Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47

Question for you

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

Kiefer, I left a question for you here. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to help. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not administrators

You said "You had support from Fluffernutter, Demiurge1000, and AutomaticStrikeout" - just as an FYI, Demiurge1000 and AutomaticStrikeout are not administrators.--v/r - TP 15:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, their not being adminstrators, their ANI community theater, and their status in the community were known to me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just use the talk page

As you know, User:AaronSw isn't going to be reading your comments,[1] so I've taken the liberty of deleting your comments on his talk page. You can raise it on Talk:Tom J. Donohue or WP:BLP/N, etc. Besides, I don't see anything greatly wrong with what he wrote, though that last quote could use a more direct inline cite. This seems to me like politics in poor taste. I don't normally like deleting comments, but you had just previously deleted two other users' comments ([2],[3]) so I think turnabout is fair play this time. I don't want the memorial page for one of the greatest people on Wikipedia being capped off with an endless babble of people arguing about an alphabet soup of supposed Wikipedia infractions he never committed. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my note: I had thought it obvious that persons who admired the good works of Aaron would want to help in cleaning up his BLP, NPOV, RS errors. When others have left the project, their admirers have improved or written articles in their honor.
"Turnabout is fair play": You violated talk page guidelines. You obviously are upset, and I trust you can recommit yourself to our policies soon.
I did not delete others' comments. I deleted BLP violations, notifying both editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Aaron's 3000kb attacks on Donahue have been removed. Another commented that he described his edit as "fixing typo" and marked it as minor. His admirers should re-examine his edits and correct similar errors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A friendly suggestion, if I may. If you have identified a pattern of what you believe to be problem edits you'd like to bring to the attention of the community, a note at the Village Pump or one of the noticeboards would cause no distress to the sad people congregating at Aaron's page and be seen by far more people who might agree with you and decide to help. Rivertorch (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like good advice. At the same time, I had wished that persons could take their feelings of sadness and do something constructive. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Too soon. Rivertorch (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
For members of the Park Slope food cooperative, yes. For the many WP editors who left messages without having known or interacted with him, not soon enough. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Kaaaaaaaaaaahn!!!

Just a heads-up that I restructured the Kahn "Works" section into dum-dum WP form from the elaborate wall of template code that you had there. I hope you'll seriously consider the issue of future accessibility to the making of changes, trust me that not one hardcore Wikipedian in 10 (let alone casual WP editors) could make heads or tails of that particular elaborate puzzle that you put together. Sometimes the most simple option is the best option. I hope you'll ponder the wisdom of that before you revert. Best, as always... —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW: It took me over half an hour just to debone that, it must have taken you three hours to put together! Apologies for goring that ox. Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
It looks okay, perhaps easier to understand for most.
Templates provide uniform formatting and vastly simplify updating of information. For new users, various gizmos help with formatting fields. I do miss the Robert Penn Warren annotation, which interests fans of poetry, All the King's Men, and Blackberry Winter. ;)
Dissent no longer has the Democratiya stuff linkable. Where is the spirit of Irving Howe to scold the young 'uns, like Michael Walzer? ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey sexy!

There's a conversation over here which just possibly might benefit from some input from you, if you can spare a few minutes to read through? The guy's had some seriously unjust shite in the past, and Worm's offering a full investigation of all the backstory stuff and a major sort-out for him, but he and Worm got onto a wrong footing, with a real heap of angst on his side, so he's very distrustful atm. Thing is, he's a savant-type (highly, incredibly intellismart - his abilities blow my mind in some areas!) with a medical glitch which just intensifies stuff. Very complex situation, and I don't think I know the half of it. Could you possibly chip in, if you feel able? Pesky (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have time to do anything.
It's also the case that friends have sometimes gotten into conflicts chez Penyulap, and I don't need any more conflicts. It is not a good sign that WTT and he got into a conflict so quickly....
I think that you may overestimate my persuasive abilities, at least with the Teletubbies/The Wiggles at ANI; WTT thinks before he writes, and I'm sure he would consider anything I had to say.
I'll try to look at the page later today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I looked. Penyalup must calm down.
"Deal with people where they are at".
When I was blocked, I did not respond to TParis by criticizing his comments at ANI, etc. I treated him with respect, and dealt with the matter at hand.
The way it is now, there is so much misdirected emotion and text, that it's too much for me to handle. I could imagine Iridescent, Geometry guy, or Newyorkbrad writing something short that would be taken seriously by the community, if there were a just cause, which I cannot say. I would not suggest that any of the three I just mentioned be contacted, from what I have read.
Again, I would trust WTT/David to handle it, and Penyalup's reaction to what I take to be a good-faith offer of assistance suggests that there is enough attention to the page.
It is good that Penyalup has talk page access, and I hope that Penyalup contributes to other Wikimedia projects while blocked here, and shows an ability to cooperate or avoid escalation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm hoping the situation is resolvable; I know Pen has little trust or faith in Worm, but I was kinda hoping you might be able to say something along the liens of you and Worm used to disagree but get on OK now (or something like that!) Pesky (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! What I meant to say was I was kinda hoping he'd take some notice of it! Forgive my zombie-brain, lol! Pesky (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

He needs to focus on diffs. Statements that people are assholes or that administrators often are stupid, while true, do not help anything and just turn off people. Listing diffs where people are shown to be assholes or behave stupidly (while providing context or at least encouraging readers to read a bit) is sufficient activity for an editor who has been mistreated: The goals are to set the record straight and to preserve one's good name in the community of good editors.
Getting a wrongdoer to admit he made a mistake, not just once but repeatedly and further refused to rectify errors but rather deepened them---this is beyond the abilities of corrupted persons, too often. Perhaps over time they can understand their mistakes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC) 15:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yup. I've suggested he do something like my write-up, with diffs for everything, so it's all in one place and everyone can keep track of everything. Pesky (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Life is unfair. Penyalup needs to be accustomed to a harder thing than triumph].
In terms of formal rehabilitation---as a wrongly purged enemy of the people held incommunicado by the secret police---the most he can expect for is to be unblocked, for a neutral statement that mistakes were made by admins and by P, and he will have to accept some kind of probation, at least in the statement of the unblocking admin---whether or not it be deserved.
Later generations shall have the opportunity to regard Penyalup as Wikipedia's Vaclav Havel. Better to survive like Havel then have a stroke like Patocka.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I find it "interesting" to see how many people are quick to dismiss the idea that Penyulap might have been blocked for good reason and encourage him to find evidence of him having been wronged by Them, yet obviously have not collected such evidence themselves – thus illustrating no less a rush to judgement without evidence than the "secret police" is accused of committing. (At least, I presume no such evidence has been collected; it would be a mean trick to play on Penyulap to have done this work and then not share it with him).

Has it not occurred to any of you that the reason why Penyulap has not collected such evidence or accepted offers for help might simply be that he is perfectly well aware of why he has been blocked and that his cries of martyrdom might simply be a means to distract attention away from the uncomfortable lack of substance to his protestations? I expect it is considerably more agreeable to simply presume he is yet another "wrongly purged enemy of the people" to hold as a self-validating example of one's own preconceptions than it is to actually consider the possibility that the block might have been justified. — Coren (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote for Penyulap's reading, and my own writing, and partially for Pesky's. As such, I wrote to Penyulap to motivate him to temper his passions, to avoid a stroke like Patocka.
Pesky thinks that Penyulap can return to editing, and I did a quick look. My writing addressed what struck me as a few immediate problems with Penyulap's being unblocked, his responses on his talk page.
Perhaps Pesky's good wishes are as well grounded as her charity.... Saul did become Paul, an improvement.
Anybody familiar with the cases of Havel and Patocka and the real secret-police would know a healthy dose of irony is compatible with my note, also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I can imagine his RfA statements, which I had not seen, could have led to an indef'ing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Coren, I'm actually pleased to see you chipping in here. I can certainly see why Pen was blocked at the time; no doubt that he did blow a fuse in a pretty dramatic way! Having said that, though, I'm also aware of a couple of bits of backstory which go some way towards mitigation. One (which Pen has mentioned on-wiki himself, so I feel is OK for me to mention here) is that he's had some health problems, notably some problems with his Thyroid, with inadequate medical cover available for them. If you take a quick look at this, it seems reasonable that it would provide some explanation of any excessive irritability and so on. I know there's been some treatment, but no idea how much or how well it's worked. It seems relatively clear to me that he's not out of the woods yet, but I feel that this part of the background may have improved. 'Nother thing: just because someone may seem paranoid it doesn't necessarily follow that nobody's out to get them. I don't think his claims are wholly unfounded, which is why I'd like to see him put together some stuff. F'rinstance, I know that the issue of User:Mir Almaat 1 S1 definitely existed. this should be required reading. I've also noticed that Mir, having been inactive since shortly after Pen was blocked, has suddenly reappeared, and I suspect that this reappearance is not unconnected with the moves towards getting Pen unblocked. It seems a little too well-timed to be pure coincidence. I may be wrong in that, but I think it needs an eye keeping on it. Wouldn't surprise me either if Pen's sock-sniffing nose took him too close for comfort to an as-yet-undiscovered sockmaster; whatever we say about Pen's faults (and I know there are faults!) he does have an uncanny ability to recognise people even if they're wearing a different overcoat.

I think it's worth the effort of trying to work Pen back into the community, IF he puts together a clear history of exactly what he feels went wrong, where, with whom, and why. And does it with as little emotion as possible; just nice clear diffed facts on a timeline.

We can all blow a fuse; that's human nature. Doesn't mean we should be exiled forever; and I don't think Pen is entirely a lost cause. We shall see. If we can get him back, productively and under control, we will have access to an outstanding talent again. Pesky (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding: It's also kinda interesting that one of the other editors that Pen thought might have some connection with Mir, User:Mlm42, took a break from editing from 30 July (the date Pen was blocked) to 14 December. Again, the timing of the commencement of the break from editing pricks my thumbs. Pesky (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is another potential issue which has me slightly concerned, but it's better left to email. Pesky (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many good obsessive-compulsives on Wikipedia, God bless 'em every one.
There are also far too many batshit-crazy, evil, or unstable obsessive-compulsives on Wikipedia, who are not worth the trouble. Better to donate to another site and then upload text here whenever you want, rather than to deal with them. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of the good OCD-ers. I think. But I may be biased. It struck me as ... well ... striking that two of the folks Pen crossed swords with seemed to lose interest in the 'pedia so quickly after he was blocked. You'd have thought that, if Pen had been their problem, him disappearing would have provided the ideal environment for them to be getting on with some article work. But maybe it wasn't getting on with some article work that was their primary motive for being here ... maybe the place lost its entertainment value once Pen wasn't around to be wound up. Or maybe it's all just pure coincidence. Pesky (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course you are one of the good persons, Pesky. That would make you a good editor with OCD, according to your own statements.
I think it was SandyGeorgia who gave me the advice that long-term writers work in a niche, where they are not troubled by jerks. People writing in popular areas quit after having to deal with waves of jerks and even non-malevolent kibitzers lacking in respect. Most of us are writing between diaper changes or after work, and we don't need the hassle. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It is highly amusing to receive advice on the art of comeliness from some editors, whose authority is documented by images! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You

January 2013. Kiefer, sweetheart, I'd appreciate if you didnt mention ABBA on my page again. Im old and ugly to remember them as a child and again as a student when they were briefly cool again in the name of, sigh, irony. For me the 70s begin in 1976, though disco at its best is a lot better than you'd think. To take very obv example[4], whuich is tuetonic as fuck, and high energy gave us[5]. So there. Ceoil (talk) 6:35 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Introducing ABBA in a discussion is prime facie evidence of trolling, I'll admit. If you understand how stereotypical Swedish pop music is even today---Robyn being an honorable exception---and imagine how horrible it was in the 1960s and 1970s, then one can understand some of ABBA's shortcomings. Theirs were the faults of their times, but their virtues were their own....
My baby loves KC and the Sunshine Band. I suppose after she progresses from "Da" to "dada", I shall have to stop singing "That's the way aha aha I like it." I have to figure how the disco thesis of gays and the disco antithesis of Blacks led to the synthesis of Madonna's debut album, which is not disco. A lot of Americans are revisiting Hegel, now that Chuck Hagel has been nominated by Obama. I don't think he wears a bandana in either back pocket. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Da da da. Oh, trolling is always welcome on my page, my I hope you come with good things, cause I bore easily. yeah early regga is really good, I assume you mean dancehall, Desmond Dekker is just so.[6][7] Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yay, ABBA! Ceoil, you are not old. I remember ABBA when they first won the Eurovision song contest. (Mind you, I remember Herman's Hermits, too ;P) Pesky (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The James singer, who doesn't make straight men uncomfortable anymore now that he aged a bit, came out with a list of his 50 favorites, and mentioned Donna Summer's I feel love with reverence. A lot of the hostility towards disco came from insecure young men aping the hostility of insecure stupid men (d.j.'s), who identified with rock guitar. Disco at least had harmony, and developed rhythm. disco and rap/hip-hop and industrial/electronic music probably have corrected an overemphasis on tonal harmony and underdevelopment of rhythm in western music. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Bad Articles

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can write. Unfortunately, their are elitists at WP:Did you know? who insist that articles

  1. have at least one reliable source,
  2. contain a proposition that is cited to a specific page in a reliable source,
  3. not be found to be copyright violations by the DYK editors making a quick scan of its sources (or by User:Nikkimaria after it reaches the queue for the main page), and
  4. be written in standard English.

Apparently, their even worst elitists on Wikipedia---the elitist-elitists at WP:Good articles and the elitist-elitist-elitists at WP:Featured articles, who likely "bang on" with fake English accents as bad as William F. Buckley, Jr.'s.

These elitist demands hamper the Wikimedia Foundation's drive to increase the number of editors, who are responsible for adding most of the characters to Wikipedia, as proved by Aaron Swartz.[1][2]

This WikiProject is for the rest of us, those who are proud of articles that

  1. have no references to pages in reliable sources, or
  2. have no reliable sources, or
  3. that are paraphrases or cut-and-pastes of copyrighted texts, or
  4. are written in everyday English---not the big words and complete sentences that our high-school teachers try to force our older brothers and sisters to use.

Like all WikiProjects, we welcome all participants, especially those who are proud of bad articles.

Reeferences (get it?)

  1. ^ Blodget, Henry (January 3, 2009). "Who The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway?". Business Insider. Retrieved January 12, 2013.
  2. ^ Swartz, Aaron (September 4, 2006). "Who Writes Wikipedia?". Raw Thought. Retrieved January 12, 2013.

Jon Handcock

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 15:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter-examples to the proposition that experience and treachery will defeat innocence and virtue every time

Paco de Lucia's grandson

Amós Lora

Check out this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow!
Better to study the hands de Lucia than the feet of Lucy.
The future is in good hands. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jovenes con Carlos Santana

I've always liked Santana, from seeing him on SNL to a concert as a Freshman till now. Presence and charisma but without the narcissism of the typical guitar hero. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucciano Pizzichini

This is sick. He's playing Pat Martino's Linear Expressions complex jazz exercise to improve note knowledge and technique, too difficult to learn for most adult players!. If you count how many notes he actually plays in the whole thing, for a kid of that age to memorize that number of notes is extraordinary, a true genius. 1:07 is like advanced jazz Berkeley stuff, just wrong for a kid of his age to be able to play it! And he's a cool little rock star and can play some complex jazz chord and lick progressions Stella by Starlight. He's like a kid in a 100 million.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Sponge Bob Square Pants is a good sign. He shouldn't be singing a song about sexual jealousy before he's hit puberty; it's just wrong---much worse than WP geeks becoming teenage administrators. Stella by Starlight and Santana are good for the soul. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Julian Lage

We saw Julian Lage this summer. Tremendous talent, and apparently a smart guy, too. At least he's Alexander-techniqued his picking; Fripp's Guitar Craft incorporates the AT, also. Perhaps I've posted this link of Lage playing "Maggot Brain" with Santana. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah its quite irritating to see guys younger than me who have already played with people like Jim Hall and Herbie Hancock!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I wrote a long and self-amusing note, but Firefox crashed. Here's some links (without my tikvahs) for your meditation. [8], [9], [10]. More gamelan! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
No matter how good you are, there's always an Asian ten times better than you" A quote from another of his videos..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Hard working, good at math.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sound

David Gilmour

Oh man, I'm so focusing on "technical" guitarists I forget how amazing he sounds. See this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

David Gilmour has always been one of my favorite guitarists, and it helps that he's a good man---modest in interviews and helpful to other musicians, like Kate Bush. The spirit of George Harrison lives on!
What do you think of the statement that it's easier to have a good tone on an electric guitar than on an acoustic? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you have more options on electric guitar and a wider range of possibilities which increases the chances of getting a better tone, depends on the player.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Monthly Review

" with less academic qualifications than say New Politics or even (ugh) Monthly Review"

Why ugh? I'm just curious what your criticism of MR might be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartan2600 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

[11] The Monthly Review switched allegiances to the totalitarian flavor of the month, Stalin, Mao, Castro, North Korea---anybody squeezing the peasants and forcing industrialization. When he switched from Stalin to Mao, Sweezy wrote, "forty years is too long for a dictatorship to remain temporary", an under-statement according to non-authoritarians.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This edit suggests that you may still have trouble understanding why most persons find MR reprehensible. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment (now archived) at Danjel's talk page

Re: comment / diff from Danjel's talk page I am aware of the "drunk" comment on the ANI discussion. Can you point out more specifically where other abusive / potentially actionable behavior happened in the thread?

I am not going to suggest that it was a bastion of collegial collaboration, but if you're alleging a pattern of warnable / blockable actions I'd like to see the specific diffs.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

George,
This is the kind of thoughtful and fair- and open-minded response I've come to expect from you. I had written a short testimony to your usually trying to resolve disputes by addressing behavior on all sides, but removed it for brevity's sake.
To me, the repeated statements by BW that misread/twisted Danjel's statement of independence as contempt for WP's core values and evidence of inability to cooperate or collaborate and concluded with calls for indefinite blocking seemed to be more problematic, and should have been addressed by being struck or being clarified. (I think Demiurge1000 addressed these issues, honorably, directly (yeah!), and briefly.)
I commented at Danjel's page regarding the drunk or incompetent issue by GS, which was addressed by others at ANI.
My parody of the "stop the insanity" hyperbole did receive a typical warning from Bushranger, who may set the most extreme ANI standard of double standards.
I did not say that Danjel was innocent or advise him against rethinking his approach to disputes. I did caution him that, at such times, ANI was not a place where he should expect better treatment, and that he should think about contacting Jimbo's page. Large projects (except for military history, when Danks is not active) are usually better for reporting concerns than ANI, in my experience: Good administrators or a calm adult interested in dispute resolution can usually be found at mathematics.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Relatively new editors should be treated with kid gloves when first appearing at ANI. It looks to me like he had a legitimate complaint---again, he could have handled things better. But he was treated badly by many many administrators who should know better. Simple fairness and sympathy suggest being gentle with minorities, and trying to at least let them see that minorities and even wrongdoers are treated with a bit of fairness. There was no such sense of justice at ANI.
The saga continues at his talk page. Ed lets slide the attacks on Danjel, and then threatens to block him for retaliating. And those are his buddies he's covering for. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Guitar tunings

since you are the ISBN linking expert, I trust that you will fix the damage to citation 16 caused by your reverts of my edit. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That change makes no difference, as far as I can see. It would be better to use the 2 templates, for consistency and functionality, as I suggested to the editor who wanted the two isbns for Jim Ferguson's book. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
right, no difference. try clicking on the ISBN and tell me what happens. Frietjes (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
"id=ISBN 0786658444; ISBN 9780786658442" is simpler than the two-template workaround. Thanks for the improvement and showing me the technique. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
What kind of name is Frietjes? It reminds me of the momentous Stieltjes, who was good enough to have been from Kharkov/Kharkiv.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
nl:frietjes, although Stieltjes is a less fattening association. Frietjes (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, Inca fries. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Sing for Me (Christina Aguilera song).
Message added 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — AARON • TALK 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Page nums for references on History of macroeconomic thought

I was trying to clean up History of macroeconomic thought, and I wanted to reformat the citations you had for Dehez and Licandro (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1365100505040368) and Drèze (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014292187900122). I wanted to add page numbers so I went through the articles trying to find what part you were referencing, but I didn't see anything related to the statement "Disequilibrium economics received greater research as mass unemployment returned to Western Europe in the 1970s." Can you let me know which page numbers you were citing?--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Try searching for their discussions of Malinvaud's ToUR and its impact. I'll look at my home bookshelves for references to books. Dreze's presidential address in his book would have a different page number. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. Page one of Dreze's book, underemployment equilibria, states that he shifted from micro to (GE micro-based) macro in response to the rise of unemployment. I don't have Malinvaud's book, I remember him writing that his research was in response to unemployment's increase. These are the two leaders of disequilibrium economics in French speaking Europe (and the world).
  2. The increases in unemployment occurred at the time of the Dreze Benassey papers and ToUR, obviously, and continued during the 1980s, which saw a lot of theoretical and empirical studies.... This is "the sky is blue", and doesn't need to be cited.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked through my copy of ToUR and there was some discussion of 1970s unemployment on pages 107-109, but nothing that shows a direct relationship between increased European unemployment and disequilibrium work (in fact Malinvaud seems to think much of early 70s unemployment was "classical"). I don't think there's anything particularly controversial with saying disequilibrium work received attention with mass unemployment in Europe, but there's no reason to leave those citations there if they don't support the statement.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The statement is a useful bridge, so I am glad that you wish to keep it. You are welcome to remove those citations, which do not provide the best support for the statement. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Kiefer, thank you for your words of support during my RfA. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You and Carrite both deserved the tools. Candidates should practice writing cliches to pass. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I will.  ; ) DL1

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Excuse me?

Regarding your posts on Danjel's talk page, can you show me one place where I have ever interacted with GiantSnowman? The only reason I went to Danjel's page was his highly objectionable comments here. If you want to claim that speculating if someone is editing drunk is worse than that, be my guest. As for the 'covering for my military hardware buddies', I believe there was nothing to substantiate your claims. Now, if you have evidence, I'll be more than happy to bring it to third parties in a discussion at ANI or a RfC/U; otherwise you should stop making baseless assertions without evidence. On the flip side, you and I have similar tastes in favorite guitarists. Good day. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed,
When leaving a blocking threat on the talk page of a new editor, it would be better for everybody for you also to able to state,
"I have also cautioned the others not to make personal attacks against you. As administrators, they should know better. Of course, our non-retaliation policy means that it is no excuse that they first made disparaging remarks about you, and of course you should not have escalated things, either, particularly in a pointy manner. I trust all of you will return to productive editing and leave this momentary unpleasantness behind you."
Had you left even a "please be a bit nicer" on others' pages, you would have found Danjel much more receptive to your just complaint.
I am glad that we agree on Gilmour. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Danjel is not a new editor, he has been around since 2004. Furthermore, while speculating if someone is drunkenly editing is decidedly not something that is needed in a heated discussion, it's not a personal attack. I will, however, keep the "please be a bit nicer" in mind in the future. Thanks. Also, the above comments on Gilmour spurned me to listen to two CDs of the Live in Gdansk set today... good stuff. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It's "not a personal attack"? I'd suggest that you're engaging in deliberate sophistry in defending something which was clearly unacceptable, but that'd probably get interpreted as a personal attack, right? Let's face it, admins like you, and giantsnowman, have a license to ignore policies (like WP:CIVIL), and gladly exploit it. You sicken me. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's best to move on. You cannot force them to apologize. I think that Ed has acknowledged that he could well have noted that the others were uncivil first. I do think that there was a bit of escalation on your part, which is understandable if not excusable. Ditto for me if I have escalated a conflict.... Let's move on.
The worst punishment for a soul in a state of sin is remaining in a state of sin. You should pity them rather than ask for more vengeance than is due or for more apologies than can be expected, given the crooked timber of humanity. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

v/r - TP 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guitar chord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harmonic series (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) 11:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

RFA comment

Hi KW. I don't recall commenting on Carrite's RfA - so I'm a little lost as to what this is about... WormTT(talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me look into that. I made a terrible mistake, which I quickly corrected, on Secret's RfA, because I read search results quickly before duty called. Maybe I misread something on Carrite's? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. I did get involved on Carrite's RfA, trying to sort out a revert war which spanned multiple pages, but I'm pretty sure I didn't comment on the candidate. WormTT(talk) 15:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Your comment appeared at the end of the problematic oppose, which were mistakenly blended together by me.
Quote from RfA of Carrite

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.

  1. Oppose Sorry to be the first buzz kill. You intentions are indeed good and so is your history; But RfA for a single purpose event is not one thing I would take likely. Concerns raised by others and my own gathers has concluded me to go for a genuine oppose now. Raised concerns of anti Adminship and Arbitration is a concern for someone request adminship. In addition expanding onto the ArbCom case, others see it as a way of equalising against the initiator of the ArbCom request. I do not see it as an equalise but rather an attempt to gain temporary control. No party needs to have access to the history, only ArbCom would and if the feel the parties need it then they would provide it. This would be a starting point for everyone involved in an ArbCom case to come and request adminship and only saying 'I only need it to get the history' when there are valid administrators who are more than willing to provide article history. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Comment has been refactored at 00:49, 7 February 2013. Original comment here WormTT(talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (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.
I'll correct my mis-statement asap. I'm glad that I had not so markedly misjudged your character. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. I, for one, encourage criticism - it's the fastest route to improvement. Also, the !vote clearly isn't mine, mine would have a lot more commas... WormTT(talk) 15:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pass me some help....

I've learned all of the notes for this. I can play it through on VLC media player at 33% pace currently at snail pace. Its as difficult as it sounds to get up to pace, the licks literally have to be engrained in your brain. BTW if you want to try to figure out a guitarist's licks save the youtube video to real player and access it in VLC player and slow it down. I worked out a few licks from Pat Martino's Oleo and some Allan Holdsworth track the other day. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe Pass is one of the greatest guitarists. There's an interview with him in a book on Jazz Guitarists, where he puts down rock guitarists---apart from John McGlaughlin, who at least can play jazz. He says, "Without their effects, what can they do?"
Good that he cleaned himself up. Heroin is almost as destructive as Ayn Rand.
I'd discovered that trick myself. (For some reason, VLC had become the totalitarian app on my Ubuntu, which wanted to open everything, so I removed it today. I'll see if it has learned its lesson. However, if it tries to open an R file again, I will be less charitable.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, he can say that, he was Joe Pass! It's very true actually, most rock players didn't have a 1/100th of his theory knowledge, but that doesn't mean they were all bad. Coming from a player who only used to play rock though with heavy distortion the stuff I'm learning is far beyond the level of difficulty of any of the rock stuff I learned. Paul Gilbert started learning jazz a year or two back and said the same thing, he said its the hardest stuff he's ever learned in his life!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Open C tuning

Have you every heard of tuning the guitar in the overtone series of C, C-C-G-C-E-G? See Open C tuning!
I started on the major-scale reorganization of guitar chord, also. I also added a discussion of the usual sevenths. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I learned a Pat Metheny song in that tuning once, a real eye opener, I also learned one of his songs in some drop A tuning! This is worth a watch ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Specifics, please! :D
CCGCEG may have been used by Bad Company's "Can't Get Enough of Your Love". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was on Ultimate guitar.com, can't remember the names sorry!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Bron-Yr-Aur (instrumental) is played in C6 tuning.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very nice! The wife appreciated it, also. My LZ collection was limited to Zofo, and I missed this Welsh gem. Robert Plant said that he used to conjugate Welsh verbs during the drum or guitar solos. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

All that jazz

I'm not surprised Allan Holdsworth and Shawn Lane ended up playing a lot of weird notes and scales. I find the better I get the more I want to explore off scales and abstract chords into my playing. I've been like jamming out to an A minor 7 D 7 smooth jazz type track and integrating things like A altered scale and whole tone and dorian flat 2nd and sharp 7th and it makes it sound a lot more interesting.A Dorian flat 2 sharp 7 is the same as a melodic minor scale started on the second note with a flat 9th in it so A flat/G sharp, so in this case notes of a G melodic minor scale. And from D upwards its part of a whole tone scale which fits over the D 7 chord or embellished with a D7 sharp 11th chord which accentuates the G sharp note. If you count up 11 notes of a D scale it is G so if you sharpen it you get the G sharp Its the whole tone that's got me hooked at the moment though, makes things sound more interesting! If you look at the notes of a D 7 sharp 11 chord D, F#, C, E, G# you'll find that a descending G# whole tone scale fits like a gloves over it as does a descending E augmented arpeggio, G #, E, C, G #. E, C, the C is the flat 7 of the D 7 and E is the 9th of the D chord.. For me its worth trying to figure out as many scales which fit over chords as possible and combining scales, makes me a much better and interesting player, but talking about it bores most people!!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A good way to apply the 7th sharp 11th chord is pick a key, say E major. Find the natural minor chord, C # minor 7th, count up a semitone and apply that chord. it's used a lot in jazz as a tritone substitution for a G sharp 7augmented chord which has the same notes. Common chords leading to C#minor 7 is D sharp minor 7 flat 5, G # 7 raised 5th to C# minor 7, if you look at the modes on here you'll find the minor 7 flat 5 chord works on the 7th note of any scale so in key of E it is D#. So if you play D7 sharp 11 or D7 flat 5 it passes down chromatically from D sharp to C sharp. I learned most of this stuff from Joe Pass, genius!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And, here I was, proud of myself for writing about the most used seventh-chords in "guitar chords" and relating the triads and tertian sevenths to the major scale.... Now you are telling me that there is more to harmony! ;)
Now, I'm going to try to practice more. With my wife back in the lab and me taking care of our daughter most of the day, I've had very little time to practice.
(I am tempted to buy a Stagg or Harley Benton or Trembita Ovation-clone for 100 USD and string it with that open C-major or C-minor 0tuning, just for kicks.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

C-C-G-C-E-C

From Open C tuning

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.

C-C-G-C-E-C

Using a high C rather than the high G of the overtone-series, this open-C tuning was used by Mick Ralphs for the songs "Can't get enough" and "Movin' on" on Bad Company's debut album. Ralphs said, "It needs the open C to have that ring," and "it never really sounds right in standard tuning".

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.

Doncha hate it when the camerman showcases chicks instead of guitar solos? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pass me some multilingual

Hi, a couple of unrelated topics, if I may. Saw the chat about Joe Pass above. I'm not a guitar player, but some tracks on a remastered Virtuoso CD of his are simply awesome. There are other awesome performers in the romantic jazz genre—Stefan Grappelli was active right up until he died—I believe that he was doing overseas concert hall performances in his 80s in a wheelchair. Max Geldray's music seems to be available only to purchasers of Goon Show recordings. I'm lucky to live in an area where an immense variety of live music is relatively easily accessible and affordable.

The other topic: Multilingual Windows. As you seem to be an accomplished linguist (as well as an accomplished guitarist) maybe you can suggest where I could get some comments on a brief piece on Multilingual support in Windows. This stuff does not seem to be widely known, and I thought it might particularly help CJK people living overseas (they might contribute more to CJK and English Wikipedias). I have tried posting on Japan-related projects, but have not had any comments. I don't like the idea of having numbered paragraphs, but can't think of an alternative that wouldn't be more clumsy. If you have time to have a brief look at this...

Best regards, LittleBen (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, LittleBen!
I'm a beginning guitarist but I'm a mathematician and I like to understand what I'm doing. So my brain's knowledge is ahead of my fingers' fluency. :) Dr. Blofeld and Dennis Brown are much more advanced guitarists.
It's usual to number proposals for others' consideration, particularly in law. Your numbering seems helpful. I shall be unable to help for the next three weeks, though. I think that WP has many good editors from Eastern Asia who should be able to help, with much greater expertise than mine.
Thanks again for the kind note.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Willard Gibbs

Hi. I'd like to encourage you to take another look at the article on Josiah Willard Gibbs. When I submitted to an FA review some months ago, you raised several concerns, mostly on the coverage of Gibbs's influence on convex analysis. I recently got hold of a copy of Wightman's essay on the subject, which is now cited in the article. I've also tried to make various other improvements and would like, eventually, to resubmit as an FAC. Please take a look if you have a chance. Any input is welcome. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be delighted. I recently looked at the books on large deviations which I'd recommended, and found no mention of J W Gibbs, alas---although many mentions of Gibbs measures were made.... So take my other recommendations with healthy skepticism! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing further to be learnt

As I think I've already said, I'm not hanging around to work with a broken culture. I've found other places that value contributions over drama. By all means get in touch if something ever changes "daniel.judd@gmail.com". But I doubt that I'll be hearing from you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


I am sorry about this turn for the worse, following several bizarre ani threads. Let us wish that those hounding you maintain silence rather engage in hortatory about civility and editor retention. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
(indented 21:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) )

An apology

After cooling down and reconsidering, I recognize that I probably owe you an apology for edit-warring over on the ArbCom page. So, I apologize. It would have been better to leave it alone, but I guess none of us mere humans are perfect. I'm certainly not. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not perfection but behaving like an adult and controlling yourself.
This is not the first time you've not controlled yourself when the subject is Malleus, is it? Given your history, your "apology" is unconvincing, particularly when its climax is the cop-out "none of us mere humans are perfect" rather than e.g. a statement that you realize that your behavior has hurt valuable editors or the project or has been at best unseemly.
Deeds, not words.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC) 17:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

I, for one, would be grateful if you would complete your analysis of the 300+ overlapping edits to the articles that both editors had in common. It may well be worth re-reading WP:SOCK, too; based on what I've read so far, I am uncertain what, if any, violation occurred. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RE

"the mendacity and hypocrisy which Englishmen so commonly regard as virtues."

— Charles Sanders Peirce, CP, paragraph 143, p. 1540
Hi Dirtlawyer,
Too many on Arbcom felt a need to act now, when rather than waiting and having a member or two continue observations---not the same as "doing nothing", WTT, but thanks for trying to moderate the committee's passionate groupthink---or just asking for an explanation by email.
There was a charge that the two had engaged in tag teaming on some policy discussion, the one serious accusation that could be checked, and I found nothing. Of course, no diffs (or even allusion to a definite page) were given.
You can see the allegations flying on the Arbcom page, with no diffs given, and the cowards and hypocrites on ArbCom (and the clerks) again failing to enforce WP:NPA's prohibition on unsubstantiated allegations, when the target is Malleus.
"civility is often unevenly and ineffectively enforced" indeed.
I don't believe that any rational analysis will have any effect, so I shall not waste my time.
(Today, it strikes me that one source of the problem is that upper-class British twits cannot tolerate Malleus being smarter than them and viewing them with the contempt they deserve.)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps your observation is true, and also, perhaps it is one of many such observations (far too many, in my opinion), that ought not to be made among people collaborating to improve an encyclopedia. Twits in your opinion, are, after all, possibly intelligent and productive encyclopedists too. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
We have different roles, and I do not suggest that all or even most editors should write like me, on WP politics or regarding the treatment of Malleus in recent years.
Nonetheless, some behavior deserves scorn. In a discussion of my ArbCom election guide, I noted that I supported NewYorkBrad, despite his having lined up with candidates I rejected, because of his integrity and care in public writing. I would prefer an honest discussion at arbcom and an end to British twits displaying their years of education in dueling with polite-sounding but narcissistic and cowardly insults.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Just as a heads-up, there is no need to copy and paste talk page comments and use them as the edit summary. A simple "add comment" will suffice.--Launchballer 14:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I write to communicate my thoughts, even in edit summaries.
Your suggested "Add comment" has the appearance of dissembling. (See my quotation from Peirce above or, better, from the Westminster Catechism on my user page, for guidance.)
I'll volunteer that in edit summaries I should remember to abbreviate or otherwise camouflage names of editors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Scary chord inversions

see 0:50-1:10. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK

You didn't give me a chance to respond, but yeah I shouldn't have called anybody "assholes", even indirectly and when pressed. I lost my temper, and I'm sorry for that, and certainly sorry if I hurt your feelings, and I'll try not to do that in future. I don't know what a demitwin is, sorry. I'm unwatching this page so no response required, you can contact me on my talk page in the unlikely event that you want to continue this conversation. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

RE "I don't know what a demitwin is"
You and Demiurge1000 have strikingly similar interests, styles, etc.---but perhaps less similar than twins sharing between one and two brains.
Let us wish that both of you stop trolling.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Checkusing Malleus

Recent events

You're doing great. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil.
A bit of statistical/scientific literacy goes a long way.
I hope others will develop allergic reactions to claims that a proposition is near certain when somebody has merely shown that the proposition is plausible under one hypothesis, without considering other hypothesis, and trying to test the hypotheses using fresh evidence. (This is the usual thesis or paper in sociology or applied fields, I'm afraid.) I didn't raise the question of fresh evidence or making predictions at ArbCom.
Well, some day, members of ArbCom need to learn that rushing decisions is the cause of the biggest mistakes, and that committees are especially liable to make bad decisions.
The infobox headaches really have gone on way too long, also.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It took two read throughs, but I eventually got what you were saying. Is this at all analogous

  • Prosecuting attorney: So how sure are you that the blood found at the scene belongs to the defendent?
  • Expert witness: (incautiously) There is a one in a million likelihood that the DNA is not his.
  • Defence counsel: So that means that there are a minimum of 55 people in the UK with this DNA?
  • Expert witness: (wishing he hadn't started this conversation) Yes, but only one of them is in the dock.

Unfortunately, the Checkuser tool doesn't really offer the opportunity to try the sort of statistical analysis you are describing, particularly with ISPs that assign from a large pool of IPs, as you may not pick up any other users to compare.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm tired and struggling with the art of eating now, and cannot reply apart from stating that your analogy is apt. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Kiefer, I wasnt referring specifically to the post Elen mentions, but more that before that you were doing a lot of debunking in general, level headed it seemed, and with a light tough, so just, that. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I try to respond to good will and honesty with the same, and I'm glad that you thought I had a "light touch". Carcharoth seems to be an honest guy, and he was recruited by NYB, which counts for something.
In other cases, I can imagine other courses of action. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hey Kiefer, I'm not sure RfA voting is the best place to make that particular point - most people over there aren't going to get it. Maybe you could present a different rationale (if you have one) that is specific to that editor, or just continue the discussion at the noticeboard instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria!
You are probably right. Afterall, I did hear that angel on my shoulder suggesting that my resonse might not be a good idea. I have to go to an experiment now, in case we've messed up something; if nobody's needs a baboon's liver transplant, I should be back by 1, and be able to write something more appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Having discharged my Malinowskian shamanic role of reducing anxiety, I returned and see that others have commented on the appropriateness of my remark, and at least one provided a suitable annotation. I trust that the closing bureaucrat shall give my remark the weight it deserves in this failing RfA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You've been around long enough to know that making WP:POINTY comments in a RfA are not welcomed. Whatever drama exists elsewhere is poor justification for such childish antics. - MrX 21:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
MrX,
One brief edit does not constitute "antics". Moreover, you like many others seem to misunderstand WP:Point. Please re-read it and note that it refers exclusively to the content of WP. You are free to change the guideline so that it covers policy and governance aspects of WP, but please cite it with integrity in the meantime.
In the future, you should not hyperactively defend your candidate, after your nomination, in an RfA. You might consider letting other editors nominate viable candidates, also. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your comments there, Keifer, are very similar to those you moan about so often on this site. You should consider my comment in a cold light please. And whilst you probably want to define MrX's "childish antics" as likely transgressing WP:NPA please ...... don't. It doesn't - as it's descriptive, and accurate. And also, just a personal request, don't respond with a "Hi Pedro!...." and then refactor the whole thing under a different header. Reconsider please, with a decent oppose. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Digging complementation Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Your Grace,
My skin, like my age and wisdom *LOL*, provides sufficient protection against "childish antics" (regardless of whether the editor be older than twelve years).
You are welcome to comment here or there as you wish, since I have embraced you in my warm bosom. :)
I made a brief comment which was designed to provoke reflection/thought from other members of the "puling masses" and, at last I checked, the comment had done that. When last I checked, others had suitably annotated my oppose, and I don't see any need fur further action, particularly when further annotation by me would seem to add nothing to WP. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Kiefer. You appear to be trying to debunk checkuser all together and using disruption to make a point about it. I don't use checkuser often, I've only had the tool for a short while, however I can tell you that the technical evidence linking George to Malleus is practically unquestionable - there were far more links than occasionally using the same IP address which you hinted at. It was certain behavioural evidence that convinced me that they were not the same person.

Your disruptive behaviour and assumptions are unfair on the committee and the RfA candidates who have no part in the case. I am willing to answer any questions I can without violating privacy. Please stop jumping to conclusions, there's enough mess here without you spreading false gossip. WormTT(talk) 21:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello David/WTT,
Please give me a break, as a Brit, before writing "appear to be trying to", etc. Recent events have awoken the slumbering Puritan zealot in me, and plain speaking is the best pacifying soporific.
Please review the evidence about the exaggerated claims of experts (Meehl, Dawes, etc.), which I noted before, to understand why such assurances (especially by apprentices) carry little weight.
I explained why in this case we all should be skeptical especially of a claim link at the ARbcom discussion page, and don't understand why you continue to maintain the assertion of some such link without having addressed any of my points, especially since Elen has clarified the problems with the CU application in this case (above).
I am not disrupting anything. I had wished that you should have discontinued the improper expansionist use of "disruption", which was not based on WP's policy, and I wish you to reconsider your use.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I do apologise for writing "appear to be trying to", it's how I write and whilst I do try to modify my tone when replying directly to you, habits die hard. Also, as usual, I'm refering to the word "disrupt" not the policy DISRUPT, you can generally spot when I'm referring to a policy because I go into all-caps mode. Please stop impeding the progress of an RfA with issues that are not relevant to the candidate.
I'm not the best person to address your points as I agree that there are different people behind the accounts. I also refuse to tell you exactly why the match appears to be so accurate as doing so would violate the user's privacy. I understand skepticism, I was skeptical myself, but the correlation goes beyond sharing an ISP as Elen hints. There is no doubt that there is a close link between the two accounts and neither account denies that. Your debunking is useful and necessary, but focussing on whether the results of the checkuser is correct is not where the concern lies or should lie - please consider refocussing on an area where criticism is needed. WormTT(talk) 10:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Bullocks, as you say.
The only thing I have disrupted is a pseudoscientific report being trumpeted as establishing a fact beyond a reasonable doubt, which establishes merely a possible curiosity. It's bizarre that you would call my actions spreading gossip, especially since you voted for the publication of a waste-of-time statement that could only attract gossipers.
You should write only after regaining control of your senses or keyboard: "stop impeding the progress of an RfA", to which I made one contribution, already addressed many times here, is ridiculous. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Worm. As a more longstanding user of the tool, I have to say that it can never by itself confirm that two editors are the same person, and an experienced CU will not give a confirmed result based only on the tool output. I know for a fact that there are two editors who edit on my IP, same equipment exactly, never edit at the same time, very suspicious - or would be if they ever edited the same article. They are of course two completely different people, and their editing is very dissimilar. I can point you at a company in Scandinavia, and another in the US, where multiple staff members all edit off the same IP. The starting point has to be similarity of edits, because it is only this that justifies the use of the tool. And for my part, I would also want some evidence of a policy breach, such as block evasion, tag teaming, votestacking or such before examining longstanding editors. The tool is really limited - most of the linking of editors is based on similarity of editing, and while this is frequently very obvious, it can come down to a bit of a black art/gut feeling, which people don't always like to admit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to let Coren know about that. Here's an extract from an email I received from him on the day I was informed of this allegation: "The *least* you could do while we are discussing the matter is to stop operating your sock!" Doesn't seem to be much wiggle room there. He went on to claim that the checkuser evidence proved that George and I were using the same computer, which is an outright lie in anyone's book, and obviously only intended to intimidate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I once watched while Hersfold, over the course of a few minutes, apparently edited using everything from a Viglen 286 to an Ipad, by spoofing his useragent. The only thing that seems difficult to spoof is a htc running Android. Of course checkuser can't prove you are using the same machine. It's all about probabilities, which is why Keifer was right in what he said. There are some very unusual UAs, and there are some US providers where you can practically get a street address off the IP, but if all you've got is two VirginMedia users on Windows 7 using Internet Exploder, forget it. The most you can say is they are on the same router, which in my daughter's case means they are one of a dozen housemates and friends who can't even agree on whose turn it is to empty the dustbin. With rare exceptions, my view of the CU tool is that it can exclude a suspect (one is in Poland, the other in Tasmania), and it can round you up some more suspects, but without some evidence of similarity in editing, it can't say that two users are socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I haven't actually done anything to look at whether you or this George chap might be the same person. The only thing I would say is that in my limited experience, it is easier for someone who is generally nice and easy going to turn on a bit of nasty, that for someone with a poor tolerance of fools, a short fuse and a sharp turn of phrase to consistently play the easygoing nice guy. Make of it what you will. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
George is a much nicer person than I would ever want to be; make of that what you will. UA spoofers are so common nowadays I'm surprised anyone pays much attention to user agent evidence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we're on the same wavelength then. And any claim that two editors are using the same computer must be based on UA, because that's the only evidence available. Sometimes you can see some events occurring in parallel that might lead you to suspect it's the same piece of kit - but we're back to probabilities here. Unless one of the CUs has a magic spy ray or something. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Coren and a few others assumed guilt right from the start, and with that frame of reference it's easy to cherry pick evidence to bolster your case. My fundamental objection to all of this is that there was no policy-based reason for running a checkuser in the first place, and it was done secretly. How many other times have I been checkusered in the past few weeks in an attempt to find this secret admin account that Demiurge1000 is so convinced I have? Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You have been checkusered 23 times by 9 different people between 23/1 and 25/2. You do not appear to have ever been checkusered previously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Twenty-three times? Un-fucking believeable! Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
23 times does sound like a lot, but it's not the whole picture. For one thing, the checkuser tool does different jobs, and each job shows up as a separate log entry, so there is some duplication. Another thing this indicates is that there is Socratic thinking amongst the committee, combined with a care for privacy, we're not taking complete copies of your private information and sending it round. Instead, when someone wants to see the complete data they need to use the tool and I would rather see the actual data than take the another checkuser's word on the matter. Also, Malleus, the person who emailed us was not Demiurge1000, and (credit where credit's due) he's been pretty quiet in the whole matter while he could have been flaring things up. Could I ask that you stop going down that route which will only serve to aggrevate the situation between you two? WormTT(talk) 09:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually Worm, the tool creates one log entry when you ask it to get IP addresses for an editor. Once you have that, it doesn't create an extra log entry for that editor when you carry out further actions. What you are thinking of is that if you then select one of the IP addresses to examine further, it creates a log entry for that IP address. The 'get IP' process was started 24 times for the Malleus account, but two of the instances were from an inexperienced CU and were only a few minutes apart, so I counted them as one CU, assuming this person had accidentally closed the tab or something. If the same person re-ran the check the following day, I counted that as two CUs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't just sound a lot, it is a lot, and all done in secret, no doubt to become public during the next ArbCom mailing list leak. Nine different people? Bloody ridiculous. As for Demiurge1000, if you say the email wasn't from him then of course I'll accept your word on that, but I'm seriously doubting whether there was any email at all. Have you seen Demiurge1000 withdraw his allegation about my having a secret admin account anywhere? I haven't. Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Given the fact that the committee was so deeply divided on whether there was one or two people behind the account, analysing the data thoroughly doesn't sound like a bad thing. That's the best I can offer you, I'm afraid. As for Demiurge1000 withdrawing his allegation, no, I can't say that I've seen him do that. However, he also hasn't repeated the allegation further, which is about as good as it gets on Wikipedia. WormTT(talk) 13:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Playing with data is not the same thing as analyzing data, which requires thought and competence, if it be done competently.
On the contrary, Demi made another underhanded insinuation on his talk page, which resulted in Demi's block being lengthened to indefinite. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said - "pretty quiet" - not silent. He went on to explain that comment here and I accept that explanation. I also suggest we end this conversation here, as you know discussing another editor without their knowledge is unfair. Indeed Kiefer, since you've strayed away from collegial discussion, I have no interest in carrying on discussion here on any topic. WormTT(talk) 13:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
In the past, Demiurge1000 has studied my contributions and this talk page indefatigably, and he is aware of his standing in the WP community....
A colleague (another "programmer") has been a repeated victim of identity theft. A few years ago, after he realized that somebody had stolen his identity, he went to his bank, which had a policy that every time the account was accessed, the employee's action was logged. In reality, his bank account had been accessed hundreds of times monthly by different employees. He was told that he should switch his accounts to the smallest bank he could find, and so he did, to reduce the number of persons with privy to his details.
These disclosures mean that you and GP are more likely to be targeted for identity theft or eavesdropping. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I think that is unlikely - I presume your thinking is that the more people that have access to data, the more likely it is to get out. The Mediawiki software captures everybody's IP address every time they edit - the data is kept for a relatively short time on wikis under the purview of the WMF, but editing many other sites may leave your IP address in a file somewhere indefinitely. The data is passed to the CU over an unsecured link - this might be slightly more of a concern. The quetion I suppose is - how significant is it that I know someone's IP address. How significant is it that a villain knows your IP address. What might they do with the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Give me a liver and onions
Give me a liver and onions, and a supervillain can move the earth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Sockgate! I am not a sockpuppet! In real life I am this critter...(Don't be shocked)--MONGO 15:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Revdel

I've just removed two comments from someone in this thread as they were logged out. No other reason. I suppressed the text because of course it contained the IP in the sig. Black Kite (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Perhaps you could restore the text, if you have time? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
It was me - I hadn't realised that the system had logged me out. Black Kite, could you put them back and I will confirm they are mine (using alt account due to connection). Elen on the Roads:talk to me 15:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Am on my tablet at the mo - will put them back in an hour or so when I get to a proper PC (or if any passing admin is reading this could they do the honours? Ta. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your help! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Got it, I think. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for the help.
I trust that this episode shall impress on all CU-operators the wisdom of the present WMF policy (of having behavioral evidence of repeated or severe violations of policy before initiating a check-user). I should like to wish that it would inhibit over-confidence in simple interpretations of this instrument's output. (I shall not follow the Arbcom page further, but please alert me if I may contribute something.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_44&oldid=1151037531"