User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Message in wrong place

You probably intended the message you put at Talk:David Eppstein to be at User talk:David Eppstein. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, John! I was editing past my bedtime. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Firefox is buggy

On three articles, Firefox has lopped off text below my edits. To avoid headaches, I'll be on Wikibreak for a while.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Communism Limited: For example, murder of thousands of Vietnamese

Publishing (friendly to Stalin and Castro): MR criticism of Freedom House

International Publishers

Hi K-Wolf--

This is strictly FYI. I've been reading the Morris Childs/Operation SOLO material that the FBI has been starting to release this month (THE VAULT) and have been seeing bits and pieces detailing the relationship between CPUSA and International Publishers — which was complex. It seems that the CP had a publishing schedule through IP, but the company remained privately held by Alexander Trachtenberg at least as late as 1960 (SEE THIS, FOR INSTANCE). IP generated considerable income from the Eastern bloc in this period, well into 5 figures, perhaps as a clearing house for publishing royalties in translation. Anyway, just a bit of not-ready-for-mainspace info that I thought you might find interesting. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. Thanks for the updates! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Monthly Review and Freedom House

Hi Carrite, you may wish to look at the discussion of Freedom House, where I removed a reference to an article from Monthly Review per WP:RS. Freedom House's talk page has discussion of that edit. I thought (1) it was a dull, euphemistic synopsis of an unreliable source, and (2) that it was puffing up the journalist, and (3) the proposition added nothing new to the statements of Chomsky/Herman, which still were treated extensively. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese Trotskyism: Exterminated by Stalinists

BTW, the article on Vietnamese Trotskyism needs expanding. I expanded a hint of a reference to a full-blown reference  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC):

  • Alexander, Robert J. (1991), "Vietnamese Trotskyism", [http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/alex/works/in_trot/index.htm International Trotskyism 1929–1985: A documented analysis of the movement] (html), Transcribed by Johannes Schneider (February, 2001) with permission from Duke University Press, Box 90660, Durham, NC 27708: Duke University Press {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

August 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Vietnamese Trotskyism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cerejota!
I have no idea what you are talking about. Alexander's book is well reviewed and his conclusion quoted accurately. I also cited Macdonald's 1947 discussion as best as I can, being in Sweden, where I cannot check a university library with material on U.S. politics; WP:RS suggests that non peer-reviewed journals may be cited as representing a particular point of view, which is why I explained Macdonald's politics.
You may wish to consult the user essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to describe the article, whose key points are two: (1) Trotskyism had a large following in Vietnam, perhaps its most successful movement in the world in the 1930s. (2) The leaders of the Trotskyist movement were assassinated by Stalinists beginning in 1945.
You did not remove the second fact from the article, but you object to its being in the lead? Would you explain why?
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Alexander

I quoted a mild sentence from Alexander. What he wrote was much more damning:

"Obliteration of Vietnamese Trotskyism by the Ho Chi Minh Government"

"Although in August 1945 the Vietnamese Trotskyists were an element of substantial importance in the country’s politics, within a few months they had been virtually exterminated — politically and for the most part physically — by the Communist government headed by Ho Chi Minh. The few Trotskyists escaping this holocaust were forced to flee abroad."

Would you object to Alexander's words "obliteration, exterminated, holocaust"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes in the encyclopedic voice, not as direct quotes. However we should avoid direct quotes. For example, the header naming etc were absolutely non-neutral. No "stalinist" that I know of calls themselves a "Stalinist". One should be careful when structuring. For example, compare the section heading I put (which still needs to be more succint) with the long, no neutral one you put. Just because a reliable source breaks NPOV it doesn't mean we should.--Cerejota (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I welcome your copy-editing and suggestions of more "neutral" headings. In general, I would agree that "Stalinist" may be POV; in a discussion of Trotskyism, "Stalinist" is a convenient and conventional descriptor, like "cult" describes some UFO-enthusiasts (who do not regard themselves as members of a cult). Let us try to cooperate on a NPOV and accurate article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC) So far, so good.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I have seen you have not reverted the changes. One concern on due weight I have is that rather of speaking of the history of the subject it sounds more like an attack page on the Ho Chi Minhists, and while some of this stuff its true, it is WP:UNDUE to talk about a small part of the subject's history.--Cerejota (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. I appreciate your acknowledgement that I've tried to respond to your previous concerns. I don't have time (knowledge, interest ...) to write an article about Vietnamese Trotskyism. I believed that it was essential to cover the two points previously mentioned
  1. first that there was a large Trotskyist movement in the 1930s (apparently the largest in the world), and
  2. second that the "Ho Chi Minhists" systematically murdered the Trotskyist leadership in 1945.
Other facts about Vietnamese Trotskyism can be described by other writers.
It is not undue weight (WP:Undue]] to describe the liquidation of a political movement in a few sentences. Compare the Warsaw Uprising (or Nazi killings of Polish professors ...) or the 1980s "scorched Indian" campaigns by some parts of the Guatemalan military.... Perhaps such pages read like "attack pages" against Stalin, the SS, or the generals about which Bruce Cockburn sung. (People who want to be remembered kindly should not murder their opponents, particularly not en masse.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Vietnamese Trotskyism

Hi Carrite, DudeMan, and fellow sectarians!

;)

Some of you are longer in tooth than me, and didn't have your political libraries donated to good will by an ex's papa. Thus you may be better equipped to help at Vietnamese Trotskyism.

(I have asked the militants de base at Trotskyism to also take a gander, on the condition that they don't interrupt the editing with hawking The Militant or asking 40-minute Cannonical questions!)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually have spent quite a lot of time of the Communist Party of Vietnam lately, which was a terrible article and is now a decent-but-incomplete one. I'm sure the Vietnamese Trotskyism thing needs major work. There is actually a Trotskyist tradition in that country, but I don't have the sources on it at hand. I'm trying to get my website up and going again after drifting for several years, which means fixing several thousand links one by one, so I'm a little out of the Wikipedia loop this week. Best, Carrite (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Robert J. Alexander's book International Trotskyism has a 15 page entry on Vietnam (pp. 958 ff.),[1] and is available on-line at Questia. TFD (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That's good news. If approved by the publisher (like the link provided), then maybe that link would be more convenient for all. (I wonder whether the 1945 events may help explain why ex-Trotskyists in the USA who opposed the Korean War provided critical support for the anti-Communist military efforts in Vietnam.) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Cerejota

Please read the instructions for WP:ER. Unless you are going to contribute in a positive manner to improving me as an editor, please stop posting there. Lastly, reverting you is not against any wikipedia policy. Any immediate issues around content or my behavior that you want to address, should be done in our talk pages, the article talk page, or the various noticeboards as you see fit, but not in an WP:ER. You are free to review me as per the instructions of the process, but not to try to user that space to engage other issues. I hope you understand this and rethink your behavior. --Cerejota (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have left you suggestions for improvement. First, you should work on the SWM (Puerto Rico), which lacks reliable secondary sources. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
You have done no such thing. I am raising this at ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. (ec)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually you did leave useful, if highly selective (and contentiously worded), information in the ER, and actually did a review. I have (again), removed the part about the current dispute. Please stop re-inserting this. If you have an issue about this article, lets discuss it at article talk, not my editor review. Please, stop, because you have shown to have the capacity to do the right thing, and I will seek further action if continue to not show competence.--Cerejota (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's see what you have done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I left the template on your page, to impress upon you that you must stop editing other's comments on talk pages. I had asked nicely several times.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


A gentle note had been left on Cerejota's talk page by a kind soul, even earlier, objecting to the removal of my comments.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, WP:ER and possibly WP:CIR. Thank you.Cerejota (talk) 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

¡Qué lastima!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I intend to close the AN/I thread unless someone beats me to it. I am compelled to offer a reminder that edit-warring is a Bad Thing, especially edit-warring with an editor on their own editor review. WP:BRD and all that. 28bytes (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
That AN/I thread was no better than other ANI threads in recent months, which should have been ignored, I've come to see.
I have never seen an editor review where an editor cheery-picks positive reviews. Editors wanting complete control of their editor review should conduct an editor review on their talk page, where they are fully empowered to remove others' comments---although not to cherry pick pieces from another's comment.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Some good came out of that discussion: The ER description has been changed so that the subject is empowered to remove complete comments, similar to an editor's control over his own talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
A gentle reminder of WP:CIVIL

From what I have observed in your debate with Cerejota you seem to have lost your temper a bit... Perhaps just have a good sit down and a nice cup of tea before resuming the debate? And before you ask; I have left a similar note on their talk page as well Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tea is often welcome.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
My talk page

A swift explanation would be much appreciated. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in discussing anything with an administrator (even with such distinguished contributions to content) who violates WP:Civility with a facepalm (not once but twice, despite a warning about WP:Civility) and threatens to slap me with a trout. Such immature and clichéed behavior befits a middle-school bully more than an encyclopedia editor. Don't post here again. I mistook your facepalm for a talk to the hand. As I wrote on the 3RR page, I apologize for my misunderstanding and for my over-reaction. (I can understand the face-palm feeling.) The trout business was small beans in comparison. Again, I'm very sorry for the flame up. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"The copyright crisis" on Wikipedia, by MRG

I highly recommend the essay by Moon-ridden Girl, The copyright crisis, and why we should care.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions about questions: Who surveys the surveyors?

Questionnaire

Hi there, thanks for your comment on Cerejota's talk page. Please advise on how best to pursue this kind of sampling. I have submitted a request for research approval/assistance to RComm and notified the email addresses provided. I have not received any response in a couple of weeks, despite prompting, and I am keen to push ahead with my work. I am anxious to comply with any Wikipedia research regulations, but as far as I can tell from the guidelines I've found I am doing things by the book. Best, Thedarkfourth (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thedarkfourth!
Please see Survey Methodology by Robert M. Groves et al.
Perhaps the Foundation is satisfied with your request.
You may wish to review the guidelines of the International Statistical Institute and the Association for Public Opinion Research for survey research. The main obligation is to maintain public trust in statistics, which in your case may be satisfied by including lots of warnings about non-probabilistic sampling, I would guess. The AOPR has guidelines for surveys.
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this! I will have a look. I would say that a) I will definitely include warnings about sample methods - my research is qualitative and doesn't pretend to be scientifically precise (in fact it's not statistical at all), and b) it's an undergraduate dissertation that will not be published, so it's unlikely to undermine or support public faith in statistics! All the best, Thedarkfourth (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless standards have plummeted since Ramsey, Keynes, Sraffa, and Wittgenstein roamed King's College and C. P. Snow wrote The Masters, you should write a very good thesis, which might well be published.
It's good that you try qualitative methods. Why not become the next Erving Goffman?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey methodology: Spock's Brain

That wikilink in Sampling (statistics) that says survey methodology is presently actually piped to Statistical survey which I choose because that is the presently the main article for Category:Survey methodology. You might like to think about renaming "Statistical survey" to "Survey methodology" if that looks sensible. Melcombe (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I did the move boldly, and welcome reversions. I believe that Bots can take care of the re-linking. Otherwise, we can make a request to an expert administrator. Thanks again!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Then re-write the intro to fit the change :)--Cerejota If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Already done. I am typing "operating at warp speed". :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

This is for reviewing Lindahl tax.

Keep the good work going!

Cheers, 

Ram (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
That was kind! :)
I would underscore that it looks good. I suspect that you can short work of it with a few afternoons of editing, upgrading the citations to lecture notes with citations to leading books, etc. I forgot to mention other good books on public economics, such as David Starrett's Cambridge book, which is Wikified at the Shapley-Folkman lemma, Convexity in economics, Non-convexities (economics) etc.:
I should think that a reference to Atkinson and Stiglitz would be mandatory, also.
Another suggestion would be to simplify the labeling of the axes for your diagrams, a lot! :) Let the captions and the text do the work, and have minimal axis-labeling: This also allows others to use your diagrams for other articles, here and in other languages.
Thanks again for your good-hearted response to my review.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA redoux

Your oppose at my RfA

I'm sorry to bother you about this, but your oppose rationale 1b really has had me scratching my head every time I read it...can you please explain your thought process behind why that's a concern for you? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 21:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm,
I chose discretion about this issue. However, since you asked I answer directly:
Your being grounded right before graduating from high-school raises concerns about maturity, particularly since you left open the option of editing during school-time.
Again, my oppose is rather weak, and I mentioned two strengths of yours, before concluding that I expect to be able to support you within a year. You have few opposes, and most of them recorded similar favorable impressions of you. I believe that you shall pass, and I wish you luck.
:)
Just don't block me until you write a few more articles! ;)
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I can understand the thought process behind the maturity by being grounded thing, but actually still being able to use the computer (and thus edit) at school is my parents policy. They believe that punishments they dish out apply to my house only...so if they take away my computer privileges, I'm still allowed to use a computer at a friend's house (assuming I'm not grounded from seeing them) or from school...about the only way that it applies away from the house is if I'm trying to leave the house for the express purpose of circumventing a punishment (for example, going to the library or friend's house expressly to use the computer would be disallowed). Anyway, thank you for your comments...they make for good constructive criticism. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I accept your account, and I admire your respect for your parents' rules. (I would also understand that some parents' rules are too strict, also.) Good luck at college! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.

My76Strat (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. But I prefer to thank you. For the things I have observed. My76Strat (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A mop in a bucket with its dryer


Dear Brother My76Strat,
Thank you again for the compliments, which are so flattering that I am embarrassed but happy. :)
Given your seriousness, I have thought about your suggestion, and I think that I owe you an explanation about why I have not sought to become an administrator:
I recall only a handfull of times that I regretted not being an administrator: Being unable
  • to correct errors at DYK,
  • to block jerks after personal attacks based on group characteristics (religion, ethnicity, politics, etc.) or after vandalism-only editing histories,
  • to view deleted content (to understand comments at RfAs, to understand contentious articles' histories, etc.).
With the exception of the last inability (viewing deleted content), current administrators have rapidly solved problems (to the extent allowed by consensus). Therefore, I view my not having administrative powers as fine. If I were to become an administrator, I would prefer to edit like Geometry Guy or David Eppstein, and to continue to focus on content. I do imagine that becoming an administrator would increase my enthusiasm to the project—although not enough to warrant an RfA, which I imagine would be stressful—attracting at least a handful of well-documented opposes! ;)
In short, my becoming an administrator would have only a small change on my contributions to the project. The biggest change would be feeding my ego, and also threatening my vanity with the RfA, and so I don't think it a good use of time or energy. I can imagine that similar considerations would apply to that rising star, Cerejeta, and possibly to yourself. So I think that it is best that we all forget about RfAs for a year or so and just edit.
I hope you don't mind if I write a bit more personally. With the lovely and haunted soul of Karen Carpenter, Simone Weil wrote an essay on the The Need for Roots, which extolled manual labor, excessively imho; nonetheless, her essay makes many good points. It is useful to ask ourselves whether we are being tempted by vanity or almost purely by the will to serve others. I think that writing and editing are often exercises in ego-gratification, and that it is best to humble ourselves with plain encyclopedic writing first, before seeking or even accepting higher-profile positions. I think it would be good for both of us to agree not to accept an RfA nomination for a year or more. Would you accept this discipline with me?
Sincerely and cheerfully,
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. When I was young and knew no better, I wielded a mop paraprofessionally, without representation from SEIU's Justice for Janitors; now I suppose that all my edits should be labeled as "labor donated".
That was a thoughtful reply. I understand your reservations, and tend to agree. I wouldn't want to agree on rejecting a nomination for > 1 year, because that would stifle your prospects. For my part, although I doubt anyone would risk nominating me, I would turn it down, and that extends beyond measures of time (my April fools RfA may become an annual feeding frenzie, I haven't decided). Besides, according to theoretical physics, supersymmetry and parallel dimensions, I am already an administrator on Wikipedia, a President, and a King (a few bad things too). In this dimension, I am a happy contributor, and apparently your brother, which is far more valuable to me. Best - My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, My76Strat!
Perhaps because of your inspiration, my girlfriend and I are learning the guitar (with a Swedish book!): However, I fear that the path from E-moll to Frippertronics may be long & difficult! ;)
I don't think that you should have any RfAs on April Fools' Day: One method of feeling better is to avoid negative internal dialogues and self-deprecating remarks, and I think that your remark was a bit too self-deprecating. You are an honored and important member of the community, and you should treat yourself the way others treat you! :) Besides, you should be reading about Peter Orno and John Rainwater on April 1st. ;)
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_18&oldid=1143114360"