Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 23 September 2011 (→‎GA: tsk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Labor donated

The Signpost
4 July 2024
 
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.

"The copyright crisis" on Wikipedia, by MRG

I highly recommend the essay by Moon-ridden Girl, The copyright crisis, and why we should care.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. But I prefer to thank you. For the things I have observed. My76Strat (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good references

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

Helpful links
Wikipedia Resources
Copyright FAQ
Copyright policy
Copyright problems board
CC-BY-SA
GFDL
Non-free content guidelines
Non-US copyrights
Plagiarism guide
Plagiarism dispatch
Guidance for resolving
Citing sources
Donating copyrighted materials
Requesting copyright permission
Wikipedia essay on quotations
Off-wiki links
Stanford's guide
Plagiarism and Copyright
Avoiding plagiarism, Periodical registration renewal
PD chart
Other
Part 1; Military History editorial; Part 2; Military History editorial

Semper Fidelis


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)[reply]

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

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[1] estimated to be only 1% of all fungal species.[2] 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.[3]

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.[4] 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.[5]

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.[6] 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.[6] 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.[7] Candida glabrata is the second most common Candida pathogen after C. albicans, causing infections of the urogenital tract, and of the bloodstream (candidemia).[8]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference YeastRef1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kurtzman2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kurtzman1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Balasubramanian was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Yeong2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference YeastRef9 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hurley1987 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference YeastRef10 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive&oldid=451963043"