Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach

I've no idea why you felt the need to drag my name (albeit mispelt) into an AFD on which I've made no comment. Perhaps, to use your own phrase, you are lacking the milk of human kindness? But I'd be grateful if you didn't. Perhaps you might follow your own suggestion and Give it a rest for a while, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for misspelling your name. I am concerned about your and others' appearing on Thukvo's articles---not with the details of one AfD. You have been in conflict with him, and even constructive edits like this may be imprudent: Isn't that obvious?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. But I don't think you have understood my point: that I don't appreciate you dragging my name into a totally irrelevant AFD. It would be best for you to strike that comment; if you feel the need to discuss such, you should do it elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I believe a statement that there has been a conflict remains useful for other uninvolved editors at that AfD. You have been most visibly involved with a conflict with Tkuvho. You (& others) have been visiting his articles, enough that I will not remove your name at this time. I will revisit your civil request tomorrow, after a good night's sleep. I do regret the irritation that this causes you. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tea for two, and two for Tea

My free association  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

T again

You're T's friend, it seems. Can you ask him to stop the spam: User_talk:Tkuvho#Spam? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me to say a word.
I am friendly with T, and I have asked him to try to disengage from your mutual conflict, noting that lately he seemed to be behaving worse, as you know. (However, I have sympathies for mathematicians becoming irritable ....) I shall look again at what he is doing, but my guess is that another appeal from me won't change anything.
Because of my concerns that a rest is needed, for me and for all the growling editors on WP, I hope that you have taken a break from visiting his pages, despite his proper welcome.
In particular, there's an open A-class review on Shapley–Folkman lemma (mostly mine), which may interest you. Your comments would be most welcome!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I looked at it, and I don't want to intervene. I have an allergy-headache today, and I am tired of trying to smooth things out, mainly with other people (only a bit with T & you and others). Charles asked people to increase the content/complaint ratio on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page, which makes me even less inclined to continue peace-making efforts. I am sorry that I won't be of greater assistance today.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I consider T's duplicate discussion to be a good-faith edit, which was improved by your explicit link to the other discussion. No harm done by either of you, and I hope T will use similar links in the future (but again, it might be good for you to let others improve T's edits for a while ...).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're skipping lightly over T's waste-of-time revert of my "improvement". Never mind, I've pretty well given up on you by now, its clear you're not going to do anything useful William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You deserve to be yourself!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Social Democrats, USA

Hi Kiefer, I just wanted to let you know that there are some issues with your nomination of Social Democrats, USA at the DYK Suggestions Board. Could you address them there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on the DYK Page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have replied on the DYK page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I have replied on the DYK page. The gist of it is that I am deferring the question of BLP X2 to another editor. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I wrote that I agree that BLP-policies matter for only the living persons mentioned in the article. Their applicability to the dead persons or to the organization (SDUSA) is vacuous.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but I am still deferring to it per your comment "... BLP policies apply to the living persons mentioned..." which is definitely true for citations and contentious statements. Could it be applied to DYK? I honestly don't know, although I don't think so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I preferred to defer to more experienced DYK editors (e.g., YOU!) about the BLP-DYK nomination, because I was unsure about the article's eligibility based on the DYK-tool output ("statistics", sic.!).
I did the rewrite because I was shocked at (1) the reliance of the article on a weird leftwing website, and because of (2) various slanders in that article (and others in similar articles), and because of (3) the use of the article to promote 1-2 successor organizations (whose notability/influence seems to be less than that of my former Cub Scout pack). The DYK nomination was an afterthought.
Similar problems occur in related articles that I have examined---on Penn Kemble and Bayard Rustin. I care more about eliminating slanders today than about expanding SDUSA to get another DYK!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I quite honestly have never looked through these articles before the past few days, but I looked at the history of SDUSA and your changes have improved it greatly. I agree with you; the priority is getting rid of BLP violations, and you've done a fantastic job. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate the kind words, because I have received a lot of criticism for my initial efforts on this article. I prefer to edit in mathematics or possibly statistics, because I dislike all the POV-pushing in other areas---and I'm right! darnit!, so why should I have to defend my edits?!!!
:-D
You can see that my last edits have asked for other editors to take a look, to catch my mistakes and check for possible biases (I just said "take a look" or thanked them for past POV-flagging at SDUSA.) I don't have JSTOR or my university library this week, so I cannot double check things, like I usually do.
Thanks again for your kind words! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hate to tell you this, but I have some bad news. I've found out why the 5x expansion is so difficult: this version on 29 October, 2010 was 10386 chars, which as I mentioned before is still counted under A4. According to my calculations, you'd need more than 51,930 chars to reach 5x. Sorry. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather be right than have another DYK!
;-D
That version was so bad with WP-policy violations---e.g. stating that (Norman Podhoretz's son in law) Elliot Abrams was a prominent member of SDUSA---that it should be counted as negative characters!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fruits of labor

I've done all I can now, and will do some other work for a while! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL, if only we could count them as negative characters. You are completely right. In fact...
The Barnstar of Integrity
For keeping the good of the Wiki ahead of thy personal glory, I hereby grant thee, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, this Barnstar for thy great expansion and neutralizing of Social Democrats, USA Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

this seems to be in order. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment on T:TDYK. Even with the benchmark, you need another 10,000 chars + to reach 5x expansion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

TACK/Thanks

I'd like to think of myself as every other inch a gentleman and as a man of above-average moral-fiber.

But see the talk page of SDUSA and User_talk:Orangemike#Social_Democrats.2C_USA for other appraisals!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Legend tells of a evening SDUSA or AFL-CIO party honoring Rustin, Kahn, and a 3rd person, unofficially entitled "Fruits of Labor" for obvious reasons. 14:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC) )

Forget not: in thy book record their groans; that from these may grow A hundredfold

There was an extensive discussion of DYK word-counting on the DYK:Suggestion page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

GA suggestion

Regardless what happens to the DYK nom, keep up the good work. The article is not that far away from being considered for a GA! See WP:GAN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the encouragement! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Social Democrats, USA

Comma, comma, comma chameleon

I'm happy to help. Should the article title be Social Democrats USA as it is now, or should it be moved to Social Democrats, USA? Ground Zero | t 13:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC

The name official name was "Social Democrats, USA", so I believe that your suggested move is needed. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Stir it up, little darlin', stir it up": Or, "Cauldron burn and cauldron bubble"

Another quick query for you at T:DYK regarding this one. Kudos on the expansion to this. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep stirring the pot, but I see another potential issue with your DYK nom that I don't think has been addressed; see T:DYK. Khazar (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for the notice, but you really should read what the discussion about length before confusing things further.

Once you realize your mistake, please strike through your error or remove your error and my reply/correction.
Crisco stated a benchmark for the length, which the article meets easily, given the quotes from Kahn's famous debate.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, why don't you lend a hand and just google Feldmann and Hill and add an appropriate reference. I don't understand why you guys would rather whine at DYK than take 10 minutes and fix the problem you address. This would be more efficient for all concerned.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to apologize for being a bit testy a minute ago. For rather unusual reasons, I'm on my 34th hour without sleep, and you unluckily caught the wrong end of it; the fault is mine for attempting to edit in such a state. Hopefully later this weekend a better-rested Khazar will emerge from the ashes to help you out with this worthwhile material. Cheers, and keep up the good work, Khazar (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Khazar, now you really have made me angry!
;-)
I was wrong and you were right! You made good points. I was better able to acknowledge your just contributions after a few minutes passed and the tremors from my keyboard-pounding had dampened.
I was irritated after having spent a week on the SDUSA article, in my Quixotic attempt to get a DYK for it. With this kind of utopianism, I might as well have spent years working on social-democratic/DS politics in the USA before moving to Sweden!
I appreciate your allusion to Jean Grey very much. I am sure that you shall return refreshed and renewed to WP, with no danger to yourself or others, unlike The Phoenix! In a few hours, we shall see the X-Men: First Class (film), film, my having wisely introduced my partner to super-hero movies via Thor (film), whose abs and pects were more appealing than those of (Clevelander) Howard the Duck (film) or Swamp Thing (film). (Nearly) everything I need in life I learned in life I learned from Stan Lee and Jack (King) Kirby!
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
LOL, I was just trying to decide if I could stay awake long enough to see that one after dinner with my wife tonight. We'll see, we'll see. Cheers, and enjoy-- Khazar (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

USER David Eppstein :-)

Please see my correction! My senility is more severe than I thought!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Scandinavian DYKs

Following the collapse of the Kalmar Union, Scandinavians should help each other.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Have you for instance read this excellent Minerva article? --Eisfbnore talk 17:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't and I haven't yet, but I intend to read it. It looks very interesting! Thanks for the great reading tip! Mvh,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

…very much for the expansion you made to Jens Bache-Wiig. Good to see that the English pages of Government.no have come in handy to non-Norwegian speakers! ;) --Eisfbnore talk 17:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Det vaer saa litte! I am typing on an English keyboard, but I like to remember that Swedish and Norwegian were nearly the same 1000 years ago and English and Norwegian 1000 or so more years back, so it wasn't so difficult. And I think Swedish residents owe many debts of friendship to Norway, and more than friendship, particularly for the events of those years.

I used the Norwegian WP pages, and I just thanked G*d that I didn't have to read Danish! ;)

Mvh,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Åbo bloodbath

Hey, thank you for commenting at Template_talk:Did_you_know#.C3.85bo_bloodbath. I (the nom) am, however, not comfortable with all aspects of your proposed changes. I have detailed my concerns in the respective TT:DYK section, please comment there again so we can work out a solution. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hej Skaepperoed! I replied on the DYK page. Mvh,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Re: Bat signal

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Jowa fan's talk page.
Message added 04:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:American mathematicians of Norwegian descent

Category:American mathematicians of Norwegian descent, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Selket Talk 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Convex hull

Hello,

I would like to discuss the way forward in the article convex hull. I can understand that you are concerned with sets with an infinite number of points such as an open disk. The point of my contribution was to characterize the case with a finite number of points as often encountered in applications geometrically. My impression of the comment on the discussion page was that the article is too abstract for a novice reader who is interested e.g. in convex hull algorithms in differential geometry. My edits were an attempt to convey the basic idea before discussing more abstract topics such as existence of the convex hull. If the discussion is explicitly limited to a finite set of points, do you still see issues? Isheden (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot discuss things now. However, the unit circle's convex hull is the closed unit disk, which is not too advanced. Differential geometry doesn't belong in the article because most sets are not smooth categorically. It is fine to write a self-standing article on convexity and differential geometry, a piece of which couuld be summarized at the very end of this article. I can discuss things more in a few days. In generaly, people should read about convex sets and convex combinations before reading this article. The convex hull is a hull operator, which means that it is properly defined in terms of Moore families. The algebraic characterization is also important. 18:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Now properly signed by  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RfA of young user

For the second time, an RfA of a young candidate to be an administrator generated a lot of discussion.

Removing comments

Removing comments you (for whatever surreal reason) see as a personal attack and introducing a blatant personal attack whilst doing it is frankly a little off. [1]. Don't call me sexist. That's disgusting. Pedro :  Chat  17:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your writing that a female editor be "courting" the "Wikipedia fraternity" and be "screaming" into her "table cloth" were sexist innuendos. WP:NPA allows for the removal of personal attacks, particularly sexist ones.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. That "courting" or "screaming" could be considered sexist is just beyond belief - as are you. Get over yourself, and never 'ever call me sexist. Pedro :  Chat  18:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I have objected to your sexist innuendo, particularly the "courting the Wikipedia fraternity" sexist innuendo. GOOGLing your innuendo "Screaming into the tea-towel" reveals enough stories about wife-beatings and hysterical women to increase my concern about sexist innuendo. Being concerned about sexist behavior and disinterested in you, I have never called you "sexist".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Let us hope that you are ignorant of the meaning of "fraternity" also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah - suddenly realised you're here to troll. Silly me not catching on earlier. You managed to get me there - oops on my part. Bye. Pedro :  Chat  18:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Pedrillo, I had actually been happy that you had behaved at RfA for the last few months, and I am saddened by your back-sliding this week. I hope that you shall feel better soon. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Diffs

Inappropriate title: Next

Your racism

Here you mock my Spanish heritage with your Pedrillo comment. This racist abuse is simply not acceptable. Or maybe I am seeing your racist attitude in every comment in the way you seem to see my sexist attitude? By the way check out def.2 of fraternity. Am I getting this through to you yet KF? Why do you think you get called a troll when you act like one?

A simple "Hey, Pedro - regarding your response about Sandy Georgia at that RFA talk page - some of your comments look pretty harsh and could be misconstrued" - that would have worked. No, you go trolling the place with wild accusations of sexism instead. Brilliant. And then you get confused why I respond negatively. So - you're a racist and I'm a sexist. Or maybe we're neither. What say you? Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Pedro, I used a familiar form of "Pedro" because your behavior the last day does not merit "Don Pedro"---rather the reverse! I should have hoped that you would follow WP suggestions and avoid using your real-world name.
As I have written to you repeatedly, I don't care about you and in particular I don't care about your "race", ethnicity, gender, etc. There are plenty of women who complain about other women's "courting fraternities" or "screaming in the tea cloth", or "sucking" some man: I don't care if you are a man or woman (a la George Sand) writing as Pedro: Your sexist abuse has been my sole concern.
"Racist": You have yelled that before without cause but with even less coherence. Please save it for confronting racism.
Sincerely but bored,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, if you think you're bored how do you think I feel? You'll note that as yet no-one has actually agreed with you that I made any sexist comments. Enjoy the minority of one. Now, from here forward I will not post to your talk and I ask you never to post to mine unless it is a formal notification (WP:ANI etc.) or if it is related explicitly to use of admin tools. Any other comments of yours will be removed without response. Best wishes and goodbye. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Your pledge to stop bothering me is long overdue and welcome. Now keep your word.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Last night's little spat...

Woke up this morning with a much clearer head, and wanted to apologize to you for my part in last night's little spat. As you said, it was not my place to guess your history with Pedro - I only added that because of the section towards the top in which you asked him to resign. Looking back, I probably shouldn't have gotten involved at all, after you two had moved off of the RfA page. Also, although I appreciate your concern over my age and any personal info on my page, I don't currently feel the need to remove any of it. Anyway, best wishes, and I hope that this is water under the proverbial bridge. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nolelover! Thanks for writing.
I wasn't angry at you. It's hard for me to be anything but grateful when somebody tries to make peace.
Sven M. was right that I was out-of-line writing suggesting that admin. P. resign as administrator. (You should have seen what he wrote that provoked my comment!) I don't think that Admin P. has ever misused the administrator tools. My concern was with how administrators lead by example. Well, P. seems to train a lot of competent administrators, so he is an asset to the community. Like most of us, when P. is good (and he is almost always good), he is very good, but when he is bad, ....
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there...

a proposal that Wikipedia editors act like adults also? -- Avanu (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi Avanu!
Sarcastic rhetorical questions are unproductive and so should be avoided. For your cause especially, your acting out in anger against me can only sway some undecided persons to oppose RfAs of adolescents and other immature persons.
Why don't you read about A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, Tom Kahn, or Saul Alinsky, and learn how intelligent people organize to change a real injustice. Is the unfairness of minors not getting access to illegal material really worth your time? Why don't you do something about gay bashing or racism or bigotry against religious minorities? Why don't you register your friends to vote? Why don't you organize your high school to demand better instruction in mathematics (e.g. are they at least certified—probably not—or do they have master's degrees in mathematics, like European gymnasium teachers) or better vocational training, or why don't you write a newsletter exposing injustices in your community? Why not organize a boycott of businesses contributing to anti-gay campaigns?
Too often, students engage in adolescent rage against the nearest authority figure: Witness the "acting-out" rage and inefficacy of much of student politics. Whining is just a waste of intelligence and time, yours and mine. Do something productive.
Please review (with due care) my comments:
You should know that I am concerned about primarily (1) the legal liability of Wikipedia for providing adolescent administrators with access to illegal files and material and (2) the well-being of adolescents and even younger children. A much smaller concern is (3) the possible damage caused by misbehavior of adolescent administrators.
If you have a self-centered concern with RfAs rather than real injustices---like gay boys being assaulted by bullies or kicked out by their parents, or Muslim and Jewish kids being told that they are going to Hell and otherwise ostracized---then please at least behave seriously about this self-centered concern. Please read the WP essays on the perennial issue of requiring a statement of that RfA candidates affirm their having the age of maturity.
If you have substantive comments, then you may initiate a discussion on the talk page of an appropriate essay. You could also organize other adolescents to change policy, although I hope that most of you are more concerned with real injustices than with making Wikipedia liable for civil and criminal penalties when tragedies happen to adolescent administrators.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I think my comment was entirely misinterpreted. It was intended as a humorous quip, not a substantive comment or attack on anyone in particular. I just thought it funny that there's a discussion about people being a certain age, yet at times, all of us do not 'act our age'. Sorry for the confusion. I'll work harder on my jokes, since this one fell flat. -- Avanu (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. It might just be that you are very close to and involved with the discussion/issue, but beyond the humorous thought of the occasional editor here and there who acts in a way unbecoming of their advanced years, I wasn't the slightest bit emotional or angry or anything, and I really wasn't trying to trivialize the issue either. I hope these comments clear that up and there's no hard feelings here. That certainly wasn't my intention at all. I just had your page on my watchlist from maybe commenting in the past, and saw the link you added on your user page. -- Avanu (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying.
:-)
Typewritting unfortunately fails to convey the emotional inflections of speech, so it is good to add winks or other indications of humor,
:-)
particularly when writing humorless drones like myself.
;-)
I shall leave my long response in case it interests somebody else.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:) - Avanu (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of fun's never been an insurrection

David Thomas of Pere Ubu wrote about problems of teenagers:

The signs all saying it's a social infection
A little bit of fun's never been an insurrection
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive_11&oldid=1145842819"