User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Thank you for engaging

Hi Kiefer. Thank you very much for your comments, you've given me a lot to read through. Please do feel free to keep going, I will be responding as soon as I have digested it all Worm^TT · (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer. I'm sorry to see that you are treating this as a full blown RfC, with proposals and notifications to other users. The idea was still that we would thrash it out together, and come up with a solution. I did point this out by email. But unfortunately things haven't turned out quite as I'd planned - and I am beginning to see that since you still think I have an ulterior motive, an RfC with the rest of the community involved is the only viable option. I can prepare this on or off wiki, so if you'd rather the current draft is deleted, please do let me know. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WTT/Dave,

Your user space is public and covered by the WP license and so now is part of the public record forever. I answered the points you raised in this public venue, after I had volunteered to discuss them with you privately. You rejected a private discussion.

I never stated that you have an ulterior motive and I do not think that.

I question your judgment, particularly around DU10^3, which is why I suggested a conditional interaction ban, following a two-sided interaction ban between DU10^3 and myself.

I have no idea what you mean by "the rest of the community".

I have to run. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is part of public record, should you chose to look at it that way. As I did mention though, I had offered to delete it - it would not be accessible to the public. I did reject private discussion, as I needed it to be part of public record, should it fail - as I explained.

I'm sorry you question my judgement about Demiurge and I can understand why. I don't know what you expect me to do about that though - it does not affect anything.

By rest of the community, I mean that the RfC will now be open to all, when I put it live. Anyone will be free to put in outside views, and so on. But I'm sure you know this, it's all well detailed at WP:RfC/U.

For now, I expect we won't need to interact for a little while. I'm sorry this didn't have a more constructive solution. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi WTT/Dave,

Your user space is public and covered by the WP license and so now is part of the public record forever. I answered the points you raised in this public venue, after I had volunteered to discuss them with you privately. You rejected a private discussion.

I never stated that you have an ulterior motive and I do not think that.

I question your judgment, particularly around DU10^3, which is why I suggested a conditional interaction ban, following a two-sided interaction ban between DU10^3 and myself. We have agreed that your intervention at ANI was not your best effort, partly for understandable reasons I have volunteered, and I have expressed skepticism that you have a reasonable goal with this RfC. Your initial efforts increase my skepticism about this being a good use of anybody's time, especially mine.

What are you trying to accomplish?

1. You want me to state that all editors are equal? (If not, why bring up the point about "KW thinks some editors are better than others"?)
2. You want me to pledge not to mention age or minor-status at RfAs? (If not, why mention age or "young RfA candidates"?)
3. You want me to stop pointing out editing problems at RfAs?
4. etc.

I had hoped that you would have focused on a few issues, and at least avoided stating ridiculous complaints, like your complaint that I had asked that an editor be blocked for trolling on my talk page. This is just sloppy beyond belief. To avoid such a waste of time, I asked you to mail my privately, so I could have at least asked you to delete the nonsense. Well, I told you so.

I have no idea what you mean by "the rest of the community".

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct - I'd mixed up a few quotes within a few days of each other, where you'd ask for Snottywong to be blocked for religious attacks[1] (and only be unblocked if he apologised) - and one where you'd said he was trolling[2]. Two issues, which I would have sorted out before I'd finished getting things ready. Similarly with the items which I stated I needed to research further. But no matter, all will be sorted in due course.

As for what I'm trying to accomplish, I'd like you to acknowledge that anyone can edit this encyclopedia and that your attitude is making a less collaborative atmosphere. I'd like you to stop "looking down" on editors. I'd like you to not badger editors you disagree with. I'd like you to attempt to keep to a reasonable civility restriction. I'd like you to recognise you are part of a community. Anyway, as I said, don't concern yourself with this now. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That was some list of wishes! I abandoned making lists like that when I figured out that Santa Claus could not instantaneously deposit presents at the stroke of midnight in every time zone without exceeding the speed of light. I take it that Augustinian teaching on Original Sin was not part of your religious upbringing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Optimism is part of your charm. However, wishes for the reformation of sinners and the salvation of fallen angels are expressed hopefully of grace, not originally but Origenally.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Patrides, C. A. (1967). "The salvation of Satan". Journal of the History of Ideas. 28 (4): 467–478. JSTOR 2708524. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) reprinted in Patrides, C. A. (1982) [1967]. "'A principle of infinite love': The salvation of Satan". Premises and motifs in Renaissance literature. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. JSTOR 2708524. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Seriously, after such a list, allow me to wish that you would stop wasting your time and mine. Watch a movie on chimpanzee politics, or visit the first exhibition in Stockholm's museum of military history: Then ask yourself whether you need to engage in this breast beating for another month. Then please go away and focus on writing an encyclopedia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Successor Organizations

KW, thanks for the GREAT work on the Social Democrats USA article. I would be pleased to correspond with you through email because I am Wikipedia illiterate. I can provide you some additional source material. regards, Rick D'Loss, National Co-Chair, Social Democrats USA. richard.dloss@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.242.119 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rick,

Thank you for your kind words.

You and other WP editors are welcome to use the email link (above) to contact me with private information.

In general, however, discussions leading to editing should be made on article talk pages. There seem to be two groups of SDUSA successors, both looking like nice persons and good social democrats, being rivals, so this is a case where all should be especially cautious about off-wiki communications.

Best regards/In solidarity,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also state another reason for much preferring on-Wiki contacts, particularly from officers of SDUSA's successor(s): I have been accused of editing with a pro-SDUSA bias, although at least one editor has since withdrawn that complaint, and stated (fairly imho) that I have demonstrated an understanding of SDUSA members' thoughts.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Combining multiple test results

Hey. I would like to add a few things to here [3], since there's barely anything at the moment. Since you are a grandmaster in this domain, it'd be nice to have your expert opinion. So far, I only added a reference to Brown 1975 and planned to add a few papers that extended his method. What do you think? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob!

Flattery will get you everywhere! ;)

I should warn you, as I have warned previous audiences, that this is an area of experimental analysis where my lack of knowledge is rivaled by my lack of interest, and both are considerable. ;)

Your proposal to elaborate Fisher's method is very good. I believe that Kempthorne & Hinkelmann's first book has a brief but intelligent discussion. (The idea of looking at the highest-level interactions first has generated a large literature:

• Fisher's apostles George E. P. Box and John Nelder discussed this principle, and suggested "heuristics" to justify it;
• Nelder's collaborator Peter McCullagh drank deeply of the well of mathematics and hung himself from the oak of category theory to attain wisdom, and you may wish to stare in amazement at the resulting Annals of Statistics paper and discussion (which attracted former category-theorist and ongoing robust statistician Peter Huber, btw). Life is too short for me to read the thing!

I would recommend that you look at the multiple comparison book by Tamhane & Hochberg. They have also worked with the wizards at the SAS Institute to publish a user-friendly guide (and also a workbook) on multiple comparisons; I can vouch that SAS's Tobias Randall is serious. These sources should be authoritative and mainstream.

I wish that I could be of greater help. Good luck! I should be delighted to look at the article when you finish its expansion, or when you near its "logarithmic phase" .... :)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. I only plan to edit the dependent test statistic section a little bit. It'd take a real statistician (which I am not) to really write a good review page about multiple testing. I think I will stick with summarizing the couple of papers I've read (which seem to be published in okay journals) and will cross my fingers about being not being yelled at by experts in the future. I will give SAS a look to see if it is that user-friendly and whether or not it has more mainstream methods. Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob! You did great. Maybe I'll copy my suggestions to the talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've made a grand total of 1 minor edit. That paragraph you are looking at wasn't written by me and I've yet to summarize Brown's method. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Krein--Rutman

Hi,

I have added a section about de Pagter's thm., please have a look (to make sure I made no mistakes -- I am ashamed to admit that I have never heard about it before).

Best, Sasha (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many people worked on proving the positivity of the spectral radius before de Pagter. It seems like an obvious question, but apparently it was open for many years. I think that Meyer-Nieberg and Aliprantis-Burkenshaw-Abramovich have good treatments of it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the ref! Well, I am still writing on something beyond my competence, so if you have a minute, please have a look at the revised version. Best, Sasha (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sasha,

Unfortunately, my copy of Aliprantis et alia was lent and now has disappeared, so I cannot be of much help. A remarkable generalization of de Pagter and Lomonosov's results is due to AAB. I roughly state it from memory. Consider a non-scalar operator that commutes with a compact operator. Then every operator commuting with it (i.e., every "compact friendly" operator) has an invariant subspace. AAB have results for positive operators, which concern Krein-Rutman.

Then V. Troitsky (Illinois, I think) proved that Charles Read's example of an operator (on l1) without an invariant subspace commutes with a compact friendly operator!

Thinking positively,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

thanks! I will eventually overcome the laziness and go to the library.

As opposed to de Pagter's thm, I did learn Lomonosov's theorem once (I even met Lomonosov a couple of times:). As far as I remember, what you stated is already in Lomonosov's paper (at least, I am sure his argument yields this).

and sorry for intervening in a conversation which was none of my business (with WTT) -- my message appears to have been counterproductive, since the more interest the community shows in his activity, the more it encourages him to pursue it.

Best,

Sasha (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Mathrev confirms my memory, see the second paragraph of the review

Saint Dominic presiding over an auto-da-fé, as depicted by Pedro Berruguete (around 1495).

My memory is going. Whatever ABB did, it was pretty! Maybe they found the fourth commutant of a compact operator had an invariant subspace and Troitsky proved that Read's operator was in a fifth?

Victor Lomonosov is a delight. Had he not been making breakthroughs in operator theory and geometric functional analysis a la Phelps, he could have been a remarkable stand up comedian (or at least a writer for a comedian).

Don't worry about that. I can confess my sins and forgive my trespassers every night in my prayers, with probable much improvement of my behavior and character, but I am skeptical about the value of further auto-da-fés on Wikipedia: They seem an interminable waste of time, for me and other (usually quite productive) editors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled autopatrolled on your account. This does not affect your editing; rather, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please take note of the following points:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority.
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal.
• You can display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page.
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it.

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask me. Otherwise, happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, and thanks for the review and kind words at the request page (from TParis also)!

I had enjoyed having hundreds of visitors to each new article. However, when I realized that they had contributed at most a handful of edits to 25 new articles, I concluded that their attentions should be spared for reverting vandalism from IP edits.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Gershman

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

1387, a non-notable number?

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia must have an infinite number of articles? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No. However, the current notability guidelines and the axiom of countable choice imply that any attempt to delete an article on an integer as being not-notable should fail per a variant of the interesting number paradox:

1. The nonnegative integers are ordered and bounded below;
2. if there exists a non-notable number, then there exists a smallest non-notable number;
3. being the first non-notable number makes the number notable. Q.E.D..

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RfCs aim to improve editors' conduct: Comparison of RfCs and Auto da fes

RFC discussion of User:JohnLloydScharf

The goal of Request for Comments on Users (RFC/U) is reformation not punishment.

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of JohnLloydScharf (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf. -- Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I have replied on the RFC/U talkpage. You might be right, but problems are building up still and most people are definitely NOT getting through.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I just added a second remark because I suddenly realized that you might actually misunderstand my intentions, which are possibly more or less the same as yours.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (I left a gentle warning template for him a few days ago, and he responded well. I believe that he does read others' comments carefully before deleting them.) I trust that all will be settled soon.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment implies you are not only talking about the one discussion he had with you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that he treats me better than he treats anybody else, and he seemed reasonable when in our discussion. Thus, my belief about his good sense follows from limited observation and WP:AGF. You are welcome to attribute my belief to my irrepressible benevolence if you wish!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. I do appreciate your intentions. It is in fact a bit the other way around. Your post does not say it is about one experience and by doing that you effectively could be read as not being very benevolent to others apart from JohnLloydScharf. In effect your post could be read as saying that you have looked at this person's editing and you see:-

• Him responding reasonably to reasonably requests other than the one you experienced. Really? Have you looked at this recent edits?
• Good deeds which I have not reported. What are they? It almost seems like you could be saying I have distorted a good editing record. Honestly I do not believe I have.
• You have seen that other editors are also to blame? Who? (Maybe you are even blaming me.)

My main points to you are:-

• First, if your post is based on one particular experience, you should say so.
• Second, if you are going to imply (intentionally or otherwise) that I am wrong, which might very well be true of course, you should read this person's recent editing record more carefully and really be sure about it. Please also give me some benefit of the doubt. :)
• Third, perhaps most critically, I think your post is a little unclear in terms of what you are actually proposing. Remember this is a request for comment and not a request for sanctions. You say my request is "premature", but please read my desired results again. My main request is simply clear feedback. Are you honestly saying that this would be a bad thing?? Seeing that you have a benevolent style, I think you do not mean that, but that is what you write. Do you see what I mean? Sorry for the long post!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Everybody would benefit from developing other interests. You might benefit from letting this rest for a while, and JLS might benefit from editing other articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course. But, WP:AGF? I am not a single issue editor and I honestly think I do not need that advice, which is effectively changing the subject. Please understand I was not asking for a community comment in order to win any edit war I am obsessing over, but because I noticed while improving an article that this person has been in constant conflict mainly with other people, filling up articles and talkpage with nonsense without impunity so far. My relationship with him has been relatively good for most of that time, certainly compared to that he has with most other editors he comes across. And yes, within a short period of time he will probably be editing something else and so will I, and it will be "someone else's problem" again, maybe yours. But for the community's sake I simply suggest that his actions need review and comment. If not possible, fine, but at least take this in good faith. I was called by another editor to look at the J1 articles some weeks ago. Here is the article 4 August, a few weeks ago [4] before I started working on it. I merged the three articles that existed then, explained what I was doing the whole time, and why, and I believe JLS basically sees my work as positive, even though you would not be able to tell it from his talk page behaviour. But concerning the policy advice, he accepts nothing, not only from me but from most people who have posted on his talk page, blatantly saying he will listen to no one who is not an admin. OTOH, I believe my unfortunately long post above was pointing to some valid concerns about the approach you have to posting into an RFC/U. Can you please consider them benevolently? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are a good guy too. :)

From my limited exposure to JLS, I have concluded that

1. I don't need to look more to conclude, with high confidence, that

A. he is an editor needing support more than RfCs and that he will grow to become an even better editor.

That his girlfriend is a geneticist is another reason I may feel solidarity and benevolence. (Do you have any idea how much time she spends at the bench away from him?) :)

Cheerfully,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer, I am not really sure why you think I am trying to get JLS "punished" (looking at your new graphic). It may be something that someone demands in the future, hopefully not you or I, but I absolutely agree that we want to try to talk to this guy now, but my turn at this job is nearing its end, because he is sick of my advice. Maybe you can help. My understanding, perhaps naive, is that an RFC is a request of opinions and feedback. It can imply sanctions in some cases, but in this case it explicitly does not. You seem to assume that I intend otherwise. Anyway, thanks for your time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I mentioned auto-da-fes in an earlier conversation above, and just included the graphic as grim humor. It is not about you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Respectful request

Hi Kiefer. Further to my agreement at User talk:Fetchcomms, I have not interacted with you, nor mentioned you anywhere on Wiki besides our direct conversations. I have not "jumped in" to conversations that do not concern me. I'll note that Demiurge1000 has also restrained himself since my comments on my talk page.[5] I respectfully ask that you stop posting snide comments regarding RfCs, images of Spanish Inquisition, and indeed discussing me or the workshop I attempted at inappropriate venues. I note that you've mentioned it at User talk:Fetchcomms, User talk:Malleus Fatuorum, User talk:SandyGeorgia - editors I respect - and WT:RfA. I will ensure fetchcomms is aware of this message. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior towards me, particularly the charge of being "overzealous at the RfAs of young editors" (sic.), is relevant to an assessment of your goals with RfA reform.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read more about earlier acts of faiths. Like your RfC, they were aimed at improving the souls of the subjects. ;)

""No more than 2% of the hundreds of thousands that were persecuted were ever executed. The primary motivation of the trial was to obtain reconciliation and forgiveness of convicted offenders."

"The auto-da-fé was also a form of penitence for the public viewers, because they too were engaging in a process of reconciliation and by being involved were given the chance to confront their sins and be forgiven by the Church."

Remember WP:AGF! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I have your talkpage on my watchlist (I'll remove it if you prefer). The two sentences in your quote are a non sequitur, and I'd like to see the original source. While it remains true that only a percentage of those subjected to the persecution of the Inquisition suffered the ultimate penalty, all those dragged through the Auto da Fe did. Confession, repentance and reconciliation with Mother Church was indeed the purpose of the show, but neither repentance nor reconciliation prevented the inevitable execution - the aim was to save the victim's eternal soul, not their earthly body.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Elen!

You are welcome to watchlist my talkpage, whether for stimulating or soporific effect. I just quoted from our article on auto da fes. Let me place two anchors by the paragraphs quoted: DONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind. The activities of the Spanish Inquisition are often confused with the persecution of witches in England and France, but in fact the Spanish Inquisition did not enquire into charges of witchcraft.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)