Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Lindahl tax GA review

hi, first of all thank you so much for reviewing my article and giving suggestions. I have already started working on them.

please keep giving suggestions, its really very helpful. i will try to work upon whatever you said and get back :) Devanshi tripathi (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Devanshi!
It would be good to read more reliable sources, and then put them aside for a month before writing your own article from scratch, and then return to the reliable sources to establish the sources (with page references), particularly for anything surprising or questionable.
Don't rush the job. The sun has been around for 5 billion years, and the universe will continue to run for a few months while you write. ;)
Enjoy yourself while you write! :)
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Good references

These are so useful, I keep them on my user page! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Helpful links
Wikipedia Resources
Copyright FAQ
Copyright policy
Copyright problems board
CC-BY-SA
GFDL
Non-free content guidelines
Non-US copyrights
Plagiarism guide
Plagiarism dispatch
Guidance for resolving
Citing sources
Donating copyrighted materials
Requesting copyright permission
Wikipedia essay on quotations
Off-wiki links
Stanford's guide
Plagiarism and Copyright
Avoiding plagiarism, Periodical registration renewal
PD chart
Other
Part 1; Military History editorial; Part 2; Military History editorial

Semper Fidelis


GA

Hey K-Wolf--

I'm sure your page will meet muster, judging by the GAs I've seen, but I need to beg off. I pretty much avoid the whole GA/DYK shenanigans; I just try and get the stuff I work on up to "really-really-good-B-article" status and skip the bureaucratic silliness. You might try asking Trust Is All You Need, I think he's a believer in the GA system and should be sympatico.

best, as always,

tim

Carrite (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim!
Thanks for your suggestion. However, I think that I would prefer another editor: I think that GA status was improperly granted to Socialist Party USA, which was sponsored by TIAYN. Now, the SPUSA article is arguably in GA shape.
User:Parrot of Doom User:Dr. Blofeld raised some issues about other GA articles edited by TIAYN, also, mainly about CPUSSR people; c.f. [1].  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


Specific comments: 1. Congrats on getting the pictures, that was a big defect before. 2. I really don't like "quote stacking." "One fact, one footnote" should be the slogan. If there are multiple angles to a fact, feel free to elaborate in the footnote itself, mentioning and citing multiple sources — but there should be only one footnote showing, in my opinion. Pick your best for each. 3. I REALLY hate splitting up Footnotes into Notes + References. Footnotes should be sufficiently elaborate, mentioning all publication data at first use of each source, and any additional sources should be in Further Reading. This, of course, a matter of style about which honest people may differ. I've seen other people use the system you use, I just don't like it. This is easily a GA, but the system is inherently subjective and bureaucratic, so don't stress too much if somebody differs. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrators, alligators, tribbles, pathogenic yeast, menacing beggars, armadillos: A comic menagerie

A rodeo clown's job can be quite dangerous, as in this example of a person being gored by a bull.
BTW, I think that you are wrong to use alligators. Whether "alligators" refers to vandals or administrators, real world adult alligators eat the young of other alligators, and most young alligators don't survive long enough to become nuisances. When I was in a foul mood, I once suggested "tribbles"; however, "tribbles" doesn't apply to vandals.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Tribbles are fuzzy and make people feel happy. I don't think that's particularly apt. Administrators are more akin to surly "spare-changers" packing handguns. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the surly "spare changers" packing handguns is apt. I encountered several aggressive beggars during the hey days of crack: One woman (whose physical characteristics would preclude her participation on Jerry Springer) started to take off her pants on Broadway unless she was given 5 USD; another guy asked for 5 USD, mentioning that he had a knife and knew how to use it.
I've not yet seen such crack-head demands from administrators, although some of them have similar (but more subdued) demands for immediate satisfaction---or else ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps pathogenic yeast?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeasts can... er... exchange their sex alleles. Using that may offend admins of particular... special mating phenotypes. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeast are capable of many deviant sexual practices (e.g. "budding") as well as conventional reproduction. My goal was to amuse myself and Carrite with some horseplay; Carrite has been in a state of irritation following the one-vote desysopping of C**t, which I can understand, and I wanted to make him laugh before he replied at RfA. Commiting another genetic fallacy,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Budding is not really a sexual practice, although the diploid's formation seems pretty kinky (like a particularly son of Hermes).
Speaking of ArbCom verdicts, it's not necessarily a bad thing to be hard on misbehaving alligators. I've had a few on my back ever since I created this account and wouldn't mind having their teeth pulled out for a broth of Chinese medicine. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why you would have problems with administrators.
Sometimes various administrators comment with authority when they run across the worse features of editors' personalities, which rarely helps, but is understandable---assuming that they have disinclinations to read talk pages and see the counter-productiveness of school-marmish criticism on most---on me, being a momma's boy, school-marmish criticism usually results in my sitting with my back straight for a month or two ...!
Othertimes, there can be low-intensity conflicts between an administrator or ape administrator that can blow up, with a huge waste of time, but most of us try just to ignore or minimize contributions to such drama. (At least I'm trying ....)
I get annoyed when a kid administrator misquotes policy or quotes irrelevant policy at me or another editor, but even then, what harm is done? The kid usually won't act on his misunderstanding, and wouldn't have support if he did.
Maybe if we restrained ourselves from writing "the last word" and looking more clever than the other fellow, we would help diffuse administrative adventures and return more speedily to editing?
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That works in theory :). How much experience do you have with articles on controversial subjects? I also don't think the age of alligators is necessarily the issue because age is not a very strong indicator of credential and maturity after a certain point in the age spectrum. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't you tell from my prison-yard slouch and dead-eye look that I have done my time? View the history of Social Democrats, USA, Socialist Party of America, American Left and my talk page. I also cleaned up roughly 10 articles copy-pasted from a leftwing site, either by rewriting or by "calling on a higher power" (summoning experts with tags about copyright violation concerns). For this, I was accused of misusing such tags to advance a political agenda, among other crimes against humanity .... ;)
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I've been accused of funkier things... like being a paid Communist cyber agent or destroyer of Wikipedia. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Shiva me timbers! Does being a destroyer-of-Wikipedia pay well? Does being a Communist cyber-agent pay well? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
If you require a metaphor for administrators, we are more like lizards or armadillos. That's due to the thick skin to ward off criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ed!
This discussion was mainly for comic diversion, with me acting like the rodeo clown trying to amuse an irritated editor. But thick skin does help in many areas, and particularly in being an administrator. (Perhaps the tree man of Indonesia would make a good administrator?)
I did mention you as a particularly good administrator some months ago, btw!
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Thick skin is a good trait to have for everyone, in fact. Alligators have thick skin too, by the way... at least most of them. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeast (from article)

The yeast cell's life cycle:
1. Budding
2. Conjugation
3. Spore
See also: Mating of yeast

Yeasts are eukaryotic micro-organisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with 1,500 species currently described[1] estimated to be only 1% of all fungal species.[2] Most reproduce asexually by mitosis, and many do so via an asymmetric division process called budding. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of a string of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or false hyphae, as seen in most molds.[3]

Yeasts, like all fungi, may have asexual and sexual reproductive cycles. The most common mode of vegetative growth in yeast is asexual reproduction by budding.[4] Here a small bud (also known as a bleb), or daughter cell, is formed on the parent cell. The nucleus of the parent cell splits into a daughter nucleus and migrates into the daughter cell. The bud continues to grow until it separates from the parent cell, forming a new cell.[5]

Some species of yeast, such as Candida albicans, are opportunistic pathogens and can cause infections in humans, particularly those with compromised immune systems.

A photomicrograph of Candida albicans showing hyphal outgrowth and other morphological characteristics.

Cryptococcus neoformans is a significant pathogen of immunocompromised people causing the disease termed cryptococcosis. This disease occurs in about 7–9% of AIDS patients in the USA, and a slightly smaller percentage (3–6%) in western Europe.[6] The cells of the yeast are surrounded by a rigid polysaccharide capsule, which helps to prevent them from being recognised and engulfed by white blood cells in the human body.

Yeasts of the Candida genus are another group of opportunistic pathogens which causes oral and vaginal infections in humans, known as candidiasis. Candida is commonly found as a commensal yeast in the mucus membranes of humans and other warm-blooded animals. However, sometimes these same strains can become pathogenic. Here the yeast cells sprout a hyphal outgrowth, which locally penetrates the mucosal membrane, causing irritation and shedding of the tissues.[6] The pathogenic yeasts of candidiasis in probable descending order of virulence for humans are: C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. stellatoidea, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, C. guilliermondii, C. viswanathii, C. lusitaniae and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa.[7] Candida glabrata is the second most common Candida pathogen after C. albicans, causing infections of the urogenital tract, and of the bloodstream (candidemia).[8]

Pax Britannica, or waxing Fripp

George Orwell praised the civility of English life, for example, the tradition of military personnel wearing civilian clothes, in his essay"England, My England". This essay was written to strengthen England's resolve in World War II and to suggest the principles that should guide the reconstruction to follow that terrible destruction.

Today, Englishmen should still be proud of English civility. Can we imagine Robert Fripp having blossomed in any other country?

"Please act towards others with goodwill and with courtesy; otherwise, be polite"

Although civility is often discussed in the Wikipedia community, we may still benefit from considering the Frippian spirit of the Orchestra of Crafty Guitarists, e.g. the Guitar Craft House Rules

Some people here you will like, others not.
Some people will irritate you.
No blame! You will also be irritating them.

Please act towards others with goodwill and with courtesy;
otherwise, be polite.

Honour the role, respect the person.

You are not asked to accept any direction that violates conscience.

And sit with your back straight and relax!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: English Wikipedia

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


I tried ...

I copy-edited the Signpost article about Wikipedia Foundation's vetoing of a trial.

My version

Foundation overrules community consensus on autoconfirmation trial
Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller stopped English Wikipedia from conducting a trial of a policy requiring that new articles be created by autoconfirmed editors.

In a bugzilla thread, English Wikipedia editors disagreed with MediaWiki sysadmins over a proposed trial for barring non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles. The proposal to require autoconfirmed status had gained many supporters in a widely publicised Request for Comment. However, the proposal was blocked by Wikimedia Foundation staffers and developers.

The proposed trial would changed the mechanics of article-creation, in which currently a large portion of articles created by new editors were swiftly deleted and their authors reprimanded. The proposal was to barr new editors from creating articles and rather to funnel them through the Articles for Creation and Article Creation Wizard processes. The proposal aimed to reduce pressure on new page patrollers, to irritate fewer new editors, and to improve the quality of new articles.

The proposal was vetoed by Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller, who said, "Creating a restriction of this type is a strong a statement of exclusion, not inclusion." "It will confuse and deter good-faith editors." Möller agreed that Wikipedia needed to improve the atmosphere for new editors and to provide a "friendly, welcoming and understandable experience". He suggested three steps:

  1. simplifying the actual workflow of new article creation and reducing instruction creep
  2. experimenting with alternative models to provide new users with safe spaces for new article development
  3. connecting new users with experienced mentors faster.

Möller and the developers suggested that English Wikipedia address the problems facing new editors by working with ArticleCreationWorkflow project at MediaWiki.

Their suggestion was criticized by English Wikipedia editors. The initiator of the bug report Snottywong wrote that "ArticleCreationWorkflow doesn't discuss any real solutions to the problem, so I will not be contributing there". The Foundation staff were criticized for unilateralism, incivility and a patronising tone, by some editors.

Volunteer developer and long-standing English Wikipedian Happy-melon wrote,

There *is* a separation of *cultures* here, and it's something that an awful lot of members of the wiki communities do not appreciate. The developers and (separately) the sysadmins/WMF form their own separate communities with their own goals and practices; and those goals and practices, while closely matching those of enwiki or whereverwiki, do not necessarily precisely align. There is nothing unrealistic, or wrong, with enwiki having goals which are very slightly different from those of the WMF as a whole, or for their requests to not be ones that the Foundation feels bests fits with their own strategies.

After the veto by the Wikimedia Foundaton, English Wikipedian and developer MZMcBride made a list of incidents where Wikimedia systems administrators had rejected configuration changes.

Status quo ante belles artes

If it is reverted, then somebody should remove the word "English" from this Wikipedia! ;)

Where was George W. Bush when he is needed to copy edit?!!!!?!!! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


Foundation overrules community consensus on autoconfirmation trial
Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller, who intervened to halt the implementation of the Autoconfirmed article creation trial, which was seen as striking an unwelcome exclusionary stance.

In a heated altercation between English Wikipedia community members and MediaWiki sysadmins in the course of a bugzilla thread, a proposed trial for barring non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles, which had garnered significant local consensus in a widely publicised Request for Comment, was thwarted by Wikimedia Foundation staffers and developers. The trial had been motivated by the perceived ineffectiveness of prevailing article creation mechanics, whereby a large portion of articles created by new editors were swiftly deleted and their authors reprimanded. By barring new editors from creating articles and funnelling them through the Articles for Creation and Article Creation Wizard processes, it was hoped to ease pressure on new page patrollers, alienate fewer new contributors and ensure a higher quality of new articles. After reticence to implement the trial from sysadmins and an intemperate reaction, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller after acknowledging the stated intentions of the initiative, put the boot down firmly on the petitioners' hopes:

However, we believe that creating a restriction of this type is a strong a statement of exclusion, not inclusion, and that it will confuse and deter good faith editors. Instead of trying to address many different issues by means of a simple but potentially highly problematic permission change, we believe that in order to create a friendly, welcoming and understandable experience for new editors, we need to apply an iterative, multi-prong approach, including but not limited to:

  • simplifying the actual workflow of new article creation and reducing instruction creep
  • experimenting with alternative models to provide new users with safe spaces for new article development
  • connecting new users with experienced mentors faster.

Möller and the developers attempted to redirect efforts to the ArticleCreationWorkflow project at MediaWiki in the face of strong resistance from the English Wikipedia community members, with the initiator of the bug report Snottywong commenting "ArticleCreationWorkflow doesn't discuss any real solutions to the problem, so I will not be contributing there". Charges of unilateralism, incivility and a patronising tone were levelled at Foundation staff as it became evident the report would not result in implementation. Volunteer developer and long-standing English Wikipedian Happy-melon attempted to bridge the growing divide with an entreaty for perspective:

On the other hand, there *is* a separation of *cultures* here, and it's something that an awful lot of members of the wiki communities do not appreciate. The developers and (separately) the sysadmins/WMF form their own separate communities with their own goals and practices; and those goals and practices, while closely matching those of enwiki or whereverwiki, do not necessarily precisely align. There is nothing unrealistic, or wrong, with enwiki having goals which are very slightly different from those of the WMF as a whole, or for their requests to not be ones that the Foundation feels bests fits with their own strategies.

In response to the incident, English Wikipedian and developer MZMcBride assembled at Meta a list of instances of Wikimedia systems administrators rejection of configuration changes. The firm insistence of the Wikimedia Foundation to pursue its own vision of sustaining and developing the Wikimedia projects in defiance if necessary of the wishes of the core community of its flagship project – and the chief source of its funding – is an indicator of how far the organisation has grown in its brief history, and is sure to raise the hackles of those who conceived of it playing a primarily supportive role to the local communities.

More politics: Libertarian, social-democratic, and neoconservative

Re:Advice

I would be hiding under the guise of age if I did that, Kiefer. I don't want to make my fellow contributors think I am someone I am not. I am forthright and honest about my age, and I feel it would be a lie for me not to be. I think being open and honesty about it is the right thing to do. :)

And for the record, the page is vastly smaller than a previous revision I will not list here. I will likely seek help on removing these previous revisions (I was not aware it could be done aside from vandalism), but I do not think my page is overly controversial. Thank you for you're advice, I greatly appreciate it. :) Toa Nidhiki05 22:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Toa!
Thank you for writing me, and thinking about my suggestion. I think the people at the page will be quite helpful if you would ask for anything.
I hope that you are enjoying contributing to Wikipedia, and that you shall continue.
Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Libertarian socialism": A contradiction in terms, or great bustard?

Like a tennis amateur, E. P. Thompson's forehand smash was lethal to his academic left, in his polemic against Louis Althusser and Perry Anderson, "The poverty of theory". However, his backhand was feeble against his right, particularly in the objectionable "Open Letter to Leszek Kolakowski": in it, Thompson compared himself to a great bustard (pictured).

Thanks... by the way, that comment section on lib. socialism has been dead for about a year. :P Toa Nidhiki05 22:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

“To leave error unrefuted is to encourage intellectual immorality.“ Karl Marx (quoted in 'The Poverty Of Theory' by E. P. Thompson.).
;) (My friend Toa describes himself as a conservative with libertarian leanings, so I tease him a bit ....)
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see... Anyway, thanks for the advice and I look forward to work with you at some point in the future. I'll also be sending a request, so thanks. :) Toa Nidhiki05 22:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DSOC

Hey K-Wolf, I'm not understanding the "Self-Pubished Sources" flag on DSOC. Did you run that up or did somebody else? Is it in reference to using Harrington's memoir? Carrite (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hej Tim!
I think that I added that; perhaps a secondary tag would have been more accurate. (An autobiography, no matter how accurate, should be supplemented with secondary reliable sources, if possible; two reliable sources are mandatory for possibly contentious statements made about living persons.) I cannot find anything false in Michael's memoirs, and therefore I did not remove or challenge any statement citing it as false.
I mentioned previously that I have tried to find sources to supplement my references to Horowitz's memoir of Kahn, even though she carefully documents everything (or states that it is her personal opinion based on 30 years of friendship).
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the tag.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Action: Gertrude Hillelfarb

Don't miss the action at Gertrude Himmelfarb‎. Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not my favorite author, but the author of one of my favorite review sentences, about Paul Johnson's The Intellectuals---namely, "This is not a serious book". It may have been written in National Review, which I received as a joke after I had sent Dissent (magazine) to a friend.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference YeastRef1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kurtzman2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kurtzman1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Balasubramanian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yeong2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference YeastRef9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hurley1987 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference YeastRef10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_19&oldid=1143114367"