Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 47

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

June 2013

My foot could easily replace his head up his ....
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Wikipediocracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

We've had enough ridiculous complaints from administrators for this week. Can't you find something better to do, like block yourself, instead of wasting my time? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wikipediocracy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Who has taken control of your account? Maybe you really tried to block yourself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
BB23, did you really just block KW for removing unsourced contentious material? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
His widdle pride was hurt.... *LMAO* Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a ridiculous block, which has not been documented properly. Editors are free to remove unsourced material, such as a New York Brad's original research.

Accept reason:

Your edits on Wikipediocracy doesn't constitute edit warring so I accept to unblock you. But I must admonish you regarding your edit summary made at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipediocracy&diff=prev&oldid=561266813 which I hope I wont see again. →AzaToth 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Tack! Har du läst historien om denna artikel (som byggde på "allmänt känt" och var falsk)? Denna artikel handlade om en historiskt viktig organisation med ett rikt intellektuellt liv, som fick stor uppmärksamhet. I motsats härtill är Wikipedia ... Wikipedia, dvs en lekplats för Qvorty & Co. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock (AzaToth typed faster). My comments were going to state that the history is not one of edit warring -- rather, it's one of vigorous editing involving multiple editors, not a war. Seeing the incendiary nature of comments there and here, I suggest staying away from the Wikipediocracy article for a while to avoid additional confrontations. --Orlady (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me that Bbb23 is clearly unfit to be an administrator. Eric Corbett 00:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not that anyone asked my opinion, but none of the other editors came close to the number of reverts Kiefer had (seven on June 22 and June 23, and three on June 23 alone). I believe the most any of the other editors had was two. I also warned Kiefer before I blocked him, and he obviously didn't care about warnings given the messages he left on my talk page. "Vigorous editing" can be avoided by continuing discussions on the talk page without battling in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
A bot could simply count, is that what you are, a bot? Eric Corbett 00:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Nobody cares about your opinion, Bbb23, because you are behaving incompetently. I dismissed your idiotic warning because it had no basis in policy and was disruptive. Please block yourself for 24 hours for disrupting Wikipedia, unless you truly are a hypocrite rather than just having a temporary leave of your senses. You blocked me i.a. for re-inserting a hyphen into a phrase that needed a hyphen. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Insert generic warning section header

{{insert passive-agressive "suggestion" to be more obsequious in tone}} {{insert signature of random admin nosing into others' business}}

Other people were doing it, and it looked like fun, so I joined in. Tremblingly submit and obey! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The behavior of editors on wikipedia is admins business. If editors are behaving uncivil then they might have to be blocked so it doesn't disrupt the wikipedia. Admins are not nosing in others' business, they are just doing their job. →AzaToth 15:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Or, more accurately: the behavior of editors on wikipedia is serious business, and we must all conduct ourselves with the utmost importance and sobriety at all times. Jokes, amusements, and various merriment are abolished and will not be tolerated. Grrrr! that is to say: dude, that was a joke. Why so serious? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
AzaToth, you may wish to review the civility pillar and WP:Block. Consider copy editing your "uncivil[ly]", "it [their incivility]", "the wikipedia [Wikipedia]", and the comma splice in "business, [;] they" and then delete this sentence, with my blessings. Do you read Swedish? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent wisdom

from User:Giano at AN or ANI

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.

  • Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Wikipedia has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Wikipedia provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Wikipedia becomes a lot easier.  Giano  12:29, 28 June 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.

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

C.A. Peñarol GA Reassessment

I wanted to let you know I revised the article and copy-pasted the text to Word so as to check any typos and spanish words that could have remained. I corrected every mistake I saw. I reckon its prose is good enough to be GA, though I think those mistakes had to be corrected. I have also taken away unnecessary flag icons. I've replied saying this same thing, in Talk:C.A. Peñarol/GA2, but just wanted to make sure to inform you.—Nuno93 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind notice, Nuno93. :)
You and other editors obviously put a lot of work into the article, which does display a lot of references.
Your strategy of using the grammar and spell checker of Microsoft Office's Word is a good idea, which I should also use. All of us have trouble catching duplicates (e.g., "the the", especially at ends of lines). :)
May I make a suggestion for the medium-term, please? Consider reading George Orwell or Dwight MacDonald or Voltaire or Schopenhauer or other other great prose-stylists for at least six months, under whose influence you should revise one paragraph at a time in whatever article interests you.
Then it might be useful to read a guide to English usage---like Fowler's or Strunk & White---and try applying each heuristic to your favorite article. For example, rewrite every sentence in the active voice, paragraph by paragraph, and then revise each for continuity of flow. (For example, for continuity of flow, the passive voice is often useful for linking old information to new information.)
The language maven William Safire wrote a column about his grand-daughter's writing and the fault-finding of Microsoft Word's grammar checker, which you might enjoy reading. Beyond mathematicians, general writers could consider reading George Piranian's "Write it Better" and Paul Halmos's "Say it Gooder".
Kind regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Friendly advice

If you are actually accomplishing something, I find it pretty easy to tolerate poking people a bit with a sharp stick. Poking just for the sake of poking, however, it isn't productive. I don't claim to know your motives (for anything) but I just fail to see what good with come of that discussion. Putting my admin bit to the side and speaking solely as a fellow editor with a love of all things guitar, you might consider dropping the stick. Nothing good will come by continuing it, you know this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Dennis,
TRM has not retracted his NPA violations, yet he continues to pontificate at RfA in his role as a bureaucrat. Perhaps he does good elsewhere, much as the Borgia Popes had their good sides...? The simple solution would be for TRM to write "I'll go and remove any falsehoods I wrote in ignorance, and I'll try not to make false accusations in the future".
Instead, he is stone-walling, leaving lies standing.
Until you deal with TRM's WP:NPA violations, please don't bother offering even cliche-laden political advice.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Kiefer, you know as well as anyone that I have approached TRM at WP:BN, and I approached him at that very discussion before approaching you, so to most people it would seem obvious I haven't carved out a "side" and just trying to keep the peace. If that isn't obvious to you, then the flaw is your own. Sorry that you see my sincere expression as political or cliche-laden. Obviously, my assistance is unwanted, so I will just unwatch and move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For how can you compete,
Being honour bred, with one
Who, were it proved he lies,
Were neither shamed in his own
Nor in his neighbours’ eyes?

— William Butler Yeats, To A Friend Whose Work Has Come To Nothing

Dennis,

I thank you for being impartial and principled.

I would prefer that problems are resolved rather than denied. I would prefer that lies and injustices are challenged, even if "peace" be disturbed.

In this case, TRM's malicious and unwarranted accusations of my sockpuppetry and of my having driven-away editors remain as falsehoods standing on Wikipedia, monuments to the failure of administrators normally so full of do-good advice on civility—New York Brad, BWilkins, Brown-Dent, et alia—to require (or even ask) that a fellow administrator abide by WP:NPA, and strike falsehoods.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Demiwit

Sorry I don't really read the talk page as often since that big yellow banner is no longer shown when you get messages. But in regards to yours, I'd ignore it. People here would rather resort to ad hominem attacks than debate and, more importantly, add content. Not worth fretting about their attempts to turn this to the stereotypical local council. (not to say I disavow local government, sometimes its very good.)(Lihaas (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)).

Yup. (I am not allowed to discuss the right honourable editor on Wikipedia.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Council for United Civil Rights Leadership

Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Hi Kiefer.Wolfowitz; I reverted your edits at Council for United Civil Rights Leadership because I do not believe you are correct that these connections are "original research".

On the topic of Malcolm X, he was a star critic of the group, and his response to them specifically in Message to the Grass Roots is well known. See this Google search if you're not convinced. (Edited to add: see particularly here, here, and here.)

On the relationship between the March, the creation of the CUCRL, and lobbying for the Civil Rights Act, the sources currently presented make the connection. As do numerous histories of the civil rights movement. These claims border on common knowledge. But also see this relatively recent article in the NYT. It's also made quite clear in David Garrow's popular history Bearing the Cross: you can read the relevant pages in the online preview version here.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Do what you want. Wikipedia deserves more articles based on Malcom X. I'll check whether the human evolution article is based on the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I think Stephen Jay Gould might be more so the Malcolm X of evolutionary biology... E. O. Wilson never put out a hit on him, though. groupuscule (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you trying to claim Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, was a critic of evolutionary biology? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought Gould might be an American independent updating of J. B. S. Haldane, with his Marxissant analyses and support of the American New Left, as well as "popular front" (baseball) writings---but perhaps the latter makes him a complementary particle to George Will? However, the good-humored courage in dealing with cancer makes Gould an update of Haldane. (His dislike of flash photography and willingness to leave the stage when flash photographed reminds me of Robert Fripp.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your subtitular question, "Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?", the issue is of course not whether Malcolm X is a reliable source on King and the CUCRL (no, he's too close to the issue, though his factual claims happen to be largely accurate) but whether his criticism of the CUCRL is noteworthy (yes, it is mentioned frequently and exclusively, with James Baldwin's a distant second). Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Scion of the Wolfowitz family"

Comment on AN/I Discussion

Dear Kiefer Wolfowitz: Thank you for responding as you did, in a very gentle manner, in this AN/I discussion If it is not against Wikipedia rules, I would very much like to invite your father to speak with me on the telephone. My phone number can easily be found on the Internet and I would welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with him. Thank you again, Factor-ies (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, shucks.
Gentleness is second nature to yours truly, 09:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC) KW

Manufacturing?

I thought Toyota manufactured the scion. What is the Wolfowitz connection? – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (Note, this comment was intended as a friendly remark, referring to another TP edit that KW had made. It has nothing to do with the section above.)01:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please consult a dictionary. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_47&oldid=1168303272"