User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Worm That Turned	77	0	1	100	Open	09:47, 18 November 2024	6 days, 18 hours	no	report

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.

RfA redoux

Your oppose at my RfA

I'm sorry to bother you about this, but your oppose rationale 1b really has had me scratching my head every time I read it...can you please explain your thought process behind why that's a concern for you? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 21:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm,

I chose discretion about this issue. However, since you asked I answer directly:

Your being grounded right before graduating from high-school raises concerns about maturity, particularly since you left open the option of editing during school-time.

Again, my oppose is rather weak, and I mentioned two strengths of yours, before concluding that I expect to be able to support you within a year. You have few opposes, and most of them recorded similar favorable impressions of you. I believe that you shall pass, and I wish you luck.

:)

Just don't block me until you write a few more articles! ;)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the thought process behind the maturity by being grounded thing, but actually still being able to use the computer (and thus edit) at school is my parents policy. They believe that punishments they dish out apply to my house only...so if they take away my computer privileges, I'm still allowed to use a computer at a friend's house (assuming I'm not grounded from seeing them) or from school...about the only way that it applies away from the house is if I'm trying to leave the house for the express purpose of circumventing a punishment (for example, going to the library or friend's house expressly to use the computer would be disallowed). Anyway, thank you for your comments...they make for good constructive criticism. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept your account, and I admire your respect for your parents' rules. (I would also understand that some parents' rules are too strict, also.) Good luck at college! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.

My76Strat (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. But I prefer to thank you. For the things I have observed. My76Strat (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A mop in a bucket with its dryer

Dear Brother My76Strat,

Thank you again for the compliments, which are so flattering that I am embarrassed but happy. :)

Given your seriousness, I have thought about your suggestion, and I think that I owe you an explanation about why I have not sought to become an administrator:

I recall only a handfull of times that I regretted not being an administrator: Being unable

• to correct errors at DYK,
• to block jerks after personal attacks based on group characteristics (religion, ethnicity, politics, etc.) or after vandalism-only editing histories,
• to view deleted content (to understand comments at RfAs, to understand contentious articles' histories, etc.).

With the exception of the last inability (viewing deleted content), current administrators have rapidly solved problems (to the extent allowed by consensus). Therefore, I view my not having administrative powers as fine. If I were to become an administrator, I would prefer to edit like Geometry Guy or David Eppstein, and to continue to focus on content. I do imagine that becoming an administrator would increase my enthusiasm to the project—although not enough to warrant an RfA, which I imagine would be stressful—attracting at least a handful of well-documented opposes! ;)

In short, my becoming an administrator would have only a small change on my contributions to the project. The biggest change would be feeding my ego, and also threatening my vanity with the RfA, and so I don't think it a good use of time or energy. I can imagine that similar considerations would apply to that rising star, Cerejeta, and possibly to yourself. So I think that it is best that we all forget about RfAs for a year or so and just edit.

I hope you don't mind if I write a bit more personally. With the lovely and haunted soul of Karen Carpenter, Simone Weil wrote an essay on the The Need for Roots, which extolled manual labor, excessively imho; nonetheless, her essay makes many good points. It is useful to ask ourselves whether we are being tempted by vanity or almost purely by the will to serve others. I think that writing and editing are often exercises in ego-gratification, and that it is best to humble ourselves with plain encyclopedic writing first, before seeking or even accepting higher-profile positions. I think it would be good for both of us to agree not to accept an RfA nomination for a year or more. Would you accept this discipline with me?

Sincerely and cheerfully,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. When I was young and knew no better, I wielded a mop paraprofessionally, without representation from SEIU's Justice for Janitors; now I suppose that all my edits should be labeled as "labor donated".

That was a thoughtful reply. I understand your reservations, and tend to agree. I wouldn't want to agree on rejecting a nomination for > 1 year, because that would stifle your prospects. For my part, although I doubt anyone would risk nominating me, I would turn it down, and that extends beyond measures of time (my April fools RfA may become an annual feeding frenzie, I haven't decided). Besides, according to theoretical physics, supersymmetry and parallel dimensions, I am already an administrator on Wikipedia, a President, and a King (a few bad things too). In this dimension, I am a happy contributor, and apparently your brother, which is far more valuable to me. Best - My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, My76Strat!

Perhaps because of your inspiration, my girlfriend and I are learning the guitar (with a Swedish book!): However, I fear that the path from E-moll to Frippertronics may be long & difficult! ;)

I don't think that you should have any RfAs on April Fools' Day: One method of feeling better is to avoid negative internal dialogues and self-deprecating remarks, and I think that your remark was a bit too self-deprecating. You are an honored and important member of the community, and you should treat yourself the way others treat you! :) Besides, you should be reading about Peter Orno and John Rainwater on April 1st. ;)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Questions about questions: Who surveys the surveyors?

Questionnaire

Hi there, thanks for your comment on Cerejota's talk page. Please advise on how best to pursue this kind of sampling. I have submitted a request for research approval/assistance to RComm and notified the email addresses provided. I have not received any response in a couple of weeks, despite prompting, and I am keen to push ahead with my work. I am anxious to comply with any Wikipedia research regulations, but as far as I can tell from the guidelines I've found I am doing things by the book. Best, Thedarkfourth (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thedarkfourth!

Please see Survey Methodology by Robert M. Groves et al.

Perhaps the Foundation is satisfied with your request.

You may wish to review the guidelines of the International Statistical Institute and the Association for Public Opinion Research for survey research. The main obligation is to maintain public trust in statistics, which in your case may be satisfied by including lots of warnings about non-probabilistic sampling, I would guess. The AOPR has guidelines for surveys.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this! I will have a look. I would say that a) I will definitely include warnings about sample methods - my research is qualitative and doesn't pretend to be scientifically precise (in fact it's not statistical at all), and b) it's an undergraduate dissertation that will not be published, so it's unlikely to undermine or support public faith in statistics! All the best, Thedarkfourth (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless standards have plummeted since Ramsey, Keynes, Sraffa, and Wittgenstein roamed King's College and C. P. Snow wrote The Masters, you should write a very good thesis, which might well be published.

It's good that you try qualitative methods. Why not become the next Erving Goffman?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey methodology: Spock's Brain

That wikilink in Sampling (statistics) that says survey methodology is presently actually piped to Statistical survey which I choose because that is the presently the main article for Category:Survey methodology. You might like to think about renaming "Statistical survey" to "Survey methodology" if that looks sensible. Melcombe (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I did the move boldly, and welcome reversions. I believe that Bots can take care of the re-linking. Otherwise, we can make a request to an expert administrator. Thanks again!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Then re-write the intro to fit the change :)--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Already done. I am typing "operating at warp speed". :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

This is for reviewing Lindahl tax. Keep the good work going! Cheers, Ram (talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That was kind! :)

I would underscore that it looks good. I suspect that you can short work of it with a few afternoons of editing, upgrading the citations to lecture notes with citations to leading books, etc. I forgot to mention other good books on public economics, such as David Starrett's Cambridge book, which is Wikified at the Shapley-Folkman lemma, Convexity in economics, Non-convexities (economics) etc.:

• Starrett, David A. (1988). Foundations of public economics. Cambridge economic handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I should think that a reference to Atkinson and Stiglitz would be mandatory, also.

Another suggestion would be to simplify the labeling of the axes for your diagrams, a lot! :) Let the captions and the text do the work, and have minimal axis-labeling: This also allows others to use your diagrams for other articles, here and in other languages.

Thanks again for your good-hearted response to my review.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Lindahl tax GA review

hi, first of all thank you so much for reviewing my article and giving suggestions. I have already started working on them.

please keep giving suggestions, its really very helpful. i will try to work upon whatever you said and get back :) Devanshi tripathi (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Devanshi!

It would be good to read more reliable sources, and then put them aside for a month before writing your own article from scratch, and then return to the reliable sources to establish the sources (with page references), particularly for anything surprising or questionable.

Don't rush the job. The sun has been around for 5 billion years, and the universe will continue to run for a few months while you write. ;)

Enjoy yourself while you write! :)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Good references

These are so useful, I keep them on my user page! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

Semper Fidelis

• You faithfully served your country and humanity, as a U.S. Marine and as a Wikipedia editor. We are proud of who you are. Rest in peace,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet once more, O ye Laurels, and once more
Ye Myrtles brown, with Ivy never-sear,
I com to pluck your Berries harsh and crude,
And with forc'd fingers rude,
Shatter your leaves before the mellowing year.
Bitter constraint, and sad occasion dear,
Compels me to disturb your season due:
For Lycidas is dead, dead ere his prime
Young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer:
Who would not sing for Lycidas? he knew
Himself to sing, and build the lofty rhyme.
He must not flote upon his watry bear
Unwept, and welter to the parching wind,
Without the meed of som melodious tear.

So Lycidas sunk low, but mounted high,
Through the dear might of him that walk'd the waves,
Where other groves, and other streams along,
With Nectar pure his oozy Lock's he laves,
And hears the unexpressive nuptiall Song,
In the blest Kingdoms meek of joy and love.
There entertain him all the Saints above,
In solemn troops, and sweet Societies
That sing, and singing in their glory move,
And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes.
Now Lycidas the Shepherds weep no more;
Hence forth thou art the Genius of the shore,
In they large recompense, and shalt be good
To all that wander in that perilous flood.

GA

Hey K-Wolf--

I'm sure your page will meet muster, judging by the GAs I've seen, but I need to beg off. I pretty much avoid the whole GA/DYK shenanigans; I just try and get the stuff I work on up to "really-really-good-B-article" status and skip the bureaucratic silliness. You might try asking Trust Is All You Need, I think he's a believer in the GA system and should be sympatico.

best, as always,

tim

Carrite (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tim!

Thanks for your suggestion. However, I think that I would prefer another editor: I think that GA status was improperly granted to Socialist Party USA, which was sponsored by TIAYN. Now, the SPUSA article is arguably in GA shape.

User:Parrot of Doom raised some issues about other GA articles edited by TIAYN, also, mainly about CPUSSR people.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Specific comments: 1. Congrats on getting the pictures, that was a big defect before. 2. I really don't like "quote stacking." "One fact, one footnote" should be the slogan. If there are multiple angles to a fact, feel free to elaborate in the footnote itself, mentioning and citing multiple sources — but there should be only one footnote showing, in my opinion. Pick your best for each. 3. I REALLY hate splitting up Footnotes into Notes + References. Footnotes should be sufficiently elaborate, mentioning all publication data at first use of each source, and any additional sources should be in Further Reading. This, of course, a matter of style about which honest people may differ. I've seen other people use the system you use, I just don't like it. This is easily a GA, but the system is inherently subjective and bureaucratic, so don't stress too much if somebody differs. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrators, alligators, tribbles, pathogenic yeast, menacing beggars, armadillos: A comic menagerie

A rodeo clown's job can be quite dangerous, as in this example of a person being gored by a bull.

BTW, I think that you are wrong to use alligators. Whether "alligators" refers to vandals or administrators, real world adult alligators eat the young of other alligators, and most young alligators don't survive long enough to become nuisances. When I was in a foul mood, I once suggested "tribbles"; however, "tribbles" doesn't apply to vandals.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tribbles are fuzzy and make people feel happy. I don't think that's particularly apt. Administrators are more akin to surly "spare-changers" packing handguns. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the surly "spare changers" packing handguns is apt. I encountered several aggressive beggars during the hey days of crack: One woman (whose physical characteristics would preclude her participation on Jerry Springer) started to take off her pants on Broadway unless she was given 5 USD; another guy asked for 5 USD, mentioning that he had a knife and knew how to use it.

I've not yet seen such crack-head demands from administrators, although some of them have similar (but more subdued) demands for immediate satisfaction---or else ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps pathogenic yeast?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeasts can... er... exchange their sex alleles. Using that may offend admins of particular... special mating phenotypes. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeast are capable of many deviant sexual practices (e.g. "budding") as well as conventional reproduction. My goal was to amuse myself and Carrite with some horseplay; Carrite has been in a state of irritation following the one-vote desysopping of C**t, which I can understand, and I wanted to make him laugh before he replied at RfA. Commiting another genetic fallacy,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Budding is not really a sexual practice, although the diploid's formation seems pretty kinky (like a particularly son of Hermes).

Speaking of ArbCom verdicts, it's not necessarily a bad thing to be hard on misbehaving alligators. I've had a few on my back ever since I created this account and wouldn't mind having their teeth pulled out for a broth of Chinese medicine. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would have problems with administrators.

Sometimes various administrators comment with authority when they run across the worse features of editors' personalities, which rarely helps, but is understandable---assuming that they have disinclinations to read talk pages and see the counter-productiveness of school-marmish criticism on most---on me, being a momma's boy, school-marmish criticism usually results in my sitting with my back straight for a month or two ...!

Othertimes, there can be low-intensity conflicts between an administrator or ape administrator that can blow up, with a huge waste of time, but most of us try just to ignore or minimize contributions to such drama. (At least I'm trying ....)

I get annoyed when a kid administrator misquotes policy or quotes irrelevant policy at me or another editor, but even then, what harm is done? The kid usually won't act on his misunderstanding, and wouldn't have support if he did.

Maybe if we restrained ourselves from writing "the last word" and looking more clever than the other fellow, we would help diffuse administrative adventures and return more speedily to editing?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That works in theory :). How much experience do you have with articles on controversial subjects? I also don't think the age of alligators is necessarily the issue because age is not a very strong indicator of credential and maturity after a certain point in the age spectrum. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't you tell from my prison-yard slouch and dead-eye look that I have done my time? View the history of Social Democrats, USA, Socialist Party of America, American Left and my talk page. I also cleaned up roughly 10 articles copy-pasted from a leftwing site, either by rewriting or by "calling on a higher power" (summoning experts with tags about copyright violation concerns). For this, I was accused of misusing such tags to advance a political agenda, among other crimes against humanity .... ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I've been accused of funkier things... like being a paid Communist cyber agent or destroyer of Wikipedia. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you require a metaphor for administrators, we are more like lizards or armadillos. That's due to the thick skin to ward off criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ed!

This discussion was mainly for comic diversion, with me acting like the rodeo clown trying to amuse an irritated editor. But thick skin does help in many areas, and particularly in being an administrator. (Perhaps the tree man of Indonesia would make a good administrator?)

I did mention you as a particularly good administrator some months ago, btw!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thick skin is a good trait to have for everyone, in fact. Alligators have thick skin too, by the way... at least most of them. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeast (from article)

The yeast cell's life cycle:
1. Budding
2. Conjugation
3. Spore

See also: Mating of yeast

Yeasts are eukaryotic micro-organisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with 1,500 species currently described estimated to be only 1% of all fungal species. Most reproduce asexually by mitosis, and many do so via an asymmetric division process called budding. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of a string of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or false hyphae, as seen in most molds.

Yeasts, like all fungi, may have asexual and sexual reproductive cycles. The most common mode of vegetative growth in yeast is asexual reproduction by budding. Here a small bud (also known as a bleb), or daughter cell, is formed on the parent cell. The nucleus of the parent cell splits into a daughter nucleus and migrates into the daughter cell. The bud continues to grow until it separates from the parent cell, forming a new cell.

Some species of yeast, such as Candida albicans, are opportunistic pathogens and can cause infections in humans, particularly those with compromised immune systems.

A photomicrograph of Candida albicans showing hyphal outgrowth and other morphological characteristics.

Cryptococcus neoformans is a significant pathogen of immunocompromised people causing the disease termed cryptococcosis. This disease occurs in about 7–9% of AIDS patients in the USA, and a slightly smaller percentage (3–6%) in western Europe. The cells of the yeast are surrounded by a rigid polysaccharide capsule, which helps to prevent them from being recognised and engulfed by white blood cells in the human body.

Yeasts of the Candida genus are another group of opportunistic pathogens which causes oral and vaginal infections in humans, known as candidiasis. Candida is commonly found as a commensal yeast in the mucus membranes of humans and other warm-blooded animals. However, sometimes these same strains can become pathogenic. Here the yeast cells sprout a hyphal outgrowth, which locally penetrates the mucosal membrane, causing irritation and shedding of the tissues. The pathogenic yeasts of candidiasis in probable descending order of virulence for humans are: C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. stellatoidea, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, C. guilliermondii, C. viswanathii, C. lusitaniae and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa. Candida glabrata is the second most common Candida pathogen after C. albicans, causing infections of the urogenital tract, and of the bloodstream (candidemia).