered with an RFC was another matter, whose analysis can be made by e-mail if you like.

I prefer to write and edit in the mathematical sciences, where the established editors have knowledge and scholarship, rather than in areas where demos have voted 1+1=3 and such lies are celebrated as NPOV.

Sincerely and with best regards,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The motto "Nemo me impune lacessit" is an obsolete relic; similar concerns with one's good name appear chiefly to characterize archetypal anachronisms from an earlier age.

Love potion number nine

Closed discussion

A review of the Westminster Larger Catechism is in order:

• A144: The duties required in the Ninth Commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,[1] and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; [2] appearing and standing for the truth;[3] and from the heart,[4] sincerely,[5] freely,[6] clearly,[7] and fully,[8] speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice,[9] and in all other things whatsoever;[10] a charitable esteem of our neighbors;[11] loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name;[12] sorrowing for,[13] and covering of their infirmities;[14] freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces,[15] defending their innocence;[16] a ready receiving of a good report,[17] and unwillingness to admit of an evil report,[18] concerning them; discouraging talebearers,[19] flatterers,[20] and slanderers;[21] love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth;[22] keeping of lawful promises;[23] studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report.[24]

• A145: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own,[1] especially in public judicature;[2] giving false evidence,[3] suborning false witnesses,[4] wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth;[5] passing unjust sentence,[6] calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked;[7] forgery,[8] concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause,[9] and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves,[10] or complaint to others;[11] speaking the truth unseasonably,[12] or maliciously to a wrong end,[13] or perverting it to a wrong meaning,[14] or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;[15] speaking untruth,[16] lying,[17] slandering,[18] backbiting,[19] detracting,[20] tale bearing,[21] whispering,[22] scoffing,[23] reviling,[24] rash,[25] harsh,[26] and partial censuring;[27] misconstructing intentions, words, and actions;[28] flattering,[29] vainglorious boasting,[30] thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others;[31] denying the gifts and graces of God;[32] aggravating smaller faults;[33] hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;[34] unnecessary discovering of infirmities;[35] raising false rumors,[36] receiving and countenancing evil reports,[37] and stopping our ears against just defense;[38] evil suspicion;[39] envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any,[40] endeavoring or desiring to impair it,[41] rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy;[42] scornful contempt,[43] fond admiration;[44] breach of lawful promises;[45] neglecting such things as are of good report,[46] and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.[47]

Room for improvement

Not my best sides, particulary when I am defensive:

• [11] "Speaking the truth unseasonably", and
• [22-26] "scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring", and
• [42] "scornful contempt".

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The annotated K.W.

My misspellings were corrected and an allusion linked by kind Shirt58, after which I linked the other allusions:

I am rather tired of defending myself against cherubim, seraphim, and powers and principalities of the air, and even MFs at ANI.

It may be time to remove the copyright and paraphrase policies, on Wikipedia, and to rename the project Plagiarism-pedia.

I can always retreat to the Mathematics project, where we don't have NPOV debates about whether 1+1=3, but you are going to be over-run by tribbles cooing contentedly. You shall hear them cooing each to each. (I know that they will not coo to me.)

Have you ever discussed moving to a more serious public-access project, perhaps with PoD or other frequent collaborators? Some of the mathematicians have already left for projects limited to competent collaborators."

Appreciating the correction, I noted that WP and MF do not approve of editing another's comments, which spurred this discussion:

See also Reginald Scot

Closed discussion

Hey Kiefer.Wolfowitz! You wrote:

I thank you for your corrections and . (I would beware of editing anybody else's comments.)

As Oscar Wilde said, "there are two kinds of Wikipedia editors: those who know what "Malleus Fatuorum" means without having to Google it up, and those who are going to be severely bashed by that hammer.
--Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the mistake of correcting another editor's typo, and received a stern warning not to repeat that mistake when he reverted me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The hammer references have always escaped me, perhaps it's time to Google MF (and so learn that MF means "Hammer of Fools" 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)). (I did not have the experience of a classical education.) I just referenced the older gunfighter in John Wayne's The Shootist, reflecting on the archaic notion of honor: In many stories, the old gunfighter just wants to be left alone but is regularly bothered by some punk coming along to challenge him, either for a thrill or to make a name for himself. Maybe they have some kind of death wish (thanatos) that they can fulfill best by bothering better editors.

The Scot article was very interesting, as was the linked book on the discovery of witchcraft. An article that cites Keith Thomas is always promising!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought the hammer around here weighs ten pounds. Those who relish verbal combat will find plenty of it here, while those who are lovers rather than fighters can find many pastures teeming with wildflowers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

When challenged by an honorable opponent, I have never ceased from verbal fight nor has my sword slept in my hand....

I dreamed to mend whatever sectarian mischief seemed to afflict Wikipedia, but now that winds of August blow I learned that I was crack-pated when I dreamed.

Wikipedia is run by fatuous children dedicated to giving those even more ignorant and undisciplined a play-stage.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was not in a good mood when I wrote that. However, it has been quoted by a fan, so by WP rules it has to stay.

Please preface it with "Today I'm fed up, and not in the mood to qualify statements with 'some', 'and grown ups', 'sometimes', 'or it feels this way at the moment', sprinkled liberally: For example,"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wisdom

Heh

(diff | hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎; 12:13 . . (+780) . . Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs | block) (→RfC threat: It is hard to see any good coming out of these past drama shows, , I probably should not have wasted my time responding to them.)

Very true, just remove "probably". :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

*LOL*. Thanks for the reality check!

There is an encyclopedia to write.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yawp about barbarism

"A crucial turning point occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased identifying the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves ... was the construction of new forms of community within which moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness." "What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time."

(Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, p. 263)

Repeated "grow a pair" sexism

Closed discussion

Posted at WP:WikiProject Feminism and WP:WikiProject LGBT

Hi brothers and sisters and fellow somewhat ambiguous persons,

(1) At an ANI about me, an editor that an administrator "grow a pair" and block me.

My reply requested that the editor avoid sexist terminology like "grow a pair", particularly when addressing editors (me) displaying the Livestrong userbox (about testicle cancer). The sexist remark was not redacted, and nobody else objected the sexism.

(2) An administrator who had closed yesterday's ANI, removed the Livestrong (testicle-cancer survivor) user-box in a special and final edit . The next day he repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard.

(3) Then an arbcom administrator repeated the phrase "grow a pair" at the Administrator Noticeboard.

None of these remarks have been redacted, and nobody else has objected to them. After I wrote "Nobody gives a shit about your gonads" in response to the last "grow a pair", there has been another suggestion of blocking me.

I am not a saint. The ANI arose mostly because of my clean-ups of articles on American socialism. At my worst, I had firmly criticized an edit describing the majority of the Socialist Party of America (includingMichael Harrington, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, Sandra Feldman, Rachelle Horowitz, etc.) as "democratic centralist (Leninist)"; this edit had removed "Stalinist" before "Stalinist democratic-centralism" from an unreliable source.I also asked a fellow who kept misunderstanding what I wrote whether he had poor vision, like myself.

However, whatever my faults, I do not deserve the last two repeated, consciously sexist (but intended to be humorous 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)) pokes, at least one of which was (in my hour of darkness but not now, 07:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)) a deliberate baiting.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

I wrote "somewhat ambiguious" in the sense of "less definitely male than I once was". My experience of a bilateral orchiectomy has been repeated terror, not practice.

I believe that men's feelings on these matters are similar to women's on mastectomies and hysterectomies: Having had one radical mastectomy and one hysterectomy, a woman may be forgiven for being irritated by statements about "hysteria" or "that time of the month" or "a pair of tits". Say, three statements that a "pair of tits" makes a "real woman" who would be able to step in and care for somebody, in a situation where caring was called for—if the synechdoche and metonymy were ever made. This irritation would be pardonable, imho, especially if she had asked that such sexist statements cease (noting that she displayed a pink-ribbon user-box) immediately after the first comment.

I am happy to have raised awareness about sexism and cancer. I also am happy to discuss this issue with those like Cullen's son (below).

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This user supports the fight against breast cancer.

P.S.

Why would a bilateral orchiectomy be so terrible, in practice (not in imagination or as an instinct)? Men who have been fully castrated have been able to use testosterone supplements and mechanical erectile-devices for decades. Ditto with men with Type 2 diabetes. Men with prostate cancer are often advised to have an orchiectomy.

Schools of medicine and social-work often have educational videos about sexuality and disabilities, which are required viewing.

Correspondence

Personal reply I have a 21 year old son who was born with a variety of minor to moderate "birth defects". Among those defects was an undescended testicle, which did not respond to a variety of treatment attempts. Such a testicle is at a greatly increased cancer risk, and about ten years ago, it was removed on the advice of his personal physician. I will never forget his deep and understandable fear in the hours before the procedure, and how he insisted that a note be written in marking pen on his thigh to ensure that the surgeon did not accidentally remove the functional one. My compassion is with you, as it is with my son who contends with a wide variety of challenges with cheerfulness and grace.

Let us look forward to the day when no one would repeat such a demeaning remark especially after its painful impact is pointed out. I bid you peace. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I had the privilege to meet Michael Harrington once and hear him speak a few times, and I know enough enough about the others you mentioned to know that characterizations such as "democratic centralist" and even more so, "Stalinist" are simply absurd when applied to such people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what kind of dispute you got yourself into and chances are you probably did manage to get yourself into a sanctionable position. However, I agree that it is quite bad that others (including admins) did manage to get away with insulting your physical amputation and disability. Since there isn't any process that checks the power and conduct of administrators, I think you are pretty much stuck with this kind of abuse. You can try to bring this to ArbCom and see if they will do anything about it. Meanwhile, you should try not to break any rules or you may find yourself banned very quickly. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

ADDED: You should be careful about being condescending in science pages. A lot of them are roamed by actual Ph.D's and professors (i.e people with at least your level of academic credentials). Even if you don't agree with their edits, do make sure you pay the proper respects and be open-minded about the possibility being wrong. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot think of a single time I've had these conflicts on Wikipedia in mathematics or statistics. I started a bit roughly on Bayesian probability, but within a month I think that I had learned the ropes. I mentioned elsewhere sometimes disagreeing with some leading statisticians here, but we've always worked it out. (The only conflict in statistics was with an editor who no longer edits.)

I presume you are a frequentist? I am surprised you didn't start a war in the hostile territory ;) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the intellectual problems of the ecumenical movement (and pedagogical problems of the new math), the end of the ecumenical movement (like the new math) influenced my childhood, and I was exposed to Catholics, Protestants from other traditions, and even Jews in my church (and at summer camp) at an early age. I have always been allergic to cults and catechisms (I quote the Presbyterians, like many other things, ironically), and I have tried to seek out the good in opposing viewpoints. (For example, after I gave a friend Dissent, he gave me National Review, and I was surprised that most of the writers seemed like nice people with interesting views, although on most US political questions we would disagree. No wonder that Michael Harrington and William F. Buckley were friends.)

To me, when I hear people talk about "Bayesian" and "frequentist", I am reminded too much of racist and anti-semitic and anti-Catholic bigotry I heard, rather openly, in my hometown, or contemporary anti-Israel or anti-Muslim or anti-Sami or anti-Gypsy or anti-American bigotry in Sweden.

I was pleased when Abraham Wald showed that Bayesian procedures characterized reasonable classes of statistical procedures around 1950, so that among mathematical statisticians there is no theoretical difference. I was also pleased to learn how streamlined the neo-Fisherian likelihood approach is, which is popular among many British statisticians, but parts of it seem dogmatic and cultlike, and don't the applicability towards prediction and practice (operations research and designing studies) that Bayesian and decision-theoretic statistics do.

I tried to explain that de Finetti wanted to give a subjective definition of probability that could be falsified by finite sequences, which seemed quintessentially frequentist (more than the "frequentism" that Kolmogorov abandoned c. 1964) and make some other changes that everybody knew were correct. Well, they were mostly reverted, but some parts of the article improved because of the ensuing discussion.

You can look at fiducial probability to see that properly referenced material thrives there, although I know (no quotes) that the stuff is nuts! *LOL*

So I do not regard myself as the anti-Christ, and was at first amused but now less amused by the various statements about my editing behavior. (I believe that Carrite gave a fair account of me at the ANI, at least regarding political articles, but I don't recognize myself in the others' descriptions: You can see that much of these antagonisms, at least the three for which a wise administrator suggested an interaction-ban, started at RfAs, where conflicts have been over my opposition to having minors be administrators and my statements about scholarship as well as the less delightful parts of my personality)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Cullen,

I'm very sorry to hear about your son. His doctors were right, that the non-descent is one of the largest risk factors, and I won't second guess their decision: Unless your insurance allows MRIs, it would be very difficult to find a tumor until it was too late to avoid an orchiectomy and threat of secondary tumors---and the miraculous increase in five-year survival rates following platinum-based cytotoxins don't provide much comfort when we know nothing about their carcinogenic effects (which will be showing up in the next 30 years).

I had the same fear before the orchiectomy, and my Swedish doctor made the same precaution with a pen, and explained that only one would be removed while they did the biopsy of the second, and they would never remove both at once, but give the patient some time. I'm sure your son experienced the same animal fear, which is a product of at least a billion years of evolution, and that fear is not something I'd wish on anybody, and certainly a fear from which a young man should be spared. The other testicle afterwords increases testosterone, which will be more of a concern only in later years: He'll do better in school with just one! And fertility is not a problem: Its only the 5-15% cuckoldry rates (and rapes, which one wishes is dropping) that have kept humans' at double the size they need for fertilization.

Usually I would just remark to myself "ignore the assholes (thinking to myself)nonsaints" but I was tired after days of dealing with the ANI and the RfC. Somebody should say "no, this kind of sexism is inappropriate". I didn't know that Kaldari was on-line, and I thought I would stop the repetition fastest just by reminding people of what I had written at the ANI: Castration can be a useful topic of conversation: Swedes and Finns have convinced me of the value of silence.

When I had earlier objected to somebody's description of one of WP's finest editors as "courting the WP fraternity" among a lot of other nasty misogynist phrases, and having people deny that there was any sexism---then it was also Kaldari who appeared and explained that those phrases were entirely inappropriate. I had thought that these issues had been settled in work and public life soon after the Clarence Thomas hearings in the U.S., and probably around that time in Northwestern Europe too. I had thought that the younger generations were even more (perhaps too) alert that sexism was inappropriate, particularly deliberate prolonged sexism.

People typically edit after work, when their inhibitions have dropped, and adults do talk like adults, so I cannot stay upset. Now I don't believe the most knowledgeable administrator was being especially vicious; the phrase may have just stuck in his head. (My memory is so different than non-historians' that assuming good-faith is less automatic for me than I would like.) For me, this was just the last example of one-sidedness in the application of "civility", about which I had been complaining during the last 4 days.

Politics:

Bayard Rustin had the courage to face death and did experience a chain gang to bring democracy to the USA. Michael Harrington was over at my house and I attended his funeral, and he was about the nicest guy I have ever met: Irving Howe said that he found the Christian charity of Michael beautiful. Tom Kahn worked wonders to help Solidarity, which has never been forgotten by Poles; a friend of mine told me yesterday that he remembers the AFL-CIO's donated printing presses in corners of peoples' flats (which had been smuggled with the help of Swedish and French unions!). Our article called them "democratic centralists" (but not "Stalinists" like the SPUSA pamphlet)for 5 years. I don't believe that I over-reacted, as I explained to Carrite (above), but I can understand that most editors may think that I was a lunatic.

I've given up hope that my ANI antagonists have the knowledge or energy to educate themselves about content disputes, even in politics. Nobody seemed to understand that it was a smear to drop Elliot Abrams and Iran Contra into the SDUSA paragraph, as well as being a lie. And I've warned the editor about it, just hours before he did it again. Yet I'm the one with the behavioral problem.

During these days when I've been re-evaluating whether I give a damn about what these AN/ANI participants think, your message of understanding and good cheer means more than I can say.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Tell your son he can write me anytime if he has any questions.

Your truly personal remarks mean more to me than I am capable of expressing right now. I will share this exchange with my son tomorrow. Though he's not a Wikipedian, I am sure that he will find the exchange most interesting. His various disabilities give him a uniquely poetic way of expressing himself, but I will pass along anything he might have to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I'd just like to say here that I do have a personal perspective on what you and Cullen's son have gone through, as it is likely in my own future. I do sympathise utterly, and even though I am not, I can see how you've been offended by the comments. I know I agreed specifically to not make comments on discussions that do not concern me at fetchcomms page, but did feel an urge to offer sympathies in this instance. If you feel my comment is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to remove it. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm, thanks for your words and thoughts.

And you thought I was "aggressive" a few days ago! Imagine what I was like in my prime! ;)

I said elsewhere that the first comment was non-optimal but okay, and I was more concerned with sexism than accusing the first of baiting me to humiliate me. At the ANI, I also took the opportunity to raise awareness with the Livestrong symbol, because awareness and going to a doctor immediately are vital. The AN repetitions were probably just coincidental but I had had enough.

The take-home messages are

(1) to avoid sexism on WP as elsewhere. It is important to stand up for disempowered people (even those not present) and firmly to demand a stopping of sexism when there is a repetition by a group. This is most important in the US for gay bashing.

(2) You can get cancer so you should do self-examinations; if you feel vague weirdness in your abdomen or even by your kidneys (which is where most pain from such is perceived) for more than 2 days, then you should go to a doctor. (And don't worry, most of the time you'd have a benign cyst, anyhow.)

You don't have to feel sorry for me. Thanks again for your thoughts.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK .. please allow me to apologize. I am very sorry, and I honestly didn't mean to offend you; nor do I take such things lightly. I removed the user box because the braces were interfering with the close of the thread. Yes, you're absolutely correct in that I should not have made a further remark about "a pair" and for that I am deeply ashamed and ask that you please forgive me. I felt frustrated (and I know that's no excuse) in the sense that I was trying to stop the drama and bickering, and you turned around and opened another thread. The objectionable phrase was a common theme in many of the posts, and I was trying to get you to cease and desist from continuing this drama laden affair. I STILL think you need to back down here, dial it down, and drop the stick, but I did express myself poorly. I am very sorry for any suffering ANY person must endure in life. From an encyclopedic point of view however, it seems so many of the threads are "you" against "many", and in our [Wikipedia] culture, that simply does not go over well. Even if you are RIGHT, ... it's a "consensus" rules culture. I'm just trying to get through to you so you don't get blocked or banned KW. I don't like to see folks run off here. You're honestly walking a very fine line right now, so I ask PLEASE: try to get back UNDER the radar here. Again I am sorry for offending you. It wasn't my intent, I simply wanted your attention, and for you to LISTEN. Best — Ched :  ?  09:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hej Ched!

Don't worry. I wrote to somebody else that the phrase just stuck in your head, and you weren't doing anything with ill will: If you were, you would have been more subtle, for starters!

Your first repetition of the phrase was slightly irritating, but I remembered your previous comments, and I just thought that you were trying to get me away for my own good. If you were really somebody who enjoyed humiliating people, you would have not been so helpful with your first comments on your talk page.

It was Elen's repetition that really irritated me, because I knew that she knows better! (Now that I've cooled off, I well imagine that she was having fun with gender roles, sliding the signs of the signifiers, etc., and probably was using humor to try make AN less tense. I can hear her now, in my mind's ear, a mix between Julie Andrews, Margaret Thatcher, and Miss Marple---now I'm being wicked!) SM's response didn't help ....

I was fed up with my perception of the whole ANI/AN experience, over many days. I wish Worm had gone with his first instincts and closed it, or shouted for somebody to close it with conviction, rather than offering a wish....

I may have been unfair to the ANI "regulars", who ignored the thread; I think that almost all of the participants (save Worm) were antagonists or co-editors of mine before hand, so my complaining about ANI was unfair.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been wracking my brains for a way that I could have handled that AN/I thread differently and I think you might have struck it. I should have boldly closed that thread on my first comment - hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm,

Thanks for the note.

Experience is so important. We all learn from our successes and failures, and you will have more confidence and comfortably exert more leadership the next time an meandering and non-constructive ANI thread comes your way. In this case, since you have been somewhat involved before, it was only natural that you were hesitant to close it yourself. It wasn't your responsibility.

What's done is done.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry. Yes it was intended humorously (Joyce Grenfell I think is the most apt - I've always got on well enough on old biddy power), but I can understand how it will be totally offensive to yourself or any man affected by such medical problems, and I would never set out to personalise a noticeboard discussion in that way. Please accept my apology, I certainly had not intended to cause you personal distress. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen,

Don't worry about it.

It is amazing how my mood improved with a few kind notices on this page after the ANI. A swarm of horseflies now looks like a group of people, with the usual curiosities, kindnesses, and flaws of groups of people.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of peace...

...and general goodwill, I apologise if you took my "grow a pair" comment the wrong way. It was never directed at you, and I had not seen your user page so was not aware of your past medical history relating to this. I still believe that you can be overly confrontational but in your defence, we all have times when we do not keep our calm very well. I bid you happy editing. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Strange Passerby!

Thanks for the note. I have written to others that I didn't believe you had stalked and studied my user page, and so therefore I never assumed that you used the sexist phrase specifically to humiliate me.

Nonetheless, phrases like that are not appropriate for work or school, and probably should not be made on WP, also.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from my son David

Hello Kiefer,

I copied the whole "grow a pair" section into a Word document, and then printed it out for my son David to read. I highlighted the most relevant sections and put Xs next to the debate about Baysian probability and frequentism. He's no mathematician, although his uncle in New York is. He read the document, and laughed out loud about the phrase "grow a pair". I asked him about it, and he knew exactly what it meant. He asked me what "cuckoldry" meant, which I explained as the humiliation of a husband whose wife had sex with another man. Otherwise, he understood the issues just fine. He is proofreading as I write now, correcting my typos as I make them. That is one of his skills.

He had this message to pass on to you: "You could tell him that your son is happy to know that someone who has gone through a double version of what your son has gone through, also cares about a young man who was so scared he thought he might die on the table. Seriously, I thought that. I am trying to be honest. I imagine that Kiefer Wolfowitz was even more scared of death. I'm trying to give this person my side of my story. What does he do for a living? Tell him I hope he has a nice long life, and lives to have many more happy years." After he read my notes, he added, "If he tells you his job is none of my business, then I will just butt out from it."

This is a young man who the experts say has learning disabilities. I say that he has learned a lot.

The final thing I want to tell you is that my son David has helped with the Relay for Life in our home town for the last six years, which raises money for the American Cancer Society. We sponsor a team, and he is the most enthusiastic advocate, year after year, to be sure that we are organized and raise the most money possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen and son!

I have to do some professional work that requires some concentration, now, so I shall have to be brief. I am a statistician (and mathematical scientist), but I cannot take sole credit for statistics being the sexiest profession in the world, according to Hal Varian. ;) *LOL*

"Cuckoldry" was not the right word, as your excellent definition clarified. I should have written "infidelity". (I think that geneticists rarely publish these numbers, or agree to publicity, because of fear of provoking murders and abuse.)

Your son obviously has many talents, particularly in organizing things, and it is a pity that he is not around to keep my workplace more focused on its goals! ;)

About disabilities, all of us have disabilities: Compared to Michael Jordan, John von Neumann, Mozart, etc., we are all severely handicapped.

For example, the actor James Earl Jones suffered from a severe stutter, which distressed him so much that he stopped talking for 8 years. Now his voice is one of the most famous in the world's history. Even in John Sayles's brilliant Matewan, which is filled with promising young actors who have since become stars, his performance stands out; his character's response to being called "nigger" and "scab" is probably incomprehensible to those who don't understand my reaction to phrases like "fascist", "neo-Nazi", and "democratic centralist".

The important thing is to do a good job at whatever you do, and try to find a job that uses your talents, is challenging, and where people work together.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)