User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Afd

Hi Kiefer, I saw that there is an Afd open about a statistics related topic, and the article is flagged as "needing attention from an expert". Since I see you know a lot about statistics, if you're interested, you may want to look at Restricted randomization. (Note: I haven't !voted in the discussion and have no real opinion either way about the subject.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I saw it earlier on the math-stats project(s), and meant to have a look.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind the BLP/RS bullocks, here comes another future ANI critic with "civility" advice

Incivility

• recent diff

Hi.

Please take the tone of your rhetoric down a notch. personal attacks and incivility are simply inappropriate.

Please try to talk about the content in question and not an editor.

If this sort of thing continues, you may be subject to further sanction, such as being blocked. - jc37 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go away in peace.

I wrote about his stupid behavior, not any stupidity---per WP:NPA.

You should be concerned that he's damaging articles, without having a clue what he's writing about, per Pillars 1-3 and 5 of this "encyclopedia".

Have you left him a warning about any of the first 3 pillars, like "hey, this is an encyclopedia, so you should be responsible about editing, especially about living persons---especially since our biographies become the most visited biographies on the planet"?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundant redundancies

This is it

Kiefer.Wolfowitz does not always follow his nose,

which sometimes doesn't know,

the flavor of loops,

where ever he goes.

KW does not write in Brian Eno that "Eno is recognized as a master of colorful breakfast-cereals", despite having heard that Eno is fond of loops and ....

KW wishes that a WP editor would not have written in Roger J-B Wets that "Roger Jean-Baptiste Wets is an American programmer".

Seriously You need to stop this right now. If I see this kind of incivility again, I'm going to report it. I'm telling you once more because I know that you know better and I'm sure that you're a productive member of the project. There's no reason for you to be so hostile and rude to others and if you don't stop, it's going to impede your ability to be productive as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying here and take this as a final warning (again) that you cannot flagrantly be belligerent to other editors. Simply put, Wikipedia does not need you if you're going to be so off-putting to others and keep them from wanting to engage the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Koavf,

Please read my reply to a similar but much better worded concern.

I don't rewrite your articles on Brian Eno and write that he is a cereal manufacturer---because at day care a friend of mine ate Froot Loops, and I read that Eno loops things. I am aware of my ignorance, and my humility prevents me from destroying articles, particularly BLPs.

Bot-like implementation of WP:MOS heuristics---regardless of BLP guidelines, respect for living persons, and veracity---deserves scorn. I am tired of your rigid editing on P J Crook, whose lack of periods has led another editor to a worse fiasco at Roger J-B Wets.

Please go in peace.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

False modesty

Unwarranted self-deprecation

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

More redundancies

(The title is WTT/David's, not KW's. 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC))

Hi KW. I know we've had our troubles, so you are welcome to take my comments with a pinch of salt, a dash of tarragon or even a blob of marmite. Feel free to just ignore them all together, if you so wish. I notice that you've been having a few troubles recently, with categories and requested moves. Can I suggest you change tack with regards to Justin? You seem to have made quite a few comments regarding his editing style, rather than actually discussing the substance of his nominations. Those nominations are wholly within standard wikipedia process, though it's not an area that I edit often. Some of your recent comments seem to be completely at odds with your recent insightful regarding summer camp Worm^TT · (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi David/WTT!

Nice message! :) How can I not give you my full consideration?

Justin has been showing up in article after article, in which I have been editing, and I cannot see how his noticeboard-style (rather than talking with editors on talk pages) results in a better WP or is reasonable. I repeatedly asked him to read the lede of articles before he recategorizes them, and I am sorry that he still has failed to reply to that request.

I am unimpressed with most of the discussion at the category noticeboard, which seems concerned with quoting poorly understood parts of the MOS, whose proper application requires first establishing the facts in question. Your recent edits showed that this expert panel had misunderstood the MOS. You looked at P J Crook's spelling in RSes, which none of the others has claimed; I believe that one has found an example of "P.J. Crook" once.

I had already struck-through "go away", adding " go in peace", before your non-redundant and thoughtful note. "Go in peace" remains good enough for some reliable sources, and should it be should be good enough for Wikipedia.

I noted your ascension to the clerkship on Malleus's page. I would trust your judgment not to close tight RfAs, and I think that you should consider helping out as a bureaucrat also. I have previously noted wishing that you had won ArbCom election, rather than AGK. I should be happy to co-nominate or be an early endorser for you as a bureaucrat.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So you did! I hadn't noticed, I don't habitually watch Malleus' page. I did however notice that I had been mentioned with regards for 'cratship on WT:RFA. I left a note there regarding my feelings on the matter, but basically it's a very high level of scrutiny for a button. I ran for Arbcom because I saw flaws in the system along with a negative perception, which I thought I could improve. I'm not a repetitive button pusher, it just doesn't hold my interest. As for clerkship, it's feeling horribly bureaucratic for very little useful output, so I'm unsure if it's a role I'll stay in. I'd much rather help new users at a twee drinking ceremony.

My thoughts on PJ Crook was that if she calls herself PJ (a common shortening, such as PJ Harvey) - then it's actually a common name, not an initiallisation. The sources seem to agree with that line of thought in any case. When it comes to the categories though, it does appear to the outside observer that you emptied a category which was up for deletion and placed all the items in an almost identical category. It appears to me that they are coincidental factors, but I can see why other editors are bothered by it. It also gives the impression of double the number of categories up for deletion, which never helps.

I've looked at Justin's recent tagging though and I don't see that he's doing anything wrong. He's raised these issues in the place that most editors would expect them to be raised. For example, bringing them to CfD exposes them to neutral editors who have no hat in the ring. It's not hard to post a neutrally worded note at the relevant wikiproject. If you consider an article that might be going through a deletion process, would you expect the nominator to discuss the deletion with the wikiproject first? I certainly wouldn't. Either way, negative comments regarding Justin using AWB or not creating articles only serve to take away from your other points which, in general, are correct.

Oh, and can I just say thank you very much for the vote of support and offer of nomination with regards to cratship, I really do appreciate them. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Yes album covers

Category:Yes album covers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"All I know can be shown by your acceptance of the facts there shown before you

Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion"

Jon Anderson, "Starship Trooper", Yes,

Please make yourself redundant from the redundant task of moving "Yes album covers" to the redundant "Yes (band) album covers", which is redundant because no other Wikipedia Yeses have album covers.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Rainwater

Article writing, obviously less important than bad-mouthing writers at ANI until an administrator takes the bait...

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• A dull hook for dullards.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  To understand this comment, look at the TLTR discussions over the last year on this article and ~Peter Orno, the latter dropped out of process from DYK, at a cost of 10 thousand readers. Also compare my original hook which had a lot more pep, "even after plagiarism and having planted an explosive booby-trap".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Does mention without link (ordinarily) prohibit a See also?

Another example of the ferocious Kiefer.Wolfowitz intimidating a new editor....

Hi Kiefer!

Some time ago, here, you removed a See also link to Riemann surfaces. You kindly wrote a brief explanation, with a reference:

RS are mentioned in article, so cannot go in See also section, per WP:MOS

However, when I glanced through WP:MOS, I found nothing about this subject on its main page; but I did find something on its layout subpage, namely the following:

As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

(See WP:ALSO!) Is this what you were referring to, or did I miss some other text?

Note, that indeed Riemann surfaces are mentioned once in Multivariate function Multivalued function [Sorry!], but that there is no link to this article. Best regards, JoergenB (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi JoergenB!

I think so. It seems that I over-stated the guideline, which suggests not linking (rather than prohibiting such links).

For the multivalued function article, I think it would be useful to link Riemann surface where it appears.

If you look at the journal Set-Valued Analysis (which is edited by Mordukhovich or Wets, I believe), you can see that it neglects Riemann surfaces. Perhaps I am following that example?

Thank you for your understanding and for your gracious words. I am in a rush today, moving again....

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So, this isn't my field of expertise; I'm more of an algebraist and cominatorian; but I've got the impression that Riemann surfaces are more of an alternative to multivalued functions than a subitem. In multivariate functions (or set-valued functions), you manipulate the range (e.g., simultaneously considering two different "square roots", or the set of both roots as one value, for every complex number); in the alternative, you replace the domain by a Riemann surface (or by a higher dimensional complex manifold), and as the result get an ordinary univariate function (e.g., by defining the square root on the twofold helix joined at the origin). If I've understood this correctly, it might motivate a brief section on Riemann surfaces in Multivalued function. However, as the article is organised now, I think that a "See also" is more natural than a somewhat obscure link in the middle of the example section. JoergenB (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My judgment is that set-valued analysis has many more related topics, epigraphs, subdifferentials, level sets, tangent sets, cotangent sets, normal sets, etc. I have difficulty imagining a reader moving first from multivalued functions to Riemann surfaces, unless the reader were an editor depositing the link from the former to the latter (the editor's interest). I think that some Swedes have written theses generalizing convex analysis to complex spaces, with little results to show for their work, alas, and essentially no international interest. I am arguing against your adding the link. I am not stating that I shall remove it. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned, I do not belong to the "pluricomplex school", and I have no opinion on the relative merits of different subfields of complex analysis. (I mentioned the higher dimensional counterparts for completeness.) Since I also think that analysists would be better editors for a potential new section on alternative approaches, I'll defer this to your opinion. Thus, I only have added a link to the only occurrence of RS in the article, to wit,

... thus reducing the multilayered Riemann surface of the function to a single layer'

although I still think that this could be fairly confusing. (As I wrote, the function on the Riemann surface is not technically the same thing as the multivalued function on (a subset of) C.)

If you think this improves the understanding, you might add a {{further}} to the examples section. JoergenB (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that we could ask JEB and get a very strong opinion ... probably citing Beurling or having hallowed refererence to "hårdsvenskanalysis" (or was it "svensk hårdanalysis"?). ;)

There was a nice Russian monograph using residue calculus of multivariate generating functions that the AMS translated and published, that you should look at. (I like positivity: Sedgewick & the French guy's 2nd volume had a long section on Pringsheim's theorem; I don't remember whether it mentioned Boas's correction of Pringsheim's proof? The Generatingfunctionology books has a section on Hayman's method: You might look at Paul R. Rosenboom, who had a nice probabilistic paper on it, that seemed never to have been read, when I looked 10 years ago.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Today, I happened to run into Jaja (alias Professor emeritus Björk) in our department pentry, and did ask him... Yes, he (of course) had some things to say about Beurling, but actually said more about Weyl's contribution.

However, Jaja agreed with my opinion that RS should be described more as an alternative to multivalued functions, than as a property of them. He also pointed out that a certain multivalued function corresponds not to a RS, but to a certain meromorphic function on a certain RS. JoergenB (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hej Jörgen!

Lucky you! He's a very interesting personality, especially scientific, able to discuss with depth and originality on many many topics, of each of which I know very little. A friend of mine said he was very valuable on hiring committees because of his ability to evaluate algebraic and analytic contributions. He would be among the world's top 20 experts on discussing algebraic analysis, I would guess.

Another interesting fellow missing the E in JEB has similar , and has a nice paper on sums of sets, which is described in Krantz and Park, I think; a related question appears in a paper by C.O. Kiselmann. Did you know that sums of semi-analytic sets in the plane can have boundaries that are polynomial of surprisingly small degree? (Check the details!) I endorse COK as another interesting personality, in every way! Get to know him!

Come to think of it, I should shut my mouth, because you know all this stuff far better than me, if you are whom I think you are. If you like to relax in the commutative region of algebra, you might like looking at Shapley-Folkman theorem and think of Newton polytopes, etc.

Keep up the good work!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Discipline Global Mobile/archive1

Hello K.W, I know you're blocked at the moment, but I've left some comments at the above peer review. Hope some of them are helpful. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man!

Your announcement brightened my day. :)

Your suggestions were very good. At very least, I should reformat the DYK-related cites.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Linear-programming meet-up

One man's meet is another man's and.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Bootleg recording, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sound board (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

• Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
  .

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
  .

• News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded
  .

• Discussion report: The future of pending changes
  .

• WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
  .

• Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
  .

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review
  .

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft
  .

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"spatial median"

A tag has been placed on "spatial median", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 82.132.236.180 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added a redirect spatial median --> Median#Spatial median. I guess the one with quotation marks was a typo. Sasha (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"I've done the same thing myself..." 28bytes (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I forget the correctness of ArticleTitle#String1_String2 v. "ArticleTitle#String1 String2" for redirects. I should have capitalized Spatial, also. Thanks for the assist!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ITNR for elections

As someone who regularly contributes to election articles: Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussionsLihaas (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! This would have made the writing of Tom Kahn and shorter articles much cheaper.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been invaluable to New Standard Tuning, my sandbox article on Steve Ball, DGM, etc. Thanks again!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just coz I'm feeling generous. Pesky (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Forget Dr. Phil! We Germanic persons know that food is love, and that one should treat emotional problems with food!

And I love baklava, especially with coffee!

Hugs,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Baklava is one of the world's greatest inventions. Try it with Kummel. Pesky (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical optimization: Combinatorial optimization

Would somebody ask that Isheden look at the canonical books in optimization (e.g. the OR Handbook Vol. I, Minoux, Fisher, the survey article by Magnanti, and at a lesser level the textbook by Rardin) to see that combinatorial optimization is an important field of mathematical optimization. A look at the principle journal, Mathematical Programming's contents, would also be advised.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

April follies: ANI

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Benchmark: "Harassment"

Scottywong (formerly Snottywong) accused me of harassment, based on my recent edit at Design of experiments.

For comparison of "harassment" standards, notice how a clique of category-happy editors started following my articles, and even to rewrite them, often with embarassing results. You will notice these names appearing at the ANI discussion, which Salvio Giuliano cites below to justify blocking me for a week.

A review of the two previous blocks shows that both were controversial, and even my critics stated that they opposed the blocks. The second block was swiftly removed, in fact. Notice how the blocks were used as evidence against me at ANI.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Restored content

P J Crook

Thanks for the kind words. I have been somewhat of an advocate for acknowledging album cover artists, and tried to petition to have the template infobox album include a line for cover artist (it was rejected). i have created categories for both the fair use images of albums by artist, and for the albums themselves, as you can see with Category:Albums with cover art by Mati Klarwein. I like the idea of linking the fair use image categories and album categories in this manner, and will likely create such a category for king crimson albums with covers by her. ive also done this for book jacket artists, such as Category:Book covers by Richard M. Powers. I feel your category for Crook is appropriate, and said so at the proposal discussion. Seriously, though, dont worry so much about any possible bad/ignorant intent from other editors (which i dont see). stating your case and refuting others cases with examples, rationales, should be enough. wikipeace.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Crook is an interesting case. I suppose her other art should be covered, but her only mention is in the KC articles.

My time constraints and unmet sleep needs made me irritable the last few days. I don't doubt that the efforts at categorizing are well intentioned, but I think that the "don't template the regulars" advice should guide Twinkle-happy gnomes. They should have to check a box stating that they have read the lede of an article before they suggest moving articles and recategorizing things; they should be pushed to write informative edit summaries and they should be pushed to write on user talk pages, by Twinkle probably.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:King Crimson album covers by P J Crook

Knowledge is a deadly friend

If no one sets the rules.

The fate of all mankind I see

Is in the hands of fools.

— Epitaph" by King Crimson

Category:King Crimson album covers by P J Crook, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Category deletion discussions must add zing to your day, but are not worth my time.

Instead of having one informative category, we have two vague categories. We have no examples of P J Crook's art except the King Crimson covers.

Now this waste of time is over.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Famous last words.... Boy was I wrong!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Of course, Koafv/Justin has proposed eliminating my beloved epigraph template. "Of course, you know that this means war!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[Pesky hums nice chord progression from Court of the Crimson King]. Ahhh, nostalgia ... Pesky (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sinfield's out-Morrisseying Epitaph lyrics and lyricism first wowed me. Then the sonic boom of 21st Century Schizoid Man knocked the world on its butt. Then the Fripp--Belew duets and Belew's Byrne-ultimatum lyrics blew my mind. Pretty heady stuff to play while jogging (for soccer).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the sub-constructions within the music itself that really make my spine tingle. Still – even after all those years. (Eeeek! just counted 'em up ...... God, I feel old! I was about seven years younger than my youngest son is, now!) And, of course, Greg Lake was just bloody gorgeous ... Pesky (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(For your eyes only)

If we continue this conversation, I shall paraphrase Clarence Worley discussing Elvis Pressley, or Ray Davies singing about David Watts (not Charlie Watts, but perhaps Bill Bruford). But I would not be fulfilling the office of friendship by neglecting to suggest that you peak at Robert Fripp's instrument.... ;p

ROFL,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I peeked, but didn't peak ;P Pesky (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cursed homonyms! I get so little practice with English spelling in northern Midgård.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

roflmfao! Give my regårds to Fenrir when next you see him; he's almost "family", so you will be quite safe ;P Pesky (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to make reference to the Midgård serpent.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Serpentia Midgårdia monoculis? Pesky (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:P. J. Crook

Category:P. J. Crook, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, Koafv!

Stop wasting time with these idiotic noticeboard discussions. Just propose a re-name and ask for assent, and do it. Less discussion and less waste of time. Go to the noticeboard only if you cannot get consensus.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, examine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz, which concerns a novel case that deserves community discussion. Please strive to restrict the noticeboards and templating to (a) failure to reach consensus through user's talk-page discussions or (b) novel cases that deserve deliberation by the experts. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP-names BLP-schnames

Category:P J Crook, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop Honestly, will you please read WP:CAT, WP:CFD, and WP:CIVIL. Please. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Koavf, you proposed moving a category to the wrong name, which suggests that you did not read the lede before recategorizing it. You seem to recategorize 3 articles per minute, a rate that suggests that you are either a speed reader or an ungoverned twinkler. Do you read the ledes at least? Will you read the ledes in the future?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Koafv,

If you want to continue playing your little games on Wikipedia, I suggest you never use that vandal template on me or another editor again.

Your functioning must have been lower than usual for you to invite any administrator to nuke all my contributions. Please stay away from me.

Also, stay away from articles that I edit. You have enough trouble with reading the name of a living artist in the lede of an article, without as a renaissance man and polymath correcting my errors on mathematical articles I've developed. What fact do you think should be added to the epigraph article to bring it into start status? Semilattice properties? Cosmic convergence? 16:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Art by P J Crook

Category:Art by P J Crook, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandal-Schmandal, nuke-schmuke

Seriously, stop it

WP:CIVIL If you don't stop stuff like this then I'm going to get an admin involved. I honestly don't care if you don't like me, but you're being inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin, you called KW a vandal! It's not really appropriate to accuse others of incivility, under those circumstances! Pesky (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he used a vandal template that invited any administrator to "nuke" all of my Wikipedia contributions. He's lucky that Ceoil didn't jump out of his computer's keyboard and slug him!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you apologise for your sanctimonious hypocrisy Justin, else it may be you who finds himself in hot water. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pot, meet Kettle. Altering someone else's talk page comments is not civil; however, neither is calling an established editor with whom you have a content dispute a vandal. LadyofShalott 20:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

::Nobody asked you, LadyofShalott.

This is the dangerous template he left, whose nuke button I leave for you to test:

{{Vandal|LadyofShalott}}

Please don't remove it without redacting your stupid "civil" remark.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer, I think you possibly misunderstood Lady of Shalott here. Take 'civil' as 'politesse' rather than WP:CIVIL and you get closer to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elen, I trust your judgment more than mine lying under the threat of a nuclear strike, and have struck my irritated (and already redacted to be less hysterical and asinine myself) comment. Thanks for your kindness,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you are absolutely bloody furious. If it's any consolation, the Nuke tool requires an admin to use it, and only picks contributions out of recent changes. Even so, it was completely out of order. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That explanation does help me to relax. I trust that the nuclear option requires some affirmation ("Are you certain that ...?") and may be quickly reversed in case of mistakes.

(Now I understand why an administrator was able to remove a vandal's work last year in a minute, after I had spent 15 minutes going through part of his vandalism.) :)

KW needs to sleep.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Elen is correct in her interpretation. Thank you for your redaction, Kiefer. LadyofShalott 02:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Piping the link from "vandal" to "Kiefer Wolfowitz" seems way out of line to me. I don't know about the specific dispute and don't care to learn. I recommend basic civility to all editors, even to my friends. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have cared if I were called a vandal, given the source, and certainly would have cared less about being called a vandal than about his fixation with reinserting periods into the name of the artist P J Crook, which seems slovenly and willfully disrespectful to a nice painter.

Koafv/Justin did not just link me to a discussion of vandalism, which would have been an egregious, base and baseless personal attack. He used some vandal-template that invited an administrator to "nuke" all of my Wikipedia contributions, which is about the most asinine and hysterical action I can imagine here.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin, your keyboard must be faulty, because I can't see any other reason for you to use {{vandal}} instead of {{userlinks}}Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, that would have got me into one of my wanting-to-hurl-people-violently-about-the-room moods, so I can barely imagine what it must have done to you! But here's a nice beer for you :D Pesky (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Enjoy the rest of the day.

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi!

Thanks for the peaceful note and good wishes.

I shall be happy to run across you in the future, although I pray not where the "religious issue" of periods in names divides us, particularly after I have seen you leave a similar kitten on Piotrus's page. Piotrus is a mensch's mensch, whom I've forgiven for his introduction of Foucaldian discourse analysis into WP and the newspaper.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rock albums by British−American artists

Category:Rock albums by British−American artists, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin, you seem to be turning up here an awful lot with these things. Is this just pure coincidence, or something more sinister? Pesky (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@Justin/Koafv,

Thanks for the polite message.

@TPC,

Justin does a lot of work on categories, and so he leaves messages on a lot of editors' pages.

I was irritated with what I thought was a dogmatic and disrespectful attitude towards the BLP periodization (Roger J-B Wets and P J Crook), but I've seen that Jason has some expertise and does get his hands dirty properly categorizing things. (I probably should not edit when I've been traveling and helping people move during the weekend before a week of deadlines: I was pretty crabby a few days ago.) So my security forces have been told just to follow Koafv around, but not to intervene and certainly to use no force. ;)

I would favor scrapping UK and American rock categories, as essentially being non-informative. Lists of bands in other countries may be interesting. Pigeonholing King Crimson or The Pretenders as "English" or "British--American" seems like a distraction of no interest to anybody.

I was glad to read that you have an appointment scheduled. If I were you, I might have tried psychic surgery or slept beneath a crystal pyramid to get some relief. Good luck!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably don't notice how much Justin gets around, as I don't watch vast numbers of talk pages (despite what my watchlist tells me!), and I hardly ever get involved in XfD discussions or cat. discussions, ever. So I suppose I was just doing that quasi-maternal thing (sorry, can't help it, comes of having had kids, grandkids, nurturing livestock, and all that! I'm afraid it's a bit ingrained after so many decades!) It's reassuring to know that Justin isn't picking on you, particularly. I had gathered that you'd been a bit crabby (can't think how I noticed, lol!) Just to freak you out nicely, you remember that little discussion you and I had about waveforms and so on? – I was kinda expecting another bout of crabbiness around now ... ;P I would certainly have been burned / hanged as a witch not long ago! Unless, of course, I'd made myself utterly irreplaceable in my local community to the extent where nothing would have tempted them to get rid of me. Sometimes I see what you've written, and am an unsure whether you should be given a chill pill, one of these from Tesco!, some nice 'shrooms-on-toast, Forest-style, or whether the eight-foot plaited leather bull-whip, applied judiciously, would be better! All done with great affection, of course. And the black leather gear, thigh-length boots, and dominatrix evil grin ;P Pesky (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I get tired of reading bullshit on an encyclopedia. If I point out a falsehood, I get blue links to civility and threats of dire consequences, e.g. civility blocks; the bullshitters swaddling clothes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Have J. C. 37's misunderstandings of WP:NPA, WP:Civility, WP:Blocking moved from fatuous bluster to wrongful blocks?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm not too tiresome for you! It's not the pointing-out-of-falsehoods which is likely to make people splat you with links, so much as the adding of descriptors like "fatuous". One of my suggestions over at WT:CIV is "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."

I'm making a wild guesstimate as to the region of your IQ (or whichever other measurement suits your fancy), but I'd hazard a guess that, compared to you, the vast majority of the human race are stupid. That's just the way it goes, if you're well above average. And they can't help it. Geniuses have to be cautious about mocking the comparatively-afflicted ;P As per your question, not having looked at them, I have no idea. Pesky (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It was fatuous bluster. I overlook mistakes, of course. But if somebody---negligent in effort and empty of knowledge but posing with authority---is bullshitting on the topic of conversation, which already is a subject of debate, then that person's behavior deserves brief but pointed remonstration, particularly if the person is in a position of authority and public trust.

I prefer Helen Thomas over George W. Bush.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and reminder about tact. I made a similar comment about SG's memory some time ago. I also have noted that compared to von Neumann or Kolmogorov, we are all brain damaged.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It did not help that P J Crook shall be moved to P. J. Crook, despite WTT's discussion of reliable sources' favoring (or favouring) "PJ Crook". Our society and our references, e.g. Wikipedia, should show respect to genuine artists---most of whom are almost painfully sensitive. And she seems like a nice person from the little I know of her....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'm in agreement that the term / name used should be the precise one that artist themselves uses. What's more reliable than the artist themself? I've developed a kinda way of thinking about differences in speed, type, etc. of human cognition and thought-processing of all kinds; partly because I'm HFA, partly because I've professionally instructed people right through the range from severely mentally impaired through to real genius. If you imagine a room full of people, a third of whom are red-green colour-blind, a third of whom are blue-yellow colour-blind, and the remaining third can see only in monochrome, none of whom realise that there are things the others can't see, and getting annoyed and frustrated at the apparent arrogant and stubborn and obstructive stupidity of most of the rest ... there you have a close parallel. Autism-spectrum people can miss things which are blindingly obvious to a load of other people; non-autism spectrum completely lack the ability to see (with immense speed) non-obvious details which are overwhelmingly clear to the autism group, and the remaining third lag behind both groups and can't see what any of them are going on about, which means they must all be crazy ... I think the whole world is a bit like that. It's one of the biggest reasons why one shouldn't think of high-functioning autism as any kind of disability, it's just a huge difference in thought-processing. We can;t help it, and the non-auties can't help not seeing what we can see so clearly, either. That's just the way we are. Males can't help being males and females can't help being females; same kind of thing. It's not something we/they can actually change, no matter how much we might like to be able to. Shire horses don;t make good racers, and Thoroughbreds are totally useless at pulling two-ton drays.

If you just temprarily removed the word "fatuous" (and all its synonyms) from your WikiVocabulary, you'd probably get 75% fewer unwanted linky-reminders. Pesky (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19: Rush and Progressive metal

Hi. When you recently edited Metal Evolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A nice soothing beer for you!

It may help. It may not. One day, m'lad, you must make your way over to the Forest, and I'll treat you to one of the nicest beers in the world. Pesky (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia to DGM—and back again!

Nice to see that Wikipedia's article led a reader ("seasonedsoup" on March 09, 2012) to the DGM Live!'s forum.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

"Have mercy on us, because we are small and frightened and ignorant".
(Resized in appreciation of Reaper Eternal's latest kindness.

Related to my recent post here which was removed, I've transferred my concerns regarding the matter to the administrators' noticeboard. The direct link to the posting is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2*3*5. Playing the numbers game, e.g. by choosing 3 from "32, 33, 43, 46" is ill-advised.

Wow! SW certainly writes on civility with authority.

You described my response as a "put down". In fact, I expressed a wish that you have a record of similar concerns about the content of Wikipedia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Block by Salvio Giuliano

Per this ANI discussion, I have just blocked you for a week due to an ongoing pattern of incivility. If you want to appeal this block, you can do so using the {{unblock}} template. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Salvio,

I had expected more from you. I suggest you find yourself a better set of friends, if you wish to avoid going with the crowd and making further dumb decisions.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Benchmark: "die you worthless pathetic fucking cunt"

For readers unfamiliar with blocking standards, let me benchmark the kind of "incivility" that (today) received a one-week block:

"you a bitch

I hope you die you worthless pathetic fucking cunt."

Nice place we have here.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Benchmark

Noit a good one. IP blocks are different from registered user blocks for the obvious technical reasons. Not saying you're not entitled to protest your seven day block, indeed I don't really agree with it, but I think you'll find that you're comparing apples and oranges here. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  19:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They are different. Doubtless, an IP calling an editor "a worthless pathetic cunt" and wishing her dead is the kind of editor we need, and Wikipedia's number of editors is declining, and what is far more frightening, the number of administrators is declining. Did you know that some of our administrators once vandalized Wikipedia?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I fear you may have missed my point. You are focusing on the action that caused the block, and claim a benchmark because the duration was the same as yours; the action on behalf of the IP was clearly far worse than anything you did. The focus I'm trying to point out is on the technical reasoning - IP's (with limited exceptions - open proxies, some school IP's) are rarely blocked for long - whatever the action. I've seen plenty of death threats from IP's (including "I'm gonna burn this school down" crap) that will still only result in short blocks because they are dynamic. Had the comment sbeen made by a registered logged in user they would have been indeffed. As to the fact that some admins atrated as vandals - indeed. Curious world! Pedro :  Chat  20:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The disinterest in truth of many Wikipedia editors, especially administrative blockheads, follows a long tradition.

Now I understand your point. Thanks for the clarification, which explains the policy.

At Easter time, we can remember that before Paul there was Saul---and remember the "appease the Romans" pandering of the committee-written Christian Bible.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Kiefer, I know this entire situation is probably upsetting for you and all, and I'm probably not someone you want to hear from—but really, comments like the above don't help the situation, and they probably only do harm. For one, they might upset Salvio, who obviously thinks he is doing the right thing; but even more significantly, for users sitting on the fence about whether you should have been blocked or not, your comments will not give them a good impression of you and they might probably tilt general opinion against you in favour of supporting the block that was imposed. Just try to be polite to other users—it's not too hard once you get going. You don't have to be a perfect gentleman and you don't have to change your personality, but you do have to try to be less confrontational. Just don't belittle others and you're mostly there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

G. Olfactory,

Please read what you wrote and revise accordingly. Cannot you think of any counter-examples to "... probably thinks he is doing the right thing" to being a relevant, good statement? (Hint: Can you imagine anybody committing a mistake while believing that they were doing the right thing?)

Anybody who favors this block has the opinion of an idiot, and I would wish that this condition would be fleeting for you and Mario, for my sake.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was just trying to help out. I suggest you take the time to reflect on how you might want to adjust your approach. I know you're upset, but you can't really write the types of things you have been writing about other editors and remain an editor on a collaborative project like WP. Just sayin'. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

G. Olfactory,

You still have not removed bullshit accusations from the ANI discussion, even after Drmies's comment and my drawing attention to Elen's discussion. At least half of your diffs were bullshit. With such behavior, you should block yourself, per WP:NPA. Until you do, you have no credibility. Just as Salvio has lost credibility with this schoolyard bullying.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did address that issue later on in the thread. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw you recruited JN37 to the block party. Let me respond to your comments on JN37's talk page.

Why did you think that my comment about the editor on the Roger J-B Wets article was oy-worthy?

Did you see what the editor had written ("American programmer"), and understand why it was absurd (c.f., linear "programming")? Here was a guy rewriting a BLP because of his concern about the periods in Wets's middle name, following the debacle at P J Crook. I don't know about Crook and whether persons mis-spelling her professional name is a pet peeve; I do know that Wets and other researchers in stochastic programming have to wage fights with copy-editors who try to put periods in Wets's "J-B". What kind of damage is this guy doing to other articles, when I don't correct him?

You and the block-party at ANI obviously are less concerned about WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS than about WP:Civility "civility".

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes Drama Drama (Yes (band) album)

Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers

The Yes Album has had at least 2 different album covers, e.g. front and back cover-art.

Would somebody please contest the speedy deletion of the category.

Please remove the entry for a cover of the debut album, Yes, which is not alternative cover art for The Yes Album. (My mistake) Somebody should create the category, Category:Yes (band) Yes album album covers though.

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to restore the category? If I did, I would tag it with a speedy deletion template, then we could see if another admin agreed with deletion. I'd be happy to copy any comments to the talkpage that you might have in justifying the existence of the category. I think you probably know, though, that creating a category for album art of a single album is not a usual way of categorizing album art. I took your creation of the category as a facetious protest against the proposed renaming of Category:Yes album covers, not as a serious creation—hence the rationale of "patent nonsense". I thought you were just being silly to make a point. But maybe not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• For comparison, Yessongs (Yes (band) album) already has four paintings displayed in its cover/sleeve art.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have suggested (at least) elsewhere, the category was inspired by the renaming of the "Yes album covers" to "Yes (album) album covers", a renaming about which whose wisdom we have agreed to disagree. I find it amusing, of course. (I have trouble understanding persons who find all of reality humorless, or whose understanding of "brilliant prose" goes against the Encyclopedic tradition: My discussion of Dutch book arguments in Bayesian probability linked to problem gambling, and this link was reverted because it seemed to be a joke.)

However, I have enough self-discipline not to create nonsensical categories.

I can propose redundant categories as a rhetorical ploy to make the proposer of the Yes-renaming a bit uncomfortable, or one hopes to smile at the occasional absurdities consequent upon consistent application of a WP heuristic. The "Yes (band) (band)" suggestion was horseplay, which you cited as grounds for blocking at ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

FUR There is no valid fair-use rationale for displaying four or five images for a single album's liner notes and cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger's hysteric misuse of "disruptive"

Bushranger keeps repeating the broken-record that I was "disrupting" the discussion on renaming the Yes album covers. Has Bushranger, at long last, no shame? ("Wikilawyering" seems to be his favorite fig-leaf covering his naked misunderstanding of WP:Disruptive.) What kind of totalitarian website does Bushranger want, where I cannot "disrupt" Wikipedia by suggesting the renaming of a category to "Yes (band) (band)...?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you want me to do, stutter?

That's one of the problems with consistently using aggressive language towards others—especially in written form, it is often difficult to tell when a user is participating in good-natured horseplay. If you were usually nice to others, everyone probably would have got the joke and taken it well. But if you often attack other editors and call their approaches "idiotic" or "stupid" or "brainless", users generally will find it more difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt and take comical ribbing in the spirit it is delivered. Personally, I have a hard time telling when you are joking and when you are attacking others. Writing on the Internet is not like real life, and we don't have all the verbal and body language cues which generally reveal the true nature of someone's language. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed that such adjectives come out when you and your buddies are disrupting my productive editing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the point. Wikipedia is collaborative. I'm not clear who exactly is being referred to as my "buddies", however, unless you just mean other editors out there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to condescend, don't write like a dimwit---it spoils the effect you desire.

You and your buddies hang out at category discussions. Mine at WikiProject Mathematics and at the talk pages of writers.

At ANI, which I would wish you avoid, you can find that of the 11 administrators Scottywong assembled in his hanging jury, more than one noted that they had a history of passive-aggressive busybodying/"encountering hostility from KW" (your choice).

I would ask you to count the number of those 11 who are exchangeable with a random editor or administrator---I think that most editors and administrators view my block, not as prevention, but as punishment, and that the block was unjustified (because there was no discussion of the context of any of the diffs), especially since I have acknowledged repeatedly that I was in a foul mood 1-3 April. 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But shouldn't these observations be un-necessary, for you, who offer so much advice?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, Kiefer — I did comment at the section and agreed with the principle your communication style is generally abrasive, but I did say a block wouldn't do any good. I do see the block as punitive. I'd rather see you either be sanctioned by the community (through a fuller civility parole discussion) or by ArbCom, but not by a small group of editors at ANI. So just to be clear, I don't support your block, even though I don't appreciate the way you do treat others occasionally. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the honorable action. Similar kudos are due to the redoubtable Wehwalt, Ched, Errant, etc.

My writing style waxes and wanes, and I appreciate your "occassionally". Perhaps you saw me quote, "When I point my finger at you, I have three fingers pointing at myself" a few days ago?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ched's question on Malleus's talk page

See the discussion at Talk:King Crimson about colonials (is) and imperialists (are).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Question by Scottywong (SW, Snottywong)

I had thought that alluding to Diogenese was an act of considerable restraint---when facing a question about how I could show so little respect to the opinions of Scottywong, Fluffernutter, etc. and what would it take for me to listen to an administrator... :)

C.f., one of my favorite exchanges:

Well, (Candidate)'s RfA has 72 supports, so i guess 72 established users are dumb and you're super smart right? Pass a Method talk 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That about sums it up nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:D

I am glad that one ANI-reader, that most pitiable of Wikipedia denizens, admitted to chuckling. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, Scottywong missed the point. Diogenese searched for an honest man. I paid due tribute to Pedro and Drmies already in the discussion. Does Scottywong want a note from me saying "Scottywong is honest."?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss the honesty of him and other administrators. Anybody who reviews what I wrote with the paraphrases of ScottyWong and WTT, etc., can see that ScottyWong and WTT have distorted my careful statements and presented falsehoods, which still stand uncorrected, despite my protests. It is a violation of civility to misrepresent other editor's comments, but ANI is just so full of shit that the honest persons have given up hope, and don't bother to protest.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to gloss the obvious: Doesn't a reference to oneself as Diogenes suggest some healthy self-criticism?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the fact you've been blocked symbolic of the lamp being nicked? Food for thought whilst you sit "in the corner" (was that the phrase?) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes "sit in the corner" was the phrase by an administrator pretending himself or herself to be a school marm. ANI should be renamed WP:Hypocrisy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk about timing ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it?Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude,

Listen to Iridescent when he writes, as he responded to your posting the same message on Malleus's page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did see his response. Frankly, he can read into my finding it ironic whatever he likes (even though he happens to be wrong on both of his assertions). Should the effort actually correct things (or be a step in that direction), so much the better.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a peculiar institution. Dispute resolution=a gaggle sipping mint juleps while fretting and occasionally swooning (because a worker in the fields has failed to learn from their patient scoldings) while waiting for a overseer to provide discipline.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Double standard and shameless bullshit of Courcelles

Malleus gets told to sit in a corner, and ANI ignores the personal attack.

Malleus responds and he's blocked, by an ArbCom member who signed (after reading, one would like to wish) the ArbCom "Civility" "decision"---pageantry of bad-faith bullshit---condemning double standards.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how you interpret telling someone to sit in a corner as a personal attack, Kiefer. Uncivil, perhaps, but I don't think such a comment actually relates to a user personally. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What was written was worse:

"Naughty or thoughtless brats being told to go and play in another sandbox"

"Thoughtless brat" is a personal attack, not a comment on behavior, and it was intensified by the school marm's ending.

Malleus has been blocked for his response, which was then redacted.

Nobody complained about the personal attack. Certainly not Courcelles, probably weary from quoting her Wikipedia-worthy ArbCom decision, and blocking Malleus. Of course, she couldn't be bothered to enforce civility when Malleus was being gored.

This is the problem with two-faced administrative behavior, which is driving down this place.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipedia-worthy" shall be used in the future for words recently thought "uncivil" by blockheads.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Courcelles actually wrote "disruptive editing". The intellectual dishonesty or sloth of the ArbCom decision now appears like intellectual highlights of the new Millenium in comparison with Courcelles's blocking.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI Double standard

The nauseating double-standard of A Quest for Knowledge, who repeatedly removes Malleus's comment while leaving the personal attack on Malleus.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

From Malleus's talk page

"Blocks like these, sanctioned by this silly system, are the worst form of personal attack, lack of civility, and lack of basic sanity."

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Personal attacks

Malleus, this comment is almost exactly what your admonishment in the Civility Enforcement case was telling you not to do. Edit warring to keep it there is doubly bad. You're blocked for 72 hours. You know that was a personal attack, and we've had an entire Arbcom case whose cause was mostly your personal attacks, so you know this wasn't right. If you had just left the removal, I might not have blocked you, but at this point, I feel it is necessary. Courcelles 18:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That really is the final straw, and thoroughly dishonest of you to leave the personal attack to which I was responding. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No request from User:Ianmacm to remove it, no request from anyone else to remove it? Just a 72 hour block over a couple of reverts. Wow. Pedro :  Chat  18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a request to remove it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So I just noticed from the ANI threrad, and was coming here to ammend my comments. My mistake. Pedro :  Chat  18:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I expected this kind of thing to happen after administrators were emboldened by the ArbCom case, so it's now obviously time for Malleus to hang up his boots. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That would, IMO, be a great loss. But I can also understand and appreciate your reasons for hanging up the boots.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This was not a good idea, Courcelles. My take on the situation is that Malleus was bated into this exchange by a user who supported a topic ban of MF and proceeded to impugn his motives and make snide remarks like "There are 3+ million others where your universally admired talent and wit are most welcome." MF has had a great red target painted on his back now—he posts strong opinions, as any of us are entitled to, and admins sit around with their fingers over the block button waiting for some doofus to show up and stir the pot until Malleus makes a comment. Unfair, and unwarranted. --Laser brain (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Two broad points, I blocked after noticing the request for removal had been removed from this page, and the edit warring as continuing. Second, Mal, I voted against site banning you in that case. I think you're a very useful contributor to this project, whose positive contributions outweigh the occasional personal attack. If I had to cast that vote again, I'd vote the same way. But this particular incident was a good illustration of what you were admonished nt to do, and having declined to remove it, and edit warring to keep it in, a block was, in my opinion, necessary. Courcelles 18:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh ffs... WP really does give me the creeps sometimes. No wonder I (mostly) stick to editing "bullshit" articles no-one wants to read. Nortonius (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Bad block. After the ArbCom case Malleus is expected to take abuse and yet not be baited, but if he reacts to it he gets blocked? Great respect for you Courcelles and all that, but this was not a fair or even-handed action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Laser Brain and Boing, but completely fair and warranted. Could you, perhaps, show me the part of WP:NPA where it says "Give back twice as good as you get?" No, you cannot, because the policy clearly states that editors are not to respond to personal attacks in kind, and being "baited" is never a valid excuse. In a first-week newbie, such a gaffe is understandable. In a six-year editor with over a hundred thousand edits, it isn't. Especially given the recent admonishment, either MF is incapable of understanding the civility rules or he just doesn't care to follow them. To quote from a famous sporting incident, "The time for probation or leniency is past. Whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority in the games does not matter. It is a type of conduct which cannot be tolerated by any player - star or otherwise." There's some parallel to that here. Ravenswing 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is ... if you block someone for responding to baiting badly, shouldn't you also ... do something about the bad behavior of baiting? Being a jerk but never quite going over the edge of a personal attack is just about as bad as responding to baiting, quite honestly. What's good for the goose... is good for the gander. If we want to improve civility, we need to police baiting also .. it's just as incivil in my book. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's a "bollocks" to your "au contraire": sports have laws, WP has "policy" which the playground makes up and implements as it goes along. To quote the Bard of Billericay, "You can go to hell with your 'Well well well oh oh!'" Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What a terrible block. Courcelles, what were you thinking? Did you even see what he was responding to? And you left that, without blocking the editor? 66.168.247.159 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan defends being the one to report Malleus at ANI on the grounds that his tantrums are OK because he withdraws their intemperate opinions when asked. Whereas Malleus, as in this instance, stands by his own opinions without trying to worm his way out of trouble. I can respect a man who shows strength of character. Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus was blocked before I even reported him. I am irrelevant in this situation. I rather not get involved here, but as you have mentioned me, IMO - I stand by my insult is not something that deserves respect. Youreallycan 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but you see one can always avoid a baiting charge by claiming to be misunderstood, ill, new, and so on. Something like "I didn't really mean to wind up and kick you in the nuts. I lost control of my foot. It was a muscle spasm. I'm not responsible for that action. But if you kick me back, you're in trouble." Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

When things like this happen, I'm ashamed to be part of this community. Anthony is perfectly capable of looking after himself, and I very much doubt he would want this attack on Malleus. Blocks like these, sanctioned by this silly system, are the worst form of personal attack, lack of civility, and lack of basic sanity. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amen! "Blocks like these, sanctioned by this silly system, are the worst form of personal attack, lack of civility, and lack of basic sanity."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus's GA editing: Steve Lukather

Steve Lukather plays an Ovation Adamas, we learn by reading Laser Brain's Good Article, to which Malleus contributed many good edits.

Hi Malleus!

I just read Steve Lukather, to whose GA ascension you made many contributions. I never liked Toto---ever since their record company took out radio ads heralding the formation of the Avengers "the super-group to lead rock into the 1980s", and I so I was surprised to see him as Ovation guitar's heir apparent to Glenn Campbell as lead spokesperson. On Youtube, Ovation's video-adds feature Lukather.

Steve Lukather seems like a nice and very American (in displaying over-the-top enthusiasm that, as often with Americans, stems from the heart). After reading Lukather's biography, I understand that his session work is even more important than his Toto work. Thanks to Laser Brain and to you for enlightening me.

Somebody could add his one of his Adamas pictures to the Ovation guitar article, which lists Campbell, Kiki (the hands in the feel-good film August Rush), Melissa Ethridge, and Al Di Meola as the lead spokespersons.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The man doesn't get enough credit for his work on "Thriller (album)". If you ask people who played guitar on "Beat It (song)", most of them will name Eddie Van Halen (musician) but comparatively fewer know of Lukather's contributions. 28bytes (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Lukather has his solo on his website. ("Something tells me that we're not in Toto anymore"! ;) Enjoy!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Poor Michael Jackson! Kudos to Quincy Jones for his musical contributions and political savvy in pushing MTV to come to its senses! :) The arc of the universe bends towards heat death, but once in a while justice makes an appearance.

I can remember my teenage rock station always introducing "Beat It" with this introduction,

"And now with a guitar solo from Eddie van Halen, here's "Beat It" by Michael Jackson"

—this from a station that played Maggot Brain at 2 or 3 a.m Saturday night/Sunday morning.

"I was not offended

For I knew I had to rise above it all

Or drown in my own shit."

That could be my motto for the last weeks on Wikipedia. ;D

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A further merit badge for Lukather: He appears as one of the dream-team guitarists on Spinal Tap's Break Like The Wind.

Respect

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to paste a "Like" template in here, but apparently the thing's up for deletion, so I'll have to make do with words: anyone good enough to jam with Nigel is all right with me. (Also: the second guitar solo on "Dirty Laundry (song)" is a favorite of mine.) 28bytes (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an acephalous society.

At Wikipedia, every editor is equal, because we don't do research but only report what reliable sources have published. No intelligence or knowledge is required, and suggesting knowledge is a block-worthy offense.

Wikipedia is an acephalous society.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I was saying.... Again, the hysterics concern my deletion of unsourced unreliable material (from the lede). A WP article on "research methods in the social sciences" might have tolerated such additions, as repeating unreliable WP:reliable sources, but mathematics and statistics have some standards.

Notice the accusation that I have driven off editors (without evidence), and insult that I am a "dragon"

Of course, "civility towards me but not for thee" is the double standard of the Dogberries of Wikipedia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. (I feel peculiar editing through protection to thankspam you, but damnit, you deserve my thanks.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hej Yngvadottir!

You seem to be a counterexample to a paraphrase of a joke from the USSR, about G*d having created persons with 3 properties, "Communist, Intelligent, and Honest", with the catch being any person could have at most two of the 3 properties. Enumerating the

$3={3 \choose 2}$

cases is instructive.

Good luck!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Assume the position ....

File:Dominatrix in leather dress.jpg

You've been a very naughty boy

D'oh! What are you like? "I take my eyes off you for a minute and [mutter, mutter, mutter]" But at least I can post on your talk again now! And you can receive those notifications which you've been missing so much ... Pesky (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you and Reaper! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember to say "Thank you, ma'am, may I have another?" Time to get serious writing something, my friend, there's nothing to be gained by doing Malleus impressions in front of the ding dong club. Give them nothing and the wretches will end up cannibalizing each other as the only way to obtain the daily doses of adrenaline that their sordid species needs to survive. All the best, —Tim. Carrite (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, Carrite! Bend over and take a spanking! For the "doing Malleus impressions" thing! Bend over and pull 'em down, mate! And stop leering and grinning like that ... Pesky (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim/Carrite,

I can imagine only that, following the success of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, Josh Whedon's film has inspired teenagers around the US to get involved with community theater. No wonder that ANI is crowded by Dogberries!

Such commitment to their roles!

Unfortunately, previous acting experience playing the undead—vampires and other life-suckers, zombies, etc.—has also left its mark, and the swarming zombie behavior will be with us for some time. Alas we have neither Buffy nor Daimon Hellstrom to protect us. Hope is a supernatural virtue, for which we can have no rational expectation.... An unwarranted comparison: On the contrary, zombies desire brains and are afraid of fire! We have not observed a fear of fire, but as far as a fear of brains....

For my part, I shall forever rue the day that an imperial scion's impulsive action removed Master Po Malleus from Wikipedia. Perhaps I over-reacted, forgetting that even a Blocking Head's editing life is precious. But, as Master Kan reminded me with a question, "Was not the life of Master Malleus precious? And he was living while you acted to protect him...."

However, my actions have already had consequences. Action against a member of the imperial court entails a life being pursued by the agents, "mechanics", and "cleaners" of the empire. Nonetheless, I shall remain a "man of peace" and continue my dharma, wandering the Wild West of Wikipedia, walking the earth....

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Beneath contempt" was a generous assessment for Demiurge1000's posting on Pesky's page. Not condescending to recognize such postings (and quietly reverting them) is the best policy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, it's just gone 5am, and pain woke me, and I'm full of paracetamol, morphine and dihydrocodeine ... and still my shoulder is on fire! And I won't be able to get back to sleep ... and I'm so tired! Waaaaaaah! Kiefer, dear darling thing, I can so see exactly what both you and Malleus meant, and I can so see why that is ... it's just that I've also seen the pure gold that is in Demi. Demi cares massively about some stuff, but, just like all of us, doesn't always run through every s ingle way what is said can be seen. We all do it (I can't remember exactly what it was that Iridescent said about me, but it was something like cult leader deigning to distribute The Creed to The Masses .... And I can (now) see why he felt like that, bit it's not me ...) There's an immense internal goodness about Demi, but he doesn't always come across well, like all of us, he doesn't always think exactly how something will be received, and there are big wossnames between some editors and others. He didn't mean it in a contemptible way, just like so many of us say and do t hings which just come out all wrong, but the underlying feeling and intent wasn't what was wrong ... I'm waffling. Forgive me! I think we all get "too spiky", a lot of the time. Pesky (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actus reus, maybe – but without the necessary mens rea. Pesky (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Category discussions: Mind-numbing

Category:American socialist organizations opposed to communism

Category:American socialist organizations opposed to communism, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Koafv/Justin,

Please stop nominating categories I created for re-naming while you know that I cannot participate in the discussion.

"Anti-Communist" has negative connotations, unfortunately, because of propaganda by communists and anti-anti-communists. Thus, the use of "anti-communist" carries a considerable POV burden.

"Opposed to Communism" is descriptive and NPOV.

Please paste my remarks to the discussion.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I pasted your comment into the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Its comments made me grateful that I had not wasted my time with that discussion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Malleus listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Malleus. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Malleus redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, an example of the folly of my misspent old age.

I'm younger than that now....

I'm sure that that discussion can continue with only my benevolent blessings.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ken Batcher

Category:Ken Batcher, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, please stop nominating categories for discussion, i.e. deletion, when I cannot participate.

Perceptions do matter. You may wish to review Pesky's comments about your repeated category manipulation---perhaps recalling my defense of your good faith (about which your ANI comments supporting blocking were notably silent). It's not often that Pesky complains about somebody's behavior, and then has somebody defend the criticized person.

Regarding Batcher:

Batcher is associated with a number of other important computer science topics, e.g. the Goodyear Massively Parallel Computer (at least one), associative computing, etc. WP doesn't have articles on many of these topics. See the description of his research at his (Computer-Science Nobel Prize) award. Hillis's book on the MPP called Batcher the original MPP hacker. That said, a rename may be advisable, e.g. to "works of Batcher".

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I pasted your comment into the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)