User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Category:Stochastic optimization

You have placed an article and a category under Category:Stochastic optimization. But the articles that were already in that category were topics in a very different context, so you might want to look at these and perhaps think again. Melcombe (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are thoughtful as always. Perhaps I should write some context, so that a standard term "stochastic optimization" retains the established meaning in Wikipedia, where it seems to be somewhat more narrowly construed at present. (Standard references using the term "stochastic optimization" in the "stochastic programming" sense include Heyman & Sobel (Volume 2: Stochastic Optimization), Kurt Marti's SO Methods, Ermoliev & Wets, etc.)

UPDATE: I looked at the SO article, which has a lot of problems. It seems narrowly to discuss stochastic "algorithms" (sic.), which should be called "methods" for many of the examples, since they lack finite termination. The biggest problem seems to be that its definition doesn't fit stochastic approximation methods, which typically have deterministic step-size rules: The randomness comes from the noisy function & (stochastic quasi- or sub-)gradient evaluations, not from the method.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Credit Peirce or no?

Hi, Kiefer. I hope you're not too busy for this question, though I see you haven't edited for a few weeks. Peirce often said such things as that induction [involving ongoing tests or observations] follows a method which, "sufficiently persisted in, will diminish its error below any predesignate degree." One sees similar statements often enough, i.e., keep testing in order to raise a confidence level and so on. My question is, is Peirce the first to note this? - and can a claim that he was the first to note it be sourced? The Tetrast (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

Hi, Tetrast. Before Peirce, various authors had statements of probabilities being defined in terms of the frequency in which the proposition would fulfilled in random cases from a population. I believe that Peirce had the most sophisticated treatment, which improved earlier "frequentist" treatments, e.g. of John Venn or George Boole: Recently brousing Boole's Laws of Thought, I was surprised at the number of statements that read like proto-Peirceian formulations. Thus, to avoid errors, I would be careful about claiming Peirce's priority without reading Venn or Boole. However, on Peirce's statistics and other matters, I would trust the scholarship of Arthur W. Burks, Jaakko Hintikka, or Isaac Levi.

Regarding the "asymptotic"/limiting properties of (good) statistical procedures, my guess is that Laplace would have had some claim to priority, insofar as Laplace proved early versions of the consistency and asymptotic normality of maximum posterior estimators (in important parametric cases), according to writings of Lucien Le Cam and Anders Hald, particularly the latter's Wiley book on Mathematical Statistics from 1770-1930 (whose scholarship on Laplace is sacrificed in Hald's last book on the history of mathematical statistics, by Springer, without explanation; the last book's hagiography of Fisher reminds me of the auto da fe of Georgy Lukacs).

I believe that everybody serious credits Peirce with providing the first discussion of randomization and also the first application of randomization in experiments.

(To avoid cirularity and to avoid nominalism, Peirce also proposed a propensity theory of probability. Susan Haack has discussed Peirce's propensity theory of probability, comparing it to Karl Popper's.)

I have been travelling and this is the first time I saw your note. I am very tired and so I more opaque than usual, but I did want to reply ASAP.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiefer. I'm seldom in a rush. Thank you for the chatty comprehensiveness, and you were very clear. I should not jump, in Peirce articles, to credit Peirce with being the first to note the "asymptotic"/limiting properties of (good) statistical procedures. Peirce used the idea in his argument for the validity of induction. I'm beginning to wonder whether he weakened his argument a bit in late years. It never ends with Peirce! Oh well, I'm pushing the length limit at the important articles (that situation has become dire in the past few days). Thanks again! Best regards, The Tetrast (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Guidelines

Main page: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

For convenient reference, I list templates with useful guidelines. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank you for visiting my Talk-Page!

As I noted on my user page, I am exceptionally occupied lately and so (alas) my reply to your messages may be delayed.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK on Shapley Folkman Lemma

You appeared to have nominated this article twice. I've gone ahead and merged them into one section, making one hook an ALT. Hope this is ok. Smartse (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smartse! David Eppstein added a new graphic, which deserved its own nomination. Thanks for fixing the duplication! (By the way, the Mathematical Genealogy Project has had discussion on EdStat again!.)Best, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jon Folkman

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shapley–Folkman lemma

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonlinear programming textbook with Bonnans et alia

Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,

As a WP beginner (my second day ...), I don't know whether I use the appropriate way to reply to your message on my talk page. Remove this, if this is inappropriate.

Well, this is just to thank you for your interventions in updating the references to the BGLS book (Bonnans et al). As for the other part of your message, it is still rather obscure to me. "IHMO" and "COI concern" sound very exotic and intrigating. Hope to become familiar with these terms and to be able to act according to their meaning in the future. Thank you again.

Best regards, Jean-Charles.Gilbert (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear editor Jean-Charles Gilbert,

It is a pleasure to hear from you, especially because I am a fan obviously of your textbook and admittedly of your work on CG methods with Nocedal—although professionally my interests lie more on the kinky side of optimization!

You should feel free to comment on user's talk pages. As you suggested, every user does have the right to remove messages from his talk page. You may also reply to comments directly on your "talk page", below the other's message, if you prefer; such concatenated replies enable third-party readers most easily to follow the conversation. (Either method of replying works fine for both of us, because we have low volumes of conversations.)

I am sorry for mis-spelling the acronym for IMHO ("In my humble opinion") and obscurely encrypting "Conflict of Interest" as "COI". I wrote IMHO to warn that Wikipedia guidelines may be more stringent than my humble opinion: Other editors with research publications in the mathematical sciences include editors David Eppstein, Boris Tsirelson or Michael Hardy; their examples of editing and avoiding conflicts of interests (or weighing possible conflicts-of-interests against improving Wikipedia) may interest you.

Best regards,

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jean Dickinson Gibbons

I see you commented on an old issue stemming from List of statisticians from over a year ago. I'm sorry my words were a bit strong in replying to another editor. If you have the sources that show the person is indeed notable, feel free to write an article (even a stub one as long as it's independently sourced) and reinstate a then working link in the list article. The issue with adding red links to such lists is that it is often hard to verify the notability of the person, and random people might add unnotable or vanity entries, and if we simply allow red links without sources the list would become larger with little actual content (links with existing article). I could personally add half a dozen people I know who pass WP:PROF and could have their own articles, but as red links in a list they would not be particularly useful.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! The question of notability does require some judgment, and I hope you saw that I moderated my comments on your page, after I checked my source and thought a bit. I was more concerned with the tone of your response to Michael Hardy, who has contributed to a lot to Wikipedia, than about arguing the merits of Gibbons. I don't feel the urge to write an article for her, despite my admiration for her, because I think that some other statisticians deserve articles more. It is kind of you to write a note here. I shall try to remember your example of graciousness and try to write more nicely also: I find it more difficult to practice good manners than to preach them, and I should benefit from your example. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Thank you for submitting your article to peer review. Please note that listing an article under more than one section is not usual: if you want to do something unusual please ask at WT:PR. Such things can be done, but if they are not done in the right way, they will confuse the system. (Don't worry, I'm not going to whack you with a trout on this occasion ;) ) Geometry guy 23:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind notice! :)

The Shapley-Folkman lemma is a mathematical theorem that is beloved of economists, but I should have written a notice or request for guidance, as you correctly note.

I am glad that I wrote that I had never submitted an article for peer-reviewing, which may have spared me from the trout-smacking! ;)

BTW, thanks for your work on WP mathematics!

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I noted the non-standard use of two categorizations in both the nomination for peer-review and in the talk page for peer-reviews, to which your link led. Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you get some good feedback. Geometry guy 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just reviewed this one. Have a look. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Paul, Thank you very much for your helpful suggestions, some of which I've already tried to implement. (I replied in greater detail at the peer-review page dedicated to the Shapley-Folkman lemma. Thanks again for your great input. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dashes and such

Yo, I could not help notice your recent addition to your user page: "I cannot see the difference between dashes —- between the (deprecated) small dash - and the (recommended) large dash – (which can be inserted using the Wiki markup menu)." The linked page from WP:DASH, Dash#Rendering dashes on computers, does not bode well for Windows users, and neither do Google results for typing dashes. I'm on OS X, so it's pretty straight-forward for me to type hyphen, n-dash, or m-dash. I have a section in my sandbox that contains the dashes as explicit characters and the HTML entities that cause them to be rendered as such so I can make sure my browser is straight about the dashes... choice of font greatly affects being able to visually perceive the difference. What exactly is the trouble with the dash? –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 01:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I updated my page, to clarify that I cannot distinguish the dashes when typing (although I can see the difference when the Wikipage has compiled for previewing). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. In that case, you should check your browser's default fonts and make sure that the font it is using for text areas (usually some monospace font) contains the distinguishable dashes (I recently had the inverse problem - distinguished when authoring an article but negligibly different on the page). Another thing you could do is type the article with a single hyphen for hyphens, double for the n-dash, and triple for the m-dash, and before saving the page, use a word processor or regular expression to replace all the doubles and triples with the appropriate dash. I guess just typing it up and then previewing would suffice for short passages, and after doing the replacements, I would search for all the single hyphens remaining to make sure they were appropriate. I had to learn about the dash, myself when I began copyediting for WP this summer. Cheers! –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The dashes became legible, following my switching to Firefox on Ubuntu's GNU/Linux. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I'm sorry about failing to help with the Gnome article. I've had difficulty working on the Shapley Folkman lemma and my experiences with Ubuntu strongly suggest that other editors would better able to help with the peer review. Thanks again for your help with the Shapley-Folkman lemma. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Peirce footnote on "certain likelihoods" and Bayesian inference

Hi, Kiefer,

At the Charles Sanders Peirce article, you put a footnote:

Peirce condemned the use of "certain likelihoods" even more strongly than he criticized Bayesian methods. Indeed Peirce used Bayesian inference in criticizing parapsychology.

An editor has started pushing for more references.

(I've since added "EP 2:108–9" after "certain likelihoods" and corrected that reference (from "102-103") in Likelihood function.

Can you provide a reference (or is that also in Stigler or Hacking?) for his use of Bayesian inference, or pinpoint where Peirce does it in a way that the reader can see?

What I put below here looks lengthy but that's because I tried to do some of the work and make this easier. I understand that you don't have a lot of time these days.

Below are articles by Peirce on parapsychology with links, I figure it's one or both of them that you meant. I don't know much about Bayesian inference, and Peirce is just the man to discuss an idea in such plain terms that somebody like me doesn't realize that he's referring to a conception with a tradition behind it. But I couldn't find anything in "Criticism on Phantasms of the Living" except where he refers to an appeal to a "special antecedent likelihood" which Peirce says would "beg the question". However, in Peirce's second paper "Mr. Peirce's Rejoinder", on page 186 he says, "Until we obtain some positive statistics, we can only assume that the thirty-one cases under consideration are fairly representative of hallucinations in general in regard to the lengths of time that the percipients might expect the apparitor to live." and goes on to calculate on that basis - is there a Bayesian inference in there?

(Caveat: I am not a published Peirce scholar, and I would be afraid to write anything for Wikipedia without citing primary, secondary sources, even when such things seem obvious.)

Peirce would not have used the phrase "Bayesian", which was introduced by Fisher. Peirce's discussion of "only assume that the ... cases .... are fairly representative" would seem to be an application of Laplace's (default) principle of insufficient reason or of Peirce's "economy of inquiry" (in the 1903?? manuscript on evaluating historical manuscripts) --- paranoia wastes scientific resources, and it's economical to use haphazard samples as a basis for tentative inquiry. But I don't know of any scholarly sources for such interpretations, and am stressed for time now, so I haven't been checking.

Belatedly, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• (1887 December), in Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research, v. I, Boston: Damrell and Upham,
  • "Criticism on Phantasms of the Living: An Examination of an Argument of Messrs. Gurney, Myers, and Podmore", n. 3, pp. 150-157. Reprinted (W 6:74-81). Followed by a response by Gurney, Edmund, "Remarks on Professor Peirce's Paper", pp. 157-179.
  • "Mr. Peirce’s Rejoinder", still in n. 3, pp. 180-215. Reprinted (WP 6, pp. 101–141). Followed (1889 March) by a response by Gurney, Edmund, "Remarks on Mr. Peirce's Rejoinder", n. 4, pp. 286-300, followed by W. H. Myers, Frederic, "Postscript to Professor Gurney's Reply to Mr. Peirce", pp. 300-301.

Best, The Tetrast (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Hello Tetrast, it's always a pleasure to hear from you. I'll look at your note tomorrow when I have some attention. I was referring to the multi-part (rough, according to the editor) review of "Phantasms of the living". Peirce discusses the probability of some event (given the data) and then states that the probability is small for any reasonable antecedent probability; in other words, the conclusions of the authors only held if the antecedent probability was incredible. Before Fisher's polemics, inverse probability was the standard statistics, so nobody called attention to their using conditional probability (updating based on the data). It was usual to use a non-standard uniform antecedent probability, which could produce nonsense, and this use of Bayesian reasoning was ridiculed by Peirce and others.

Again, I'll look at your note closely tomorrow. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiefer. A pleasure as always! It looks like I may have to be beefing up the article's footnotes a whole lot, but it looks like I don't have to do it all in a few days. The Tetrast (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC). Edited The Tetrast (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC).

I apologize for my delays in responding further. Both my professional life, the Swedish darkness, and some unrewarding WP activities (see below) have swamped me the last weeks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kiefer. My adding of references to the Peirce article is afoot again. I've found where Peirce says (p. 152): "They have admitted among their thirty-one cases no less than thirteen which might well enough be set down as falling probably within the twelve-hour limit, once we have admitted any special antecedent likelihood of such an occurrence; but which beg the question entirely, when, the evidence of the coincidence being but slight, they are used to prove the existence of such a likelihood." (italic emphasis Peirce's)

and he goes on in the same paragraph to discuss an example, and says:

"Their only warrant for this is, that he says the vision occurred on Friday at 2 A.M. But it is certainly more natural to suppose that he inadvertently used this expression meaning the night of Friday at 2 A.M. This is the more likely of the two suppositions; but the case ought not to be included, unless it can be shown beyond all reasonable doubt, and irrespective of considerations drawn from the time of the death, that the vision occurred on the night of Thursday." (italic emphasis Peirce's)

So it seems like he's saying that, on a Bayesian view, they've made the wrong inference, but also that even if Bayesian inference favored their conclusion, it would not suffice, instead the conclusion should be "beyond all reasonable doubt." So it seems a kind of ventriloqual, "adopting their approach" use that Peirce makes of Bayesian inference there. On the other hand, maybe I'm just all confused.

Also, is there maybe something Bayesian happening? on p. 156 in the paragraph beginning "Let us now glance at the numerical data...". He doesn't say "special antecedent probability" but does discuss assumptions to be factored into the calculating of probabilities. The Tetrast (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Hi Tetrast!

You found the passage (or a passage) that I remembered. I'm sorry for not looking it up myself. I have the same interpretation, that Peirce was explicating their Bayesian reasoning, and clarifying the role of the antecedent probability ("likelihood"), which he argued was too large to be plausible. Then he comments further about the difficulty of assessing the antecedent probability --- in keeping with his preference for objective randomization or historically stable frequencies (such as used in insurance) as credible bases for inference.

I would have liked to examine the passages before, and should like to do so in the next month. Again, I am sorry for my delay, particularly when I raised the subject!

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Frank discussion, since removed

A yellow card is a warning.

Be nice or leave!

A frank discussion between an editor named Edstat and myself no longer appears on this talk page.

Editor Edstat is discussed on two Wikipedia noticeboards,

• Conflicts of interests, following an earlier COI discussion and
• Sockpuppet investigations (Edstat),

and at the Wiki Project Statistics talk page.

In this discussion, Edstat mentioned that an administrator had cautioned me for some comments before. Being in a foul mood, I "explained" the context, which seemed completely justified to me (then). However, a couple weeks later, it's obvious that I was in fact repeating some unconstructive comments that don't belong on talk pages. This renewed commentary led to administrator Georgewilliamherbert's reaching for a yellow card from his referee's pocket (below) but then pausing (for a week now) with his fingers around the red card! (Context: In (association) football/soccer, a player earning a second yellow card receives a red card.)

I reference the discussion in case anybody is curious.

Sincerely,

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry allegations against Edstat

Sock puppetry does not build trust among the Wikipedia community.

I opened an investigation about sockpuppetry possibly possibly renewed by Edstat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility warning by administrator Georgewilliamherbert

I do not undertand . . .

...why you are so fixated on your previous administrator interaction that you were previously warned about ( [1] ) that you keep having to repeat personal attacks over and over and over again ( [2] ).

Do you not understand how offensive your behavior has been on this point?

Do you care so little about other Wikipedians, and the Wikipedia community as a whole, that you feel that repeated strings of insults are appropriate ways of communicating with them?

What is your problem? Why do you keep coming back to it, and insulting her? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor (and administrator) GWH refers to a posting that has since been removed, for the general good, but which can be viewed in the page history. 12:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GWH, Edstat just referred to my being cautioned, so I referred to it, for context and for fairness. Further, Bishonen has repeatedly alleged that I (and others) have been writing a pro Sweden Democrats article, even on the Wikiquette page!, and Bishonen's personal attacks violate WP policy, as I wrote above. I ask you not to write here again, unless WP policy requires that you do so.

I apologize for the rude last sentence, now stricken: Last night or rather early morning, I had mistakenly mis-remembered you as being the author of a similarly nasty note. 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your loaded question, imho, your and Bishonen's behavior does not meet the standard of the Baseball umpire manual, quoted above, or that of administrators associated with the mathematics project, like Vernon Whitely or Charles Matthew, who have never belittled or baited a editor with imho possible emotional problems. Were either or both of them to apologize for such repeated violations of WP policies as displayed by Bishonen, then I would seriously consider quitting my association with WP, and reassess my ability to judge character. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I do not confuse you or the others who supported Bishonen's behavior with the "Wikipedia community as a whole". See the previous point, for counter-examples. (EC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You went beyond referring to it for context and fairness, across the line into personal attacks, in violation of prior explicit warnings and the policy. And you had no good reason to do so, as it's long in the past and the particulars of your grievance there have nothing to do with the current incident (which I am in no way judging, as I don't know the statistics articles topics, who Edstad is or what he's up to, or other context).

I asked, because I would much rather have a discussion about your problem than simply do what I warned you previously that I'd do, which is block you if you did it again. I can do that, if you insist on not talking about it, but I think that conversation and discussion may be more fruitful in avoiding future incidents.

If for some reason you absolutely don't want to disucuss it with me but will with other admins, I'll get another one who deals with ongoing NPA issues to come here and follow up. But they'll probably block you if you fail to respond constructively, too.

Seriously - this obsession of yours makes zero sense, and is threatening to dig you into a serious hole and curtail your ongoing contributions to Wikipedia. Why?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's 3:30 in the morning, and I am not in the mood to discuss this now. I have tried to write civilly about Edstat and myself. Please allow me to resolve the issues with Edstat here, and then we can discuss what you characterize as "my problem". I give you permission to modify my previous statements if you think that I am violating WP policy, particularly with respect to Bishonen. I need to sleep. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need to modify them at the moment. I didn't realize what time it is for you. This is not time urgent; I will take no action immediately if you are willing to discuss it later.

When you are rested (tomorrow, or Sunday, or even next week, but reasonably soon after you start editing in general) please resume the conversation, but don't feel pressured to do so before you feel rested and ok with doing so.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy reply by Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Okay, George, that's reasonable. Both your latest words and the tone indicate some degree of sincerity, although I hope you realize that "what is your problem?" is not what you really want to write if you want spur reflection and self-criticism and improved behavior. (For example, I hope that I have never written such a statement to Edstat.)

I shall try to answer you honestly and directly.

At the end of my posting on Wikiquette, I wrote a paragraph indicating that it's extremely offensive to be called a fascist or neo-nazi, particularly if you have had family members who were murdered by Nazis or if you have spent years in political movements smashed by Nazis or if you have family in countries of subhumans targetted for slow extermination by nazis. It is particularly irritating when Bishonen supports the other editor and then accuses myself and the other editors of writing promotional material for the Sweden Democrats, a party with recent and strong ties to neo-Nazi and white power movements.

Not one of the Wikiquette administrators made any comment about the substance of the complaint about Wembrandt, but then offered a lot of criticism about political balance of the article and criticism of me (as Bishonen correctly wrote).

Being busy, the other editors (many administrators) could have skipped the complaint, since Wembwandt had ceased editing after October 27, if my memory be correct. (I understand that the mediation process aims at encouraging back-sliding editors to develop productive and kind editing habits, not to punish past misdeeds.) However, some word about Wembwandt's string of "nazi" insults should have accompanied criticism of the active editors --- myself and imho Bishonen --- who had lapsed from usual standards of civility: Only I received criticism and Bishonen continued with another Sweden Democrats insult! This was not the finest hour of the Wikiquette page, imho!

It also occurs to me that American/English editors at Wikiquette may not have understood how controversial the Sweden Democrats are; their behavior may be pardonable because none need have known that most Swedes would regard administrator B's repeated charges as serious personal attacks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I have stated before (both above and answering Edstat's complaint on Vernon Whitely's talk page) that I don't care about the opinion of you or about the opinion of anybody associated with the Wikiquette page who was actively supporting Bishonen those days, because you or they write as though my behavior towards Bishonen was worse than her repeated SD-insults or Wembwandt's months of neo-nazi insults. My expression of contempt is visible here and possibly on Whitely's page: Whatever . . . — I'll deal with any consequences of expressing public contempt for a group of administrators, as a price to pay for promoting reflection and possibly improvement there (but I would hope that any penalty would be imposed after the problem with Edstat has been resolved.)

Obviously, I do care about your opinion, or I wouldn't bother responding at such length, even when I was irritated before.

I do not expect an apology from Bishonen or admonishment from you of Bishonen. I suggested twice that she remove the repeated insults, and she didn't. However, I would hope that Bishonen be more likely to bite her tongue in the future, and not bait some poor editor with possible problems, or edit them away if her forebrain was initially hypoactive. I would hope that another administrator might send her an email, suggesting greater charity, privately also. This is more for your good and her good, but I don't expect future interaction with her, since she's only kibbitzed on exactly one article that I've edited, to the best of my memory. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

People are getting far too sensitive over here. The slightest slight seems to tickle peoples fancies. Granted the edit summary shouldnt have had "infantile-leftist editor " but theres not harm done. this edit was certainly not uncivil but perfectly calm. in fact it seems Georgewilliamherbert jumped in to protect an admin just 'cause. Admins are not infallible vs. regular editors. and if you refer to this "Bishonen exhibited sarcasm and other belittling comments " then that is certainly not an NPA.Lihaas (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The "infantile left" crack was improper, as both Georgewilliamherbert and Lihaas correctly noted. I am sorry.

The "infantile left" crack was also inaccurate historically. The habit of calling liberals and social-democrats "fascists" is not associated with ultra-leftists (enthusiasts of Luxemburg & Leibknecht and later of Trotsky).

Such "fascist" slanders have been associated rather with the Comintern's Third Period, which encouraged the street-fighting that helped bring down the Weimar Republic. Similar street-actions helped Richard Nixon win the vote of enraged U.S. workers, predominantly opposed to the Vietnam War. Even Al-Jazeera noted that Swedish totalitarian-left thuggery helped gain votes and even wider sympathy for the Sweden Democrats. In retrospect, I suppose that I have been reacting in revulsion to the Stalinist politics associated with labelling the good guys "fascists".

Jan Guillou (intelligent, and a former Maoist and still extreme leftist) has noted that the tolerance and tacit support of "communist" assaults on anti-immigration knuckleheads has been an unhealthy development among some middle class supporters of the Vänster and SA parties in Sweden. This culpability of the Swedish new "left" & class may be compared to their culpability in the decline of the SAP. Perhaps I was unfairly & unconsciously projecting such disasterous and irresponsible politics on the aformentioned editor, who charged us with writing a promotion piece for the Sweden Democrats? This requires thought . . . . Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why he is certainly not infallible just 'cause he is an admin. Doesnt make it any less or more worse because he has admin status.Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Lihaas. However, GWH no doubt wrote his warning after I had retaliated against another (Sweden Democrats?, if my memory is correct) insult from Bishonen with an extremely condescending reply (which was well referenced by 2-3 comments on Wikiquette). I don't mind a warning, because such exchanges are destructive of any community, and would turn off potential editors on Wikipedia. My objection is to what I perceive as the one-sidedness of the warning, after I had been hit with a series of personal attacks on my politics and my good faith, by another administrator who wasn't even contributing to the article (and moreover, who wrote in the "breezy" style condemned by Strunk & White, 5.9!). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Curious about WP policy about discussing problems

Dear George, It may be that I don't understand your intent. I did try to respond honestly, at your repeated request, and if I have errored in re-airing criticisms of a past conflict, then I'm sorry: I did not want to return to complaining about a very short-lived problem, but rather to answer your question. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear George,

I was surprised to learn that, like The Counselor on the Enterprise of Star Trek: The Next Generation, you are empowered on Wikipedia to order me to a therapeutic dialogue. To the best of my knowledge, Deanna Troy never established a professional rapport with loading language like "What is your problem?", "so fixated", and "obsession", and to the best of my knowledge neither did Stuart Smalley so establish a paraprofessional rapport. But my experience is limited.

Would you please reference whatever policy empowers you to suggest that I need to "respond constructively" to your questions (or to another administrator's) or face purgatory/blocking? (For obvious ethical reasons, professional psychologists, etc., have issues with persons being sentenced to therapy by some judges in the USA. It is surprising to me that Wikipedia would have such a policy, given its rather anarchistic/tit-for-tat culture of interaction) Moreover, it seems that such a discussion (especially when personal attacks are alleged or real) would seem difficult to do on a public page. 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC) IMHO, in your phrases "What is your problem?", "so fixated", and "obsession", you border on a personal attack, perhaps transgressing the spirit of one (08:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)) prohibition against suggesting that editors have psychological problems.

Continuing to express astonishment, I am also surprised that you or an script bothered to monitor my humble page. That you manifested on this mortal page as a deux ex machina thrice this weekend and and that you commanded me to explain "my problem" would, imho, have obligated a lesser being to respond. I know that your ways are mysterious, and I tremble in sack-cloth and smear my head with ashes awaiting your reply, which I hope shall begin with the traditional pronouncement, "Be not afraid"!

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi George. I hope you understand that the blasphemous remarks were supposed to be humor and possibly goads to your replying. I hadn't seen that you were busy running for the Arbitration Committee. Of course, I understand that you are especially busy now and for some weeks. Please reply at your leisure. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom is only the reason I'm busy today; the previous few days, it was North Korea's nuclear weapons program including their new reactor and new uranium enrichment facility, and new ballistic missile silos in Iran. Thank you, North Korea and Iran.

I owe you some followup here. I am aware of that. You will get it. Hopefully tonight, but it's 7:40pm here and I need to leave work and get dinner and spend a bit of family time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I shall restrain myself about your asking you about your lifestyle choices! You sound terribly busy, and I hope your family has been briefed about the election decision! :) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc unappetizing

Dear George,

I understand that even my talk page is not a place for venting my frustration, when such venting would violate the no personal attacks policy. I hope that you understand the context of my replying to Edstat's complaint, late at night, and that I did ask for feedback from at least one more experienced editor publicly. I also have given you permission to remove such violations, but have not changed anything pending your reply and blocking decision, so that others may understand the context for your message(s).

Both you and administrator/editor B (and others) have suggested my opening a request for comment (Rfc) about editor B's behavior, but this does not seem fruitful, given my experience at Wikiquette and by the responses visible at B's user page (which lists several such inquiries, which strike me as having the same one-sided response as at Wikiquette — multiple endorsements of B's behavior without even an admission that occasional lapses may have occurred). For advice on behavioral problems, un-involved administrators (especially with content expertise) have been very helpful in calming nerves and suggesting behavioral modifications for all; thus, asking for such local help shall remain my standard operating procedure (sentence added 12:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)).

In the future, were some editor to allude to the previous conflict, I should simply link my responses at Wikiquette, without repeating a complaint. (Please understand that I am less familiar with the editing system and WP, and that it was much simpler to restate my side of that conflict than to link the history properly.)

Regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A similar inappropriate remark about administrator B appears on VernoWhitney's archived pages: Should I ask him to remove it? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)