User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Afghan documents leak and child prostitution

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Afghan War documents leak.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request for Comment

"Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that which purifies us is triall, and triall is by what is contrary."

John Milton, Areopagitica

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Kiefer.Wolfowitz)

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz, where you may want to participate. As requested, I will now ask a sitting arb, and one of your prefered administrators to confirm whether there is a basis for this RfC. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion was that you ask somebody with greater ability and experience to draft an RfC that would focus on a few behavioral changes, for me (as you should do for any other person in an RfC). Your credibility would be greater if you were being conservative in your paraphrasing, rather than distorting User:Carrite's comment about my contempt for Busky's book. Have you bothered to read the pages I flagged as poor scholarship yet?

I find it humorous that you, who could not even be bothered to source properly the trivial bacon festival, are rapping my knuckles like a school marm about my acknowledgment that I had reused content ("canibalizing"), which I have acknowledged doing in many articles with edit-summaries. Of course, I can do better and perhaps I have slipped a few times.

Even if you have a respected Wikipedian involved with your RfC, I shall certainly have no time for it until December, as I noted before.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I have endorsed the basis of the RfC, so let's have no more of this "someone with greater ability" crap please. I suggest you get over there and respond to what's being raised - as I said previously, in my experience it never comes out well for the editor who attempts to ignore the issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen, if I want your opinion, I shall ask for it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Your contributions at RfC

Thank you for your participation in the discussion - I am hopeful that this can be brought to an amicable solution. I note that you have made a comment in the "Outside View" section - this section is for editors who are not a party to the dispute. For your convenience, I have moved your comments in their entirity into the response section here. You may wish to edit the header as it just says "Moved from Outside View section" at the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your movement was fine, although it does not preserve the soi disant, le soi c'est one autre, and a certain soup de jour qualities of the original.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's soup du jour :) :) Minestrone perhaps? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That was an excellent guess! The cuisine is Roman. I am in a "secure, undisclosed location", but I do hear the Mediterranean peacefully loosening its rope of sands.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Lighten up, Francis"

On same team in general, but I advise you to chill out. Roll with the punches, just a little. And jab in spots, not always. Even for humor, it can be more effective. Like when Jerry advised George on not overplaying the jokes.

P.s. Yeah, the kids are kids. And trapped in Dunning Kruger (similar to Rumsfeldian unknown unknown). But give them a break. Broadcast at intervals, not continuuous wave.

P.s.s. Peace brah...and don't let the turkeys get you down.

P.s.s.s. That Ossfrob (or whatever his name is) is right about Shapley Lema-thereom. It is still too mathy. You CAN keep the essential content and make it better.

P.s.s.s.s. BEADWINDOW and all that... \

For the record, the IP editor who refuses a signature above is User:71.246.147.40. LadyofShalott 04:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reading about the Dunning–Kruger effect and reviewing Bill Murray's Stripes were both enjoyable. I believe that the other allusion is to Donald Rumsfeld's or Dick Cheney's "secure undisclosed location" (often ridiculed on Harry Shearer's Le Show), where the Vice President secured himself after the 9/11 attacks.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Rumsfeldian reference was to this, I believe. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes more sense! Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz

The self imposed interaction ban was, IMHO, only on a discussion basis on your talk and mine I believe. I feel I can add value at the above. Are you in agreement that posting there does not contradict my interaction ban? If not then I will not comment there. Pedro :  Chat  22:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pedro!

Thanks for asking. I shall try to email you privately.

Sincerely,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your email. After fully reading the RFC, I have decided that I'm unlikely to add value. Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

I thought you wrote a very classy request. I am sorry that I did not see your reply earlier, and acknowledge it immediately.

If you change your mind please feel free to comment at the RfC, or if you want to email me suggestions for improving my editing.

You have a lot more experience on WP than I do. If you change your mind about the interaction ban, which certainly did serve a purpose after some derailed conversations, then please email me or write here.

I appreciate your taking the time to read the RfC and to think about contributing. I shall remember your example of aiming for value-added comments.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Consider the alternatives

Negative reinforcement, like an auto-da-fé, helps learners distinguish between right and wrong action.).

I wrote this some months ago.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Infantilization

We agree that positive reinforcement is wonderful. However, negative reinforcement is also beneficial. Read Paul Meehl's Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, "Why I do not attend case conferences":

Reward everything—gold and garbage—alike. The tradition of exaggerated tenderness in psychiatry and psychology reflects our “therapeutic attitude” and contrasts with that of scholars in fields like philosophy or law, where a dumb argument is called a dumb argument, and he who makes a dumb argument can expect to be slapped down by his peers. Nobody ever gives anybody negative reinforcement in a psychiatric case conference. (Try it once—you will be heard with horror and disbelief.) The most inane remark is received with joy and open arms as part of the groupthink process. Consequently the educational function, for either staff or students, is prevented from getting off the ground. Any psychologist should know that part of the process of training or educating is to administer differential reinforcement for good versus bad, effective versus ineffective, correct versus incorrect behaviors. If all behavior is rewarded by friendly attention and nobody is ever non-reinforced (let alone punished!) for talking foolishly, it is unlikely that significant educational growth will take place. (pp. 228-229)
...
The obvious educational question is, how does it happen that this bright, conscientious, well-motivated, social-service-oriented premed psychology major with a 3.80 average doesn’t know the most elementary things about psychotic depression, such as its diagnostic indicators, its statistical suicide risk, or the time phase in the natural history of the illness which presents the greatest risk of suicide? The answer, brethren, is very simple: Some of those who are “teaching” and “supervising” him either don’t know these things themselves or don’t think it is important for him to know them. This hapless student is at the educational mercy of a crew that is so unscholarly, antiscientific, “groupy-groupy,” and “touchy-feely” that they have almost no concern for facts, statistics, ... or the work of the intellect generally. (p. 280)

(Emboldening and links added)

Spare the rod and spoil the child,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Many, many years ago I attended case conferences during my psychology degree, and I was absolutely gob-smacked by the social worker pseudo-science bullshit on display even then. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)'

(ec) Very true. If all feedback is the same, there is no way of differentiating the useful (important) from useless (trivial or misleading). Manny may (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I like your style! Manny may (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

:) (KW)

It's something that now seems to be deep in the American psyche. I attended an IT training course a few years ago led by an American, and within two hours of the week-long course I was writhing at her habitual "Thank you for that very interesting question" response to almost everything she was asked, no matter how stupid or inane. Whoever it was said that there are no stupid questions is an ass. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know parents of fairly bright kids who get really frustrated by the teachers of their children uncritically praising substandard work, on the grounds that their work is much better than that of many of the children in the class. The idea of equality, taken too far, does not challenge and stretch everyone according to their ability, and so becomes fundamentally unfair. Geometry guy 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a fairly well-publicised case here in the UK of a football match between two junior teams being stopped at half-time because one team was losing 9–0, and it was considered improper that they should be asked to take the field again for the second half, and perhaps suffer further humiliation. Or perhaps fight back and win the game 10–9, we'll never know. But there's definitely an uncritical view that all efforts are equal, when they patently are not. There are winners and losers in life, and that's a lesson kids need to learn. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse E. D. Hirsch's The Schools We Need, and Why We Don't Have Them, which traces the disasters of American schools (particularly the systems of schools of eduction) to American romanticism, which viewed everybody as having a spark of divinity, like a narcissistic version of the Quaker religion (without the "leveling" or emphasis on good will and integrity).

After the publication of an English grammar of Sanskrit c. 1848, there was a fascination with Hinduism and Buddhism; probably German romanticism benefited from an awareness of Hindu and Buddhist influences on Christianity even earlier, and various types of pantheism and spiritualism. Not only romantic novelists but also scientists did research on spiritualism, "energy fields", "ghosts", etc. This BS animates much of American culture, from schools of education to Star Wars.

Another good book is by Robyn Dawes, House of Cards: Psychology and Therapy Built on Myth. Dawes emphasizes the importance of time on task for learning, especially homework, and criticizes the absurd and anti-scientific cult of "self esteem" in the U.S., particularly in "education". Dawes has been a professor at the magnificent Carnegie Mellon University.

His CMU colleagues Herb Simon, John R. Anderson, and a third have written criticisms of education-school BS, claiming to be based on "cognitive psychology". Wikipedia's own mathematics education has claimed that "research has shown" that short homework lessons are best, etc. Simon, Anderson, et alia have explained that many of these claims contradict the core findings of experimental psychology. (One of the disasters of Swedish social-democracy is that Alva Myrdal and her successors have imported the anti-intellectual U.S. system into a country that already suffered from conformity and leveling egalitarianism.)

I agree with the above expressed revulsion about the neglect of gifted children in many schools. It is nearly child abuse that some students never are challenged and so helped to learn time-management and study skills until they get to university.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Welund

Welund him be wurman wræces cunnade, anhydig eorlearfoþa dreag, hæfde him to gesiþþe sorge ond longaþ, wintercealde wræce; wean oft onfond, siþþan hine Niðhad onnede legde, swoncre seonobendeon syllan monn. Þæs ofereode,þisses swa mæg!

Welund tasted misery among snakes. The stout-hearted hero endured troubles had sorrow and longing as his companions cruelty cold as winter - he often found woe Once Nithad laid restraints on him, supple sinew-bonds on the better man. That went by; so can this.

The hamstrung smith Welund, portrayed on the Franks Casket.

Tall poppy syndrome

Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

I have been having a deja vu experience all over again, but now I understand why: I recognize that I have been transgressing Jante Law, which is familiar to anybody who has lived for a half year in Sweden or Norway:

Jantelagen has ten rules:

1. Don't think you're anything special.
2. Don't think you're as good as us.
3. Don't think you're smarter than us.
4. Don't convince yourself that you're better than us.
5. Don't think you know more than us.
6. Don't think you are more important than us.
7. Don't think you are good at anything.
8. Don't laugh at us.
9. Don't think anyone cares about you.
10. Don't think you can teach us anything.

An eleventh rule is:

11. Don't think that there aren't a few things we know about you.

Those who transgress this unwritten 'law' are regarded with suspicion and some hostility, as it goes against communal desire in the town to preserve harmony, social stability and uniformity.

Jante Law has never been adopted officially in Nordic countries, although it is enforced daily with gusto. Why should Wikipedia be different?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Give It to Me Baby

The goal of Request for Comments on Users (RFC/U), like the goal of every auto da fé, is reformation not punishment.

From WikiSpeak by Malleus et alia:

RfC n.

(editor conduct) A place to bring anyone you have a longstanding grudge against. There, they'll be subject to countless attacks by uninvolved editors (also known as "outside views") and generally be tortured until they agree to submit to your every whim. This is, of course, unless they are a popular editor, in which case the RfC will be dismissed as bad faith and you blocked indefinitely for some purportedly unrelated reason.

(content dispute) A place where editors who know absolutely nothing about the subject chime in in an attempt to destroy an article further.

Discussion of "National socialist"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I fear you cannot tell the difference between irony and political statement - lihaas's statements that he supports National Socialism, Self Determination and the British Empire neatly positions him between the British National Party and the English Defence League - both of which I am regrettably familiar with in my neck of West Yorkshire. I'm sorry, I think you've been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Elen,

I remind you that WP:NPA prohibits unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics.

I can imagine that Lihaas displays far-right userboxes to provoke hypocritical hissy fits, which you and Demiurge have provided.

• Was it Lihaas's country where the King had to abdicate largely because of hanging out with Nazis?
• What is Lihaas's country where a PM worried about being overun with Blacks, although there was not a single Black MP, according to Michael Dummett?
• Was it Lihaas's country where the President 41 led his campaign rallies with a national socialist (but also Christian socialist) pledge of allegiance?
• Was it Lihaas's country that presented a sword to Pinochet for saving civilization?
• "Tell me, my main man, what is wrong with Michael Jackson? What is wrong with your country that a Black man cuts up his face and straightens his hair?" (Three Kings)

Lihaas has been one of the prime writers of articles in contemporary politics, among them articles on the Arab Spring. Demiurge smeared him as a Nazi, as part of his smear campaign against me.

You have no business participating in this smear campaign. Look at the company you are now keeping, Demiurge and Pedro, and wake up. You still have not apologized for signing off on that RfC with the bullshit opening of non-issues.

If you can do all this, without an apology or consequences, then Wikipedia can go to Hell along with you.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We're already in it. L'enfer, c'est les autres ... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuation

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, what on earth is the above set of statements about? I am making no "unsubstantiated allegations about an editor's politics." I simply note that the user has chosen to place a number of userboxen on his userpage which make political statements that are consistent with the manifestos of the BNP and the EDL. If it were only the latter two statements, then this would be consistent with the manifesto of UKIP, but UKIP holds no truck with national socialism. You are the one who "imagines" that these are not simple statements of his political position, but instead represent some elaborate game. I don't know the chap, I can only go on what he chooses to say. If he's using some clever definition of National Socialism that separates it from Nazism, point me to the edits where he does it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

Both Geometry guy and I have explained that Lihaas displays more than a hundred of wildly inconsistent user boxes, so you and Du have been violating WP:NPA by picking a couple extreme right-wing boxes, as you continue to do. As I have explained, I am unaware of any POV-pushing by him, and certainly none on behalf of national socialism, as we understand it today (not as in the Bellamy brothers Looking Backwards or the Pledge of Allegiance). In my limited experience, he has been attacked by those (at best) acquiescing to (and at worst ...) nationalist violence.

A month or so ago he was blocked, after a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war on Wikipedia. It would be very strange for him to support parties advocating discrimination (or practicing physical battery) against Muslims, Middle-Easterners, Arabs, Indians, Pakistanis, etc.

Again, I remind you of his writing about the Arab Spring, including articles describing attempts to overthrow nationalistic, militaristic dictatorships, such as the Baath dictatorship in Syria, which was started by French-schooled enthusiasts of European fascism. I am truly sorry that you continue to defend the national-socialist charge.

Cannot you imagine your husband [aforementioned 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)]a friend shaking his head at your stubbornness, yet again?

Finally, let me quote from the Gawain poet the line to which I previously referred:

'Maskelles,' quod that myry quene,

'Unblemyst I am, wythouten blot,

And that may I wyth mensk menteene;

Bot "makeles quene" thenne sade I not.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (forgot to sign, 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

Can I recommend you not make personal remarks about my husband. It makes you sound creepy, and I'm sure you did not intend anything like that.

As for Lihaas, I think the subtlety of his position is lost on you. The chap must be very interesting - given that most people in that neck of politics only use their heads to bash holes in walls. What's on his userpage isn't a random collection of userboxen, it's based on a consistent political viewpoint (although I had to think quite a bit about the British Empire one) which is right wing, libertarian, anarchist (not all anarchists are left wing), nationalist (but globally nationalist, hence anti globalization and interest in nationalist movements around the globe), anti positive discrimination (consistent with libertarianism), anti organisations that have control over multiple countries such as the EU and NATO (consistent with libertarianism and nationalism). None of these are personal attacks - before you say it - they are just based on his edits, his statements, and knowing as much as I do about politics. If you think the edit that got him blocked was "a cry in anguish at the seeming disregard of non-American victims of war" then you really have been had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

About the "husband". I quoted a middle-English poem as a compliment/olive-branch, intending makelesse as matchless, as it is ordinarily translated. Elen noted the other (sometimes primary) meaning, as unmarried or widowed, and introduced her husband. Then I tried to clarify that I was referring to the matchless meaning as in Pearl....

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Another voice

A plausible interpretation Ellen, and it would be interesting to be corrected by Lihass themselve, but just as likely the boxes are merely playfully mischievous. Or perhaps they reflect an attempt to transcend apparently contradictory positions. Whatever, their editing clearly shows they are not the sort of person to side with national socialism!

Keifer, one thing I am sure about with our friend Lihass is that they're sharp enough to know their user box collection will cause some to make false assumptions, and if they were bothered about that they wouldn't have certain boxes. So I hope you don't make this a quitting issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Feyd!

There have to be some minimal standards of honesty. I am willing to grant the usual portion of hypocricy to other editors that I wish to claim for myself. I am willing to grant XXXL portions to those who reminisce about spankings in British public schools, where they had great practice in the gentile arts of subtle insults and postures of effortless superiority. However, some standards of honesty must prevail.

I am tired of being lectured about civility and NPA and threatened with ANI by an ArbCom member who defends a sociopathic smearing of a valuable editor as a Nazi.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Im just old enough not to have missed out on that strangely agreable bodily experience . Never saw the point of subtle insults though. I put 'literal minded' in my edit summary as I was thinking maybe that accounts for the absurd assumption and its defence, rather than dishonesty? It will be very sad if we do loose you over this. That said I edit less myself than I used to and I dont miss the specatacle of regularly seeing some of the best editors being attacked. So whatever you decide Im sure it will be for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I had the advantage of attending a girls school, where corporal punishment was considered beyond the pale. As for Lihaas, as you say, he put the things on his page himself - I'm sure he's able and willing to take care of any fallout from them and doesn't need quite such an avid defence. The only thing I would say is that I have never called him a Nazi. I would probably disagree with the political views espoused in most of the userboxen, but none of them necessarily make him a Nazi.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

As an ArbCom member and administrator, you are an officer of Wikipedia. It is unseemly and unbecoming for you to fail to have distanced yourself from a suggestion that Lihaas is a national socialist, based on the standard "reasonable person" test; it is worse that you have been defending the smear.

Is Wikipedia a place where non-writers smear leading writers as national socialists? Or anybody smears anybody as a national socialist?

Unfortunately, your actions, so far, have answered that question affirmatively.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And you still have not addressed the issue about your WP:NPA violation of unsubstantiated allegations about politics, or the issue about your signing off "regretfully" for the RfC without even Worm's apologies for its passive-aggressive opening.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, you have stopped making any sense at all. If a man puts a sign in his window saying he votes Conservative, I assume he votes Conservative. I don't agree with the politics of the conservative party, but it's not an attack to say that this man has a sign in his window supporting the Conservatives. Lihaas has a sign in his window supporting Antonin Scalia, and the Scalia/Thomas presidential run, Jobbik, National Union Attack, and the Popular Orthodox Rally. He says he is a libertarian and an anarchist - a recognised political position, see the article on Anarcho-capitalism which he also says he espouses. He says he is a nationalist who believes in Self-determination. This is perfectly consistent with his opposition to big government, and organisations such as NATO and the UN, and his support for such causes as Irish Republicanism, and the Turkish man who set fire to himself as a protest against continual police harassment. It also explains his comments on the ITN about the Tottenham riots [1]. Like I said - they are not a mishmash of random boxes, they look to me like a consistent, thought out fairly unique political position. If his actual one is the reverse of what the userboxen represents, he maybe needs to say that a bit louder.

I am going to end this conversation now. You are not making sense any more - at least to me, and you are simply becoming abusive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Elen,

You neglect to consider the wildly contradictory boxes he has. In particular, anybody supporting Scalia/Thomas cannot be a libertarian or anarchist. Those two dissented, finding no "cruel and unusual punishment" about a prisoner having his face smashed in, while in police custody.

Thank you for explaining (with links!) that anarchism and libertarianism is a recognized political philosophy.

Again, you have failed to deal with your problem behavior, such as spreading an allegation of national socialism.

Further, you show a shortcoming of empathic imagination: Lihaas was concerned about the lack of attention to 10s and 100s of thousands and even of millions of victims of war (when they do not have a whiter shade of pale), and the attention given to a handful, 10s, and 100s of American or British victims; I disagree with his tactics, but I understand his concerns. (It is a pity that no editor is similarly complaining about the effects EU tariffs on Africa and Asia, which kill even more people.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And another voice

Kiefer. Your relentless complaining about personal attacks and citing WP:NPA is in direct opposition to the very specific personal attaks both further up this page but specifically here where you directly called an editor a "contemptible shit". Hypocrisy is not a pleasing trait. Please feel free to remove this - but also please feel free to stop moaning about something you do - and have done recently - making personal attacks when you're just as guilty. People, houses, glass and stones.. Pedro :  Chat  17:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro,

Reasoned responses and criticism are welcome. The account mentioned made the allegation of national socialism, which you apparently think is consistent with WP policy. (For the record and in your response to your posting at the RfC, I remind readers that you are claiming that stating that User:SandyGeorgia is "courting the Wikipedia fraternity", etc., is not sexist.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm really not sure what you mean by the above. Let's make it a little more simple for us all. You have repeatedly accused editors of Personal Attacks. You, I assume, find Personal Attacks unacceptable. But you, in the diff I link above, made a personal attack. You are acting like a hypocrite and the evidence is for all to see. The wise man would recognise their hypocrisy and at least apologise for it, in order that proper debate about other perceived issues can resume without the taint of dishonesty hanging overhead. Just my 2p. You noted once on your talk that "adding value" was a good thing. Well I believe I am adding value when I point out that you cannot, in all honesty, continue to complain about perceived attacks when you, with the language of the gutter, are also guilty. Pedro :  Chat  18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro,

The "editor" smeared a valuable WP writer as a national socialist, and earned his rebuke.

Now, please consider whether further discussion between us can be more fruitful.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You called someone a "contemptible shit" (which you seem to think is a rebuke - how laughable); your sanctimonious hypocrisy is revealing. As I said at your RFC/U this is clearly a hobby you're not cut out for. I'd suggest that instead of "retiring" in a hissy fit as you did before, your actually retire properly. It would be better for you and, frankly, likely better for Wikipedia. With that I shall now "go away" [2] I think your "go away" message was frankly more honest than the softened version you changed it to. Pedro :  Chat  19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, when you return from Planet Janet, then maybe discussion is possible. In the meantime, it is impossible to find any of your posts where you don't sound like your head has exploded. You seem to have come apart at the seams. Please take a break, leave this stupid bone you are worrying at behind, and come back to contributing content with a fresh enthusiasm. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, in English, "courting" has two meanings. The older, but still very much in use meaning of "to court" or "to pay court to" originates with the practice of attending upon the court of the king or a nobleman, in the hopes of gaining some advantage thereto. The word then also came to mean paying attention to a girl you hoped to marry, but describing someone as "courting favour with the boss", "courting the Press" (as Princess Diana did) etc has no sexual component whatsoever. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro and Elen,

Calling anybody a national socialist (Nazi) is not a small matter. Calling Lihaas a national socialist was outrageous. A lack of indignation is a sign of a lack of knowledge or a character defect (among other causes).

Any reasonable contemporary person understands that "courting the fraternity" sounds like a sexist jibe.

Secretly exulting,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my little girl (she was three in August) "secretly exults" too. You're a troll Keifer and you're going to get blocked then banned if you carry on. That's not a threat; it won't be me that does it - it will be you causing it however. Trust me I've seen enough people on Wikipedia who think that their intelligence means their inability to interact socially will win through. It doesn't. Take a break (maybe a week) and come back to what you're good at if you wish. If you don't, you're going to wind up on the INDEF pile and that would be a shame. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro,

I leave your post because it does contain some nuggets of good will, despite the "troll", "inability to interact socially", etc.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Regretfully the "troll" and "inability to interact socially" are how you're coming over mate. A rational person would realise that a simple "Yep, I screwed up and apologise for calling someone a shit - that was a heated over-reaction" response would be easier on us all. You clearly are rational - but you're not being at the moment, and haven't been for some time. Honestly, no-one wants to see an editor who contributes like you do banned; but you need to start developing a thicker skin and not seeing stuff you want to see. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, Kiefer, everyone else, just stop replying here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz says he is now retired. That means we can leave him alone now, because he's leaving us alone. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Planet Janet"

Elen's insult "Planet Janet", about an emotionally troubled teenage girl, was new to me. Here's the lede of the Janet Dillon article.

"Janet Dillon (née Marlowe, previously Green, and often referred to as Janet From Another Planet) is a fictional character on the daytime soap opera All My Children. Mostly known for terrorizing the residents of Pine Valley, including her sister Natalie Marlowe, while under psychotic delusions, Janet has had extended periods of sanity, which she and her psyche have been studied within scholarly contexts.

"

Apparently, Planet Janet also the name of a series of young adult novels about an EMO teenage girl.

It will be interesting how Elen's bullshit plays at her next ArbComm election.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling on a higher power

"Depart, then, transgressor. Depart, seducer, full of lies and cunning, foe of virtue, persecutor of the innocent. Give place, abominable creature, give way, you monster, give way to Christ, in whom you found none of your works. For he has already stripped you of your powers and laid waste your kingdom, bound you prisoner and plundered your weapons. He has cast you forth into the outer darkness, where everlasting ruin awaits you and your abettors."

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude.
Amen. Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

Polite request

Hi Kiefer. Can I please ask you to stop copying my comments out of context to other pages, with my signature and time stamp. A diff is a lot more appropriate. If you must copy and paste, please ensure it is very clear that it is a quote, perhaps using the {{talkquote}} template - I know you used blockquote, however talk quote is a lot clearer. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course you may ask. I answered Elen on this topic elsewhere.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall remember to use the talk-quote template (in the next month at least before senility may strike again), and I thank you for alerting me of an easy-to-use template.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Positive reinforcement

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi RedRose64 Redrose64!

It was my pleasure to vote for you! :)

Feel free to block me any time! ;)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place to be. Enjoy! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please reply on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, please leave them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Also, don't forget to sign their guestbook. Thanks for your attention!

Thank you! Have you considered joining the administrator corps?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank You...and You're Welcome!

Hey, thanks for the Baba Ghanoush! Try a new food every day - it was delicious! And you are certainly welcome for the falafel, I'm glad you enjoyed it. And no, I haven't. I've actually thought of myself as not good enough to do it - maybe I should start small. Thanks again! Pinkstrawberry02™ ^talk 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguably the second tallest skyscraper in Topeka, Kansas

Я поздравляю вас!

("Я поздравляю вас!" is Russian for "I congratulate you".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC))

		The Workers' Barnstar
		This user has shown great editing skills in improving articles related to Communism or Socialism.

• ...For your ongoing efforts to eliminate tendentious distortions from histories and biographies relating to 1970s American radicalism. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Stakhanov on the cover of Time Magazine, 16 December 1935

Agitprop poster by Vladimir Mayakovsky: "Hurry to join shock brigades!"

Dear Brother Carrite!

Thank you very much!

My efforts would be so much easier if I had not reacted to the anti-anticommunism of previous versions with sometimes POV anti-anti-anticommunism. (However, the arch of the universe does incline towards NPOV justice, which is democratic and therefore anti-communist.)

Thank you for your work recently on Penn Kemble. One of the pleasures of writing about Kemble or Tom Kahn is writing about personalities, rather than cookie-cuts.

In solidarity,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1

Review waiting for you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This was the best news I've heard in a long time. Thank you, Piotrus.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn image, and other matters

Hello KW in Sweden,

This is to advise you that I have gone over to Wikimedia Commons, and cropped and retouched the image of Tom Kahn a bit. I very much hope that you approve. I have also cropped the image of George Meany and uploaded a higher resolution image of Lane Kirkland. I am now in the midst of a planned major expansion (in my sandbox) of George Meany, which I mentioned to you a while back was in a parlous state. Can you believe that we have a stub on George Meany and incredibly detailed articles about insignificant mid 19th century schismatic ministers and 21st century YouTube sensations? I guess that the encyclopedia isn't finished after all. Please see User:Cullen328/Sandbox/George Meany for a glance at my (admittedly inadequate) work in progress. By the way, welcome back to Wikipedia, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cullen!

Thank you for your greetings. :)

I was fed up with WP the last weeks, and the "national socialist" smear really crossed a line.

However, the mathematicians' support and Piotrus's review as well as many kind private e-mails reminded me that the writers do constitute a warm, supportive, and productive community. (Like many writers, I am troubled by developments in the larger Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects.)

I shall try to look soon at your articles and work on the Kahn pictures within a week or so. Remind me if I am lazy.

BTW, friends of Carrite's have found some fascinating documents about SDUSA, Michael Harrington, the Debs caucus, etc. I'm too tired to mail them now.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

When sweet rest has revived your spirits and your typing fingers, please do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The cropped picture does look better.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Uninvolved_third_party_close_proposal.
Message added 23:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 23:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Knock it off

Look, I'm about ready to indef you (and only you, because you're the source of everyone else's discontent it seems now) so if you don't stop interacting with people you don't like (read: stop responding if they say something, even if it's plain wrong), then find something more useful to do in real life. Wikipedia is an utter waste of my time when I have to babysit a crowd of whining four- and five-year-olds. In the real world, I can get paid for doing that. So you can either choose to write articles and only that, or you can choose to keep on posting messages on others' talk pages. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)