User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

DYK for Augmented-fourths tuning

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Something to take your mind off things

The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Congratulations on reaching your 25th DYK! It's not the highest profile area of wikipedia, but it needs as many good articles as it can get, and you're clearly doing a good job! WormTT(talk) 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I'll let you add yourself to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs when you get back. WormTT(talk) 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel more charitable already. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang in there

Hey K-Wolf—

Just a quick note to let you know that I'm thinking of ya. I have no clue how this brouhaha even started, let alone how it escalated to this level of stupidity. You are now clearly the quarry and you have to be smart enough not to hand out the rope that the mob needs to hang you... Malleus impressions do not become you, just do your own thing and let the cheap shots and the baiting slough off. The wankers will get bored and then go find someone else to torment if you don't feed their trollery by lashing out. Best regards, —Tim. ///// Carrite (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Change my vote from support to oppose

Ryan will be a good administrator in the future.

He did however support the (ridiculous) two-week block based on events subsequent to the block, which does show a lack of understanding of due process or procedural fairness.

Thus, I request that my vote be changed from support to oppose. Will somebody please implement it?

Thanks!

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I did not support a two week block, but supported a 2 day block. In any case, I will change your !vote for you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have moved you from support to oppose per your request. In addition, noting the discussion at ANI, I feel all that is necessary for you to begin actively editing again is an unblock request. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ryan!
Thanks for your selfless act, which again shows character.
I have repeatedly admitted that I erred in leaving the behavioral descriptor, "editing like an asshole", and have twice stated my willingness to have redacted that comment. WTT can probably vouch, if he wants to waste his time, that I do acknowledge and correct my errors (at a rate far above my critics, imho).
I have previously complained about the lack of reciprocity in others' failure to rectify errors, and the hypocrisy of administrators complaining about lack of AGF, NPA, and incivility---turning around and attacking you, or "the pulling masses" (whatever that means on that planet on which Kazfiel diddy bops), etc. I trust that Sarek of Vulcan's testimony may be admitted as expert and disinterested, for example.
There has been no admission that the administrators were abusing the term "disruptive editing", which is a blocking offense. Nor has there been even an admission that they should have avoided the term.
Nikkimaria has corrected two of them based on their misreading (or failure to remember the details) of the refactoring policy, but I haven't seen any forthright acknowledgment (although my interest and attention in those administrators remains negligible). Perhaps one of them manned up?
Dinner calls....
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Honestly,
Reading ANI, not just mine but especially the witch-hunting of Malleus, I really have no great desire to have contact with the Blocking Heads. What is happening in the last days? There was a heat wave in the USA, and perhaps the extensive literature on riots and temperature should be consulted.... Perhaps the NHS has run out of lithium? ;) People need to be like Fonzie. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely no one (including Nikkimaria) has said that the block was unjustified. You were wrong about refactoring and you were wrong in how you dealt with it. The only disagreements at ANI were about the talk page protection (which I still stand by) and the duration of the block (which, whether it was two days or two weeks, would still be in effect as of today). Despite two separate attempts by third parties, there is no consensus to overturn your block, or even shorten it, until we see definitive agreement from you that your behavior was unacceptable. No more attacking others for refactoring your comments, or for any other reason. If you're still claiming you were right, as you are here, then we would be fools to end the block early.
Blocks aren't punitive; they are intended to prevent abuse. As such, it's hard to put a number on what will be necessary ahead of time. I tend to err on the side of caution (as in, what is best for Wikipedia, rather than what is best for an individual user), and shorten them as needed. It's clear to me at this point that nothing has changed yet, so obviously a short block wouldn't have been enough. I'm not even sure two weeks is enough, given your past performance, though I would be happy to see you prove me wrong on that point. If you are willing to take some time and try to see things differently, I'd be happy to end the block early myself. But the more you talk about how I was wrong for blocking you in the first place, and how others were wrong for daring to touch your comments or for daring to agree with me at ANI, the more I (and everyone else) can see that you're not prepared to change the way you operate. So, for now, I feel the block has to continue. Keep me posted, though. If you come up with something other than snide comments about witch hunts and lithium, I'm all ears. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
PS - The word I used was "puling".[1] Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Look Kafziel, let me be straight with you, one K-man to another. Your summertime appearance is like "Hurry, hurry, hurry, I eat my rice and curry", a summertime irritant that makes me want to laugh at the folly of humanity. Like Dr. Bombay's song, your posturing on my talk page soon will pass, merely the latest of summertime irritants. You blathering doesn't even have the consequences of a pre-election Republican Convention, so I really could care less. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Kafziel, you are deliberately quoting me out of context, by omitting the smile faced wink after the word "lithium". Run along, you pathetic disgrace to the Marine Corps, and admire your insult vocabulary elsewhere. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/corp_values.htm Honor: Honor requires each Marine to exemplify the ultimate standard in ethical and moral conduct. Honor is many things; honor requires many things. A U.S. Marine must never lie, never cheat, never steal, but that is not enough. Much more is required. Each Marine must cling to an uncompromising code of personal integrity, accountable for his actions and holding others accountable for theirs. And, above all, honor mandates that a Marine never sully the reputation of his Corps.]

Kafziel, if you look a little further up in this very section, you'll find the "agreement" you are waiting for. Thank you for clarifying exactly what uncivil comment was intended; since I prefer to avoid templating, please consider this a warning against same. Since your argument that "incivility is incivility" and that incivility results in loss of privileges, applies equally to all users, I am sure you will have no objections to being blocked "until we see definitive agreement from you that your behavior was unacceptable"? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

pathetic disgrace to the Marine Corps and talk page access removed again, between that and the insinuation of mental illness above, with or without smiley. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow... continuing to insult people after you were blocked for insulting people... Kiefer; you are EXTREMELY lucky that your block was not upped to indef instead of the talk page revocation that occurred. Think about what you did over the next week and three quarters... and good luck! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Is anything lower than harassing a user who has been forcibly muted? Joefromrandb (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Barts1a, you seem to have no sense of judgement. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

B-movie?

File:John Wayne statue SNA.jpg
this year's RfA poster boy?

Who needs The Marines, when we have trusty old Sherriff John of Wayne. What was the felony this time KW? A-rustlin’ them mule comments and a-scaring them women folks again, I’m a-guessin’. I’m really not sure that we ever found out what Kafziel’s “continued incivility” was, did we? At least David Levy was courteous enough to spell out the sequence of events that led to your block. And, even if many editors did not think a block of two weeks was warranted, at least there was reasoned justification.

But we were then told, rather curtly, that “latest insults” meant your Talk Page had to be blocked, yet again, on the basis that a different admin had been insulted, or was assuming that someone else, or indeed perhaps the whole "community", had. A couple of hours later the ANI thread was conveniently closed without any room for further debate. If these really are insults, I’m not quite sure why you weren't politely asked to remove them, before your Talk Page was blocked. Or perhaps the blocking admin can come along and remove them when enough people have had time to drop by and be suitably insulted?

I’m not really sure what danger the personal views you express here pose to the wider community. Editors are hardly forced to come and read your latest “colouful” outbursts (from which I have certainly learned a lot), or even see the very amusing clown pictures. And unless the comments are grossly insulting, or threatening, to named individuals, they might even be seen as a useful way of painting a “very vivid picture” for other editors who may not yet know you!

But it seems that admins can do whatever they want in their interpretation of “the rules”, as long as other admins do not have the time or inclination to challenge them. And your expected response? Kafziel (who looks almost as menacing as Harvey Keitel in Taxi Driver, on his User Page, I might add) says “He can send me all the hate mail he wants.” This outcome seems to me to be a less than optimal community aspiration.

Ah well, as a modern American poet once told us [2]: “And now we act like 26% of the registered voters is actually a mandate... But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for... a B-movie.” (except that we all know that here it’s more like 6%). Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful message and compassion.
These persona do not reward contemplation.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Glad to see you back

Hey Kiefer. I'm glad to see you back now that the whole mess is over. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

God bless Captain Vere!
Thanks Ryan. Don't be afraid of conflict, unless you live in Scandinavia or Minnesota! ;)
It was a fair block but unbalanced by a block (even of an hour) of the administrator insulting you. Perhaps the juxtaposition of the "puling masses" and insults of you before my replies in kind will help educate the community about double standards, and help our better administrators remember the importance of holding all accountable, not just non-administrators....
My expectations are low as far as the educational benefits of such conflicts however. Perhaps you remember that a severe NPA violation occurred at an RfA (perhaps also with a block of Malleus) and I feared that MF would leave the project. So I left a firm behavioral message on MF's page (to AB). This was (justly) criticized by Bbb23---who however was silent when Malleus was abused. Let us hope that Bbb23, who looks like his RfA will succeed, will resolve to be more even handed, and to protect even unpopular or minority editors from NPA and incivility.
To me it was bizarre that, given the stress of an RfA, there was so little concern with NPA and incivility directed at you at ANI and my talk page.
I am pleased that you continue to do what you think is right, even if you must disagree with or criticize friendly editors. True friends are not codependents.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back. Intothatdarkness 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the good wishes and kindnesses during my time of troubles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! I tend to prefer dealing with the "straight-talkers" here. Intothatdarkness 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Straight talk is admirable, and replying in kind (particularly when a guest is insulted on one's talk page) understandable perhaps....
There is no excuse for either
  • partisan enforcement of civility and NPA, by Sarek of Vulcan, following Sarek's having warned Kazfiel at ANI against "puling masses" or
  • of writing "editing like an asshole" (for which 3+ apologies have been written).
Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That RFA

Thanks for amending your comment in that RFA. As someone whose edits are mostly of a minor and unimportant nature I'm very conscious both that one shouldn't take edit count at all seriously and also that such candidates need to mention something a little more substantial in Question 2. ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but admitting an error comes easier to me than to most. I have had more practice! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Denial of Death

You don't have an e-mail link, but I'm curious to know what are your criticisms of Denial of Death. --TimL (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim!
The book can live without my comments. I really have no interest in it, apart from a memory that Jim Morrison liked it. (I carry around a lot of useless information.)
In our previous discussion, I mentioned the book's "theory" of mental illness and my concerns that an unsourced presentation of it did not serve the public interest.
From the article, I was astonished to read about the book's account of mental illness, and my personal reaction stands: Poetic, pseudoscientific, and anti-scientific accounts of mental illness do not meet the standards of WP articles on human-health issues. I suppose one should investigate whether Brown's theories were evaluated by health-care experts, beyond repeating them, in an article. But this is largely speculation, with which others probably disagree, and these thoughts are rather tenuously based on WP policy, if at all! :)
More to the point, or rather---finally to address the point. WP articles should be based on reliable sources, of the highest quality possible. If you can source any of the article's statements that have been deleted, then please do! Find reviews in e.g. the American Psychological Association journals, for example.
(Look at the article on guitar tunings, which is largely unsourced, and imagine how it is difficult to get editors to work on cleaning it up. The kudzu is driving out quality!)
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Kiefer. I'll have to go back and read the deleted content. However the article is not (should not be) about human-health issues, it (should be) about the book and possibly the book's take on human health issues. While arguably not a good source for human health related articles, the book is a good source for, well, the book. The book is largely about heroism as man's main drive to "deny" his own mortality, it does posit that mental illness results from a breakdown of heroism. The book itself is extremely well sourced. I'll have to look at some other articles on books (perhaps esp. pulitzer prize winning books) and see how they are written. What Jim Morrison do you refer to? The famous musician (and only one I am aware of) died 2 years before DoD was published. --TimL (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tim!
Yeah, I had a nagging suspicion that he died too early. Maybe it was another Norman Brown book? Not Norman Mailer or Father Brown, I think. :)
The usual heuristic is that you read a few articles or books on the topic, then write from memory, and then double check your work (looking at the sources, after you've written in your own words) and fix the snafus---like mixing up books or introducing time-travel---like I just did. :)
The usual standard for a beginning article about to be DYK-checked is one citation per paragraph as a minimum.
You are correct that book articles have their own standards, and you should ask for another opinion at one of the relevant projects (before following my other advice!). Maybe you could work a bit at Encylopedia Brown following the death of the series author Sobol, to get the hang of things? Then come back and tell me about my bad advice over the last year! ;D
Warm regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Denial of Death was written by Ernest Becker, a cultural anthropologist  :) --TimL (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yogurt

I didn't want to muddy up the place with text there, but I had to just say: Best. !Vote. Ever. Nicely put, Kiefer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 12:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis! I was inspired by convention T. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

don't cast bread under bridges

For me or for you?

86.24.46.135 (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your posting identical OR at both David and my page did not inspire confidence. Please ask such questions at the math project, which may have a number theorist below the swarm of "foundationalists". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Oxbow (band)

I think perhaps you need to step away from this article and allow it to be constructively worked on. There are a wealth of sources that cover the band. Requesting a citation for the title of the band's first album was a little OTT - the Allmusic bio confirms it and facts such as this are easily verifiable. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Michig, I accepted your comment as good faith. However, you mischaracterized that citation-needed, which was motivated by the fan-boy hoopla you re-inserted ["created an international following that has been growing ever since". I should have caught your mis-characterization before. However, one forgets the details dealing with your re-insertions of "last of the great bluesmen", vocals "between Robert Plant and Nick Cave", and "album of the year", and "most unique" sound. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought I just thanked you for adding references, and I tried to help you with copy-editing. Is your tone really appropriate?
You did have a BLP violation about a person's behavior towards fans, that needed another citation, preferably to something that looks like a reliable source---just to have the appearance of compliance with BLP. (If I queried the triviality about the album title, then I'm sorry for that mistake.)
I have little interest in the band, apart from reducing damage from a fan/member who promoted it across WP, e.g. on guitar tunings. However, I did remove the vacuous "unique sound", etc. Perhaps Demiurge1000 can help you with copy editing?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations?

Is it compatible with WP:BLP for the article to state that a living person has a compulsion to display his penis on stage and that the person has choked out a fan at a concert, with two weak references? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd call it a weight problem more than anything. Almost 20% of the prose, on the article for the band, is about his poor habits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
Have you read Stanley Crouch? He has raised issues about middle-class white audiences buying/promoting racist sexual-stereotypes in blues or stereotypes of criminality in "gangsta rap" (which is very popular in Sweden), etc. Like Stanley Crouch in his review of True Romance in Notes of a Hanging Judge, I prefer my scary black men to be Gary Oldman. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Most unique"

We call this truth self-evident: A "journal" that calls something "most unique" is not reliable. ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has nearly 600 "most unique" phrases. (At least one, "the most unique visitors" made sense, albeit occulted from the "the most unique-visitors".) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I just looked through some of those, there are a number of "very unique" things, as well. If I were more technically knowledgeable I'd program AWB to pick those off, but a few are in quotes at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be a useful additon to AWB, and give people something constructive to do, unlike impoverishing the semantics by replacing the two (or three) fields for month and year (and day) with one date field. :)
"Most unique" is redundant but arguably informative since
"less unique" = "non-unique".
The descriptor "very unique" is a worse abomination, seemingly conveying only that the speaker or writer does not think.
(In the foundations of mathematics, especially mathematical logic and set theory, the introduction of uniqueness is delicate: I should review the iota operator and definite description.)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
What about "verily unique", is that Ok? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I had to read it twice to catch the "verily:
:D
It literally is as good as "truly unique", although it sounds archaic. If you have a serious question about it, I would consult the OED. I don't have a dictionary handy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't use it in an article, but if I ever accidentally start to say "very unique" I'll just switch to "verily" if I catch myself in time. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In conversation, you can just state that you did intend "verily", and I would add "by Hugin and Munin!" so that they know you mean business. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An administrator exemplifying civility: Continued

Yes, you thanked me for adding references, then removed sourced content. Thanks, though, for staying away from it long enough to allow it to be improved.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You had a BLP violation with one flimsy "source". Look at my articles if you want to see what a reliable source is in an encyclopedia. (12:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC))
Well, I suppose that I should wish you many hours of listening to Oxbow, since you seem into that sort of thing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I was sincere in suggesting that you ask Demiurge1000 for help. He's shown interest in the article and he does a lot of good copyediting. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. You should be more careful in future with your use of proposed deletion. --Michig (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
You should improve your command of English so that you do not repeatedly inflict "most unique" etc. on the innocent reader.
You should understand the PROD policy, which gives a choice to either improve the article or delete it. You have improved the article so that it does not obviously deserve to be deleted (although why anybody would want to read it is beyond me...). Congratulations on your achievement. 22:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC) BTW, I had Googled the band and had foreseen that the article risked being a BLP minefield---a judgment vindicated by the initial revision of the article (sadly) briefly (happily)---before I PRODded it. I rarely PROD things. 12:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The article is now in good (and better) shape. Well done, Michig! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The reliable-sources noticeboard agreed with the other editors that Michig's ("Adam Anonymous" at D i S) source was unreliable. Michig's tone remained the same in responding to other editors at the noticeboard and the article's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_39&oldid=1136171852"