Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) at 10:46, 19 May 2013 (→‎New guitar: GAS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)


Swedish?

Resolved apparently

I noticed you mentioned some swedes on your user page. Do you happen to speak Swedish? Carl Emil Pettersson is an unfinished translation and it doesn't have inline citations. I can get the book Kung Kalle av Kurrekurreduttön – en resa i Efraim Långstrumps fotspår through an interlibrary loan and scan pages, but I can't read it to help fix the citations. I'm looking for a Swedish editor to help out. Ryan Vesey 5:49 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

I can look for it in a library and translate what you need. If you need only a short section, then you can email me a scanned page or pdf file, and I can translate it for you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
Thanks, I've made a request and they're sending it my way. I'm hoping it has an index, which should be understandable in any language, so I can figure out what I need. Ryan Vesey 6:22 pm, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)
From discussions, it actually doesn't appear that Neotarf intends to finish the translation from the Swedish version sv:Carl Emil Pettersson. If you've got extra time and you're up for it, it would be nice if that translation could be finished. Ryan Vesey 9:54 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)
The translation would take a few hours, I guess. One problem is that it lacks in-line references, which means that I would have to find the book, read it, and give page numbers for the article's statements. Also, Swedish humanistic scholarship is worse than British lit critters in the eyes of Morris Zapp, which means I would have trouble trusting the book... ;)
Is this a burning issue for you? I trust that you are not writing about the social construction of imperialism and patriarchy in the works of Astrid Lindgren. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)
An editor began a translation in the mainspace, the article was tagged for some errors, then the editor threw a hissy fit and refused to finish the article. My initial offer of getting the book to help with the in-text citations was directed towards the editor; however, he said he didn't have time to fix the article and continue with the dramafest he started about how New Page Patrollers should be omniscient and shouldn't tag crappy articles when the creator is working on them. I was just hoping to make sure the article was fixed up. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 18 January 2013 UTC)
It's not a hissy fit for a writer to leave when harassed.
The ratio of busy-body bothers to writers' discussions has been increasing dramatically in the last months. Why don't people write articles instead of putting their little tags on works in progress, or making polite suggestions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:19 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)
That reminds me a little bit of when I was doing NPP and came across the original version of Meermin slave mutiny. But that one worked out fine - I just took over when the original author didn't want to do more with it, and he ended up really liking it. Pesky (talk) 7:51 am, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)

DYK for Alfie Fripp

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 9:02 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

11,773 views! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)
Wow! Awesome - well done :D Pesky (talk) 7:48 am, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)
Nice to see a nice fellow from Dorset mentioned, instead of the Green fellow.... ;)
I had not known that The Great Escape was a British yuletime tradition. Of course, WWII must strike nerves in GB even more than in the US.
My grandmother was interviewed about meeting my grandfather in WWI, when she was a nurse who cared for him after he had almost lost his leg to a German bullet (discussing losing ships on the convoy to England, etc.), we had people calling the house in tears. (Don't get me started on The Zimmerman Telegram and "unrestricted submarine warfare"!) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 1:20 am, 21 January 2013, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC+1)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

In This Issue



The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Guitar tunings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Third (music)
U-statistic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Functional

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs

Regarding your vote at Paulmcdonald's RfA

Moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Kiefer, quick question for you, and this is not intended as badgering nor necessarily for you to change your opinion, I am just trying to understand your opinion a little bit better. A week or two ago, during BDD's RfA, there was some concern about his content creation. Someone asked someone on someone's talk page (and if I could remember who and where I would link it...I checked the most common talk pages I stalk and couldn't find it, perhaps someone could find it and post a link if they remember reading what I am about to talk about). So as you can imagine, I am roughly paraphrasing, but this editor, who classified himself as a content creator, was talking about what he finds the traits of a content creator. He said something to the effect of "once you have articles that you have poured your heart into sent to AfD by an American teenager without any legitimate reasoning, then you can call yourself a content creator". Would you agree to that statement? If so, isn't that roughly what happened here five years ago? Again, I am sorry if I misinterpreted a) what the person who said this was trying to say or b) I misinterpreted what you were saying, but that link reminded me of what whomever originally posted that was saying, and I was interested to see if you shared his view. Before I confuse myself to the point I have lost track of what I am trying to say, I am going to stop now . Thanks. Note: I was originally going to post this in the RfA itself, but decided your talk page might be a better venue for me to understand your view. Thanks! Go Phightins! 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have me confused with somebody else. I agree with Mr. McDonald that an editor should quickly fix something that can be quickly fixed, and I have tried to do so.
The most recent case where I did not involved an article on Gamelan that was extensive and had almost no references, a combination which raises concerns about copyright violation, etc., and I nominated it for quick deletion and then deletion. The article was improved by the addition of references, which likely should have been credited by the original author....
My concern with McDonald is that your nomination is written in breezy prose, etc., not about his telling an editor to fix a problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about the part of your comment about improving articles. No big deal, though. Thanks for the explanation, though I must ask, what exactly is "breezy prose"? Go Phightins! 19:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks. Though I do find it a tad odd that you are concerned with the style of writing in the nom, but your concerns are certainly legitimate, and I thank you for explaining them. Happy editing. Regards, Go Phightins! 20:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You made a similar nomination of Automatic Strikeout, I'm afraid, so that frankly your endorsement raises questions, at least for me. I did not find you sinning when I did a brief search for you and a few saints, so perhaps I may have confused you with another editor whose signature similarly sears my retinas. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't judge Go Phightins! simply on the basis that he's my friend. He's much more mature than I am (not that it's all that hard to be sometimes). AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 20:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And try not to judge the quality of the nominee by the nominator. Best to dig and look around, as you know. Anyone who can edit in college football without causing huge amounts of drama must have something going for him. Intothatdarkness 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, my opposition is weak, and he has seemed like a wise and mature editor when I saw him on the murder-victim's article's talk page. I would like administrators to have some experience with writing quality articles on traditional encyclopedia content, or at least with engaging in productive discussion with such writers. (Perhaps I'm skeptical about lists of football topics belonging on Wikipedia, rather than Wikia. The American idolatry of football, such as warping music education to provide marching bands, irritates me.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question is answered, so I am fine. Thanks again, Kiefer. Let's not let this turn into anything more than a question and an answer. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

Pierogi Award
Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)|}[reply]
So much for the moral arc of the universe bending towards justice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

}

Quick Note from an Admirer of Your Work

RfA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First and foremost, I wanted to let you know that I've seen many of your edits (all of them constructive) around Wikipedia, and I really appreciate them and admire your dedication. I hope that someday I can have your edit count (through the positive means that you've used) and the respect that you've garnered around here.

With that said as well as an acknowledgement that I lack the experience that you do, I was very disappointed when I saw some of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pjoef. While I agree with your vote, I noted that when users questioned you, you seemed to take offense and resorted to what I perceived as personal attacks. Now, obviously, nobody is going to come in here and yell Wikipedia policies at someone of your stature, but, as I admire many of the approaches you've taken in the past, I thought that this was in deep contrast to your norm and that your points could have been better made without resorting to condescension towards other experienced editors.

Please feel free to delete this note after you read it, and please also know that I mean no offense. I just think you set a better example through reason and calmness. Cheers, and happy editing! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackson,
Thanks for your message, particularly the charitable beginning.
You may have missed that Automatic Strikeout whinged about an explanation being needed, despite my having given one responding to his "civil" comment above.
Look up my user name and those to whom you think I was condescending to understand that others are less reticent about quoting and blue-linking policy, to me.
Thanks for your kind wordsKiefer.Wolfowitz 06:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sevenths chords

Tertian harmonization of C-major scale

Major-thirds tuning for guitar: Fretboard diagrams

Sevenths chords are constructed by stacking third intervals on the C major scale. Fretboard diagrams for major-thirds tuning are shown. Sevenths via tertian harmonization of major scale on C.mid
Sevenths via tertian harmonization of major scale on C.mid
Sequence of sevenths chords arising in the tertian harmonization of the major scale on C (with relative minor scale of A minor), arranged by the circle of perfect fifths (perfect fourths). Guitar tablature (tabs) and fretboard diagram for six-string guitar tuned with major thirds tuning (M3 tuning). FifthsC.mid
Sevenths via tertian harmonization of major scale on C.mid
Sequence of sevenths chords arising in the tertian harmonization of the major scale on C (with relative minor scale of A minor), arranged by the circle of perfect fifths (perfect fourths). Guitar tablature (tabs) and fretboard diagram for six-string guitar tuned with major thirds tuning (M3 tuning). FifthsC.mid

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 10:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New guitar

Guitar acquisition syndrome

My choice for a new guitar, see this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sound.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, UR missing a string[1][2]. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds nice! I'm afraid to buy a better guitar for a few years, lest my daughter feed it oatmeal, the way my nephew fed oatmeal to my brother's VCR. (I have day-dreamed about writing a grant application for an Al Di Meola Ovation and a Adrian Belew Parker Fly, to provide simple examples for frequency-domain analysis---science for the people!)
I've tuned my Soviet 7-string to an on-average major-thirds open-C tuning, E-G-C-E-G-C-E, which gives me the E-E range of standard tuning. As expected, the resonance is great for one-fret major chords. The intonation is off, because of the lack of a truss-rod, maple neck, and quality of Soviet consumer goods. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge popped off

I bought the Russian guitar already having steel strings. Today, the bridge popped off. I think that I'll reglue the bridge with superglue and then restring it with nylon, which should be easier for my daughter to strum. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators thinking that "National Socialist" is an everyday pleasantry

Moving on...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Spanky and Alfalfa male playing dress up.
Little Rascals

Administrator Giant Snowman repeatedly applies "Nationalist Socialist" but warns me about "personal attacks"

Personal attacks

Please do not use edit summaries attack other editors (better still, do not attack other editors anywhere) - calling somebody else a "piece of shit" is too far. GiantSnowman 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer the question I addressed.
Have you have blocked Demiurge1000 for stating that Lihaas had a Nazi userbox? You seemed to think being called a Nazi wasn't so hotsy totsy, if I remember. And here you are again going on about NPA....
Thus my question.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Truth hurts? GiantSnowman 21:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you illiterate? Please read about the Pledge of Allegiance before writing so stupidly again. "Nazi" and Nationalism/Socialism are different, and Lihaas clarified he was concerned with non-Nazi Nationalism and Socialism. Thus he changed his user box. He also had 200 other userboxes, such as supporting Justice Scalia, and the assertion that Nazi smear was done maliciously and gratuitiously. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does National Socialism redirect to, with good reason? Stop defending the indefensible, and stop with the personal attacks. Final warning. GiantSnowman 21:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know nothing about 19th Century Socialism, The Pledge of Allegiance, and Looking Backwards, and just parade your ignorance about Wikipedia, despite my having explained the distinctions. Warn away, GiantSnowman, but go get an administrator with a brain to back you up. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. What does National Socialism redirect to? GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did change his user box, as I've told you. You just continue smearing, maliciously. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas has clarified his interest in nationalism and socialism outside of Nazism, so please stop bullshitting and participating in an ignorant and malicious smearing. Lihaas also changed his user box, to avoid ignoramuses continuing to have agitated ganglia, we had hoped. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying Lihaas was/is a Nazi, I'm saying he displayed a Nazi userbox - something you foolishly deined despite there being very clear evidence to the contrary. GiantSnowman 21:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He did change his user box, as I've told you. You just continue smearing, maliciously. It did not say "Nazi", as you know. Don't post here again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatuously and maliciously, to what does National Socialist refer?

Honestly, to what did National Socialist refer?

Administrator Giant Snowman, in his repeated smearings of Lihaas as a "National Socialist", asked to "what does National Socialism link", an irrelevant question.

The relevant question is to what did Lihaas refer with his user box, even before he outed himself as a liberal interested in reducing Eurocentrism on Wikipedia. A pity that Giant Snowman spent more time smearing Lihaas, repeatedly, than investigating Lihaas's contemporaneous edits to the Wikipedia article on National Socialism.

Of course, it is a violation of WP:NPA to make false allegations or to present edits out of context. Of course, administrators with backbone to discipline the Giant Snowmans and Frams are in short supply, if any exist.

I suppose that ArbCom hypocrites signed off on the "Civility Enforcement"'s plaintive complaint about "uneven enforcement of civility" without intending to do anything about malicious administrators misusing their batons.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I quote from the Civility Enforcement circus Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC):[reply]


10) Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)

Support:
  1. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. yup. This finding could be improved by the mention of the widely differing boundaries of sanctionable incivility but no big deal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Most definitely so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It's hardly a good thing, but it is the facts on the ground. Courcelles 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. AGK [•] 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On administrator privileges

Jeez Kiefer, you know you can't win this argument, no matter what the rights and wrongs, so give it up as a bad job. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've won the argument from the get go. This is just having a clear record of administrative intimidation and acquiescence to another round of gratuitous smearing from Demiurge1000. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that there's a difference between winning a battle and winning the war. A battle with admins is like fighting a nuclear power when your only strategic weapon is a peashooter. Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pea-shooter seems ideally calibrated for targetting some administrators' ganglia.... ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To judge by the Arbcom elections in the last 2 years or by writers of quality articles, we have won. Anybody telling me that I've received a final warning while repeating a smear of the writer who helped to lead WP's chronicle of the Arab Spring will never get elected to ArbCom or get more permissions to play with. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could undoubtedly win many such Pyrrhic victories, but when the last one of us non-admins left standing has been blocked then what? Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The administrators cannot do anything about Jack, who could teach his methods to other members of the Resistance. We could all continue the First and Second Foundations' work, even if The Mule and his Empire seem to be in charge. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another article that needs some serious work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! An article with no in-line citations and one reference. I haven't seen one of those since an administrator complained about my "'references'" (scare quotes in the original) at Discipline Global Mobile while threatening a site ban and I looked at his GA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Fram on "National Socialist" from fellow administrator Giant Snowman

Fram's block

Please explain! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your previous blocks for personal attacks and disruptive editing, and because you still can't drop a dead horse from two years ago (which lead to your first block then) but continue to bring it up at unrelated discussions, I have blocked you for one month. Personal attack, more personal attacks, and more. Fram (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge1000 repeated and intensified the National Socialist attacks, aided and abetted by Giant Snowman, and you block me?
It's pretty funny that you would complain that somebody else "can't drop a dead horse", given your recent stalking of Blofeld. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who was the first to bring up Lihaas at that RfA? It seems that this was the first comment about it (there were earlier comments about Nazi userboxes, but these were started by you as well, so that doesn't change the situation). Fram (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, but you don't have the backbone to enforce civility and NPA on Giant Snowman and Demiurge1000, do you. Do I need to link, non-retaliation? And you will notice that my description is of Demiurge1000's behavior. He was blocked recently for continued misrepresentation and smearing of Volunteer Marek, as you know. Others have already drawn their conclusion about his character and yours, from years of similar behavior. But I documented a record of behavior, which is not a personal attack. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you haven't addressed your stalking of Dr. Blofeld, which does make your block or you or both look pretty funny, you must admit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stalking Dr. Blofeld, as you well know. When I raise concerns at his talk page, they are about new issues, not things that were already discussed to death two years ago. I am also hardly a friend of Demiurge1000, his first block (for "personal attacks or harassment") was issued by me, so your comment above is particularly misdirected here. Anyway, feel free to start separate sections or discussions (after your unblock presumably) about the behaviour of other people; this block is for your behaviour only. Fram (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge1000's behavior has continued from 2 years ago. Do you think that his smearing of Volunteer Marek is a different tactic than his smearing of Lihaas?
I did not say that you are a friend of Demiurge1000 or of Giant Snowman, but that you are blocking me while acquiescing to their repeated smearing of Lihaas as a Nazi or "National Socialist" despite his having changed the user box (in his collection of hundreds of contradictory user boxes) and clarifying his liberal politics and his interest in discussing nationalism and socialism outside of Nazi Germany. Giant Snowman continued the National Socialist and Nazi smear even after I linked discussions of 19th century nationalism/socialism, and clarified Lihaas's explanation, so his personal attacks (misrepresentation out of context) are more severe than Demiurge1000.
In short, you are using your block button in a one-sided fashion, and accusing me of obsessive behavior, which as I said is pretty funny. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You started that old discussion again, they didn't. Using the RfA of a third person to continue such discussions from years ago (which got you already blocked back then) is disruptive editing, and you used a fair number of personal attacks in the discussions as well. What is happening or not happening between e.g. Demiurge and Marek is hardly a factor to take into account when noticing your actions at that RfA, which was not about Demiurge, Marek, or Lihaas; you are the only one who felt the need to drag him into it. Fram (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you and Demiurge1000 feel the need to use "feel the need to" or "need to"?
I did not state that the RfA was about Demiurge1000, Marek, or Lihaas. Why are you creating and addressing strawmen?
It's not disruptive editing to respond to Demiurge1000's suggestion that somebody was needed to tell me how to behave, merely the latest of his years of passive aggressive personal attacks, which you are supporting by blocking me and not him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A third person urges you both to stop replying, and you reply anyway, calling Demiurge a "piece of shit" in the edit summary[3]. You already had called his contributions "simpering drivel" and had discussed his "record of dishonesty", so it's not as if you hadn't had your say yet. You were the one that started it, you were the one that dragged unrelated stuff into it, you were the one to continue it, and your comments were by far the most problematic. Nothing you have said so far gives me any inclination to reconsider the block or to block other people in the discussion. If you continue with this discussion in the same vein, I'll probably not reply anymore, as I don't see any benefot in continuing this in that case. Fram (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, I never respond to you, with any belief that you will behave justly. You are welcome to go away. I don't care anything about you, or anybody who approves of Giant Snowman's Nazi and National-Socialist smearing, or of Demiurge1000's 2 years ago or yesterday.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that 30 days should be a badge of honor in standing up to "National Socialist" abuse, which is so much easier for non-cowards than to stand up to the real thing. After all 5 > 3. Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Yes you should. Fram wouldn't know a just block if hit bit him in the butt and I don't personally think he should be an admin, I have no problem with stating that openly. This was only one of an extremely long list of bad decisions by Fram and it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that we need someone to watch over the admins. The problem with that statement is that group would most likely end up as corrupt as AE and as much a drag on the pedia as Arbcom. I have no respect for either institution after both have shown repeatedly they can't be trusted and do what they want to follow their own agenda with very little good coming from or to the community based on their decisions. It appalls me how Fram has been allowed to do what he does as long as he has with no one taking action. Kumioko (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:TPS): So would this improve matters? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, they research Checkusers and do not currently have the authority to take action against admins. As far as I know and unless something has changed very recently Arbcom is the sole group who has authority to de-admin someone. That's why its so rare to see someone desysopped regardless of how often or badly they screw up. Unless they resign, an Arbcom case could take months and still have no result. The Beauracrats do have limited authority to revoke the tools if the account looks like its been compromised or something but its rare too. Kumioko (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm surprised that ArbCom doesn't step in more often when editors feel very aggrieved. (Am still waiting for that easy-to-find single link (maybe on the front page?) that shows me a table of all Admins, with date or appointment, date of departure and reason for departure. But I feel I may have a long wait!) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well in all honesty I'm not sure it would do much good. There are about 650 editors currently who have the tool kit. Each month we desysop more because they didn't edit at all in the last year than we give the tools too. Of the 650 editors with the tools more than half do fewer then 25 edits a month (or none at all) and of the 650 its pretty much the same 20-30 that do 90% of the admin actions. So providing a list wouldn't be terribly helpful IMO but it would at least make it easier to find one if needed. Kumioko (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. But I'm sure one of the sortable columns could be "edits in last month"! I think half of the problem is that (some) admins are just not visible enough... and when they suddenly zapp, out of thin air, the hapless editor is doubly peeved. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take home message

The main issue is Fram's partisanship in not responding to Giant Snowman's repeated, conscious personal attacks against Lihaas, smearing him with "Nazi" and "National Socialist".

— Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Outside views on Fram's behavior

Double standards and WP:Involved
  • Although I strongly disagree with Kiefer.Wolfowitz's comments on Communism, and whatnot, even I can see that Admin Fram is obviously way too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking this user. Oh, and need I mention the evident double standard at play here? Thought not. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DanielTom, you are wasting your time here. You should forget about Wikipedia and study mathematics (and then perhaps statistics or computer science or genetics). If you stay, ignoring idiots is joseki. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow joseki. :) DanielTom (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, please do present evidence of both my being WP:INVOLVED and of the "evident double standard". Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram, need I remind you that you have blocked this user in the past? And worse, if you had been paying attention to this discussion, you would have noticed that he mentioned "retaliation", and your past incivilities. Yes, you are, in my opinion, way too WP:INVOLVED to be blocking this user, but not just him. I should have said that your previous history with other users, including two who have commented here — namely, this user and Kumioko —, makes me think that you should not be blocking anyone. I have no idea how you were even trusted with your admin tools in the first place, but since then you have gotten into so many conflicts, and with so many users and valuable Wikipedia contributors, that I seriously question your ability to manage to solve disputes peacefully. I suggest that next time you want to block a user, you ask some other administrator to do it for you, because for my part, and from what I've seen, I have no trust in your judgement whatsoever. This is of course just my reading of the situation; I will not comment on the evident double standard at play on this very Talk page because — as Voltaire did not say — this is no time to make new enemies. I have and make no list, but you can add me to yours. Truly, DanielTom (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)Please see WP:INVOLVED and any related discussion. Blocking a user once (or even repeatedly) doesn't make one "involved" and doesn't prohibit later admin actions between the same two users. The rest of your reasoning seems to be equally flawed: one other user who is often commenting about meis unsurprisingly also commenting here, so I shouldn't be blocking anyone and shouldn't be an admin? We have never interacted as far as I remember, you provide no evidence at all for your judgment, your reading of policy is seriously flawed, but you have already decided that I shouldn't be an admin and that I have a "list of enemies". Fram (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is your reading of my comment that is flawed. I never said that if an admin blocks someone more than once that makes him "involved", nor that it is prohibited. What I said was that your history with this user makes you involved. And you quite clearly have a "list of enemies", just ask Kumioko. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The unfortunate reality is that admins have been deemed to be exempt from WP:Involved and WP:Harassment which is probably why so many want to be admin (rather than for the right reasons). Fram has been instrumental in banning good editors from the project. He has IMO done more to cripple Wikipedia than any 100 vandals combined! Although I am sure he feels the same about me. Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I told Fram to stop acting like a jerk recently on Dr. Blofeld and Carrite's pages. He likes to stick templates on good writers' pages, like his ridiculous sticking of a "plagiarism" template on Carrite's page after Carrite noted that the page was based on a published source (in fact, it was copied verbatim, apparently). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Below you mention two such templates, and here again you make that claim. You are accusing me of "fabricating fantasy on his talk page". Perhaps you can start supporting your own version of the facts with some diffs before you start accusing others. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          Fram, Such comments belong at RfAs. Please read what I wrote again and remember that 1 and 2 are different numbers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Also, please address your fatuous mistakes or lies, given in your account of a 1 month block. Since you were wrong, please reduce the block to a reasonable amount. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I haven't seen anything so far that would give me any reason to reduce the block length. A reasonable block length, considering the problems and the recurring character, was either a month or longer. Considering the abundance of claims about me and the lack of supporting evidence in this whole section (even after direct requests for some), coupled with the total lack of any discussion of the actual block reason, I'll leave this discussion now (further relevant and factual questions, like the one by Launchballer below, are obviously always welcome). Fram (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fram, you still have not retracted your false accusations on your talk page, despite my having alerted you of your fatuous error. Or were you deliberately lying? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Run along Fram. As I wrote above, I have no expectation of reasonable action from you, now or since I've made your acquaintance. I wrote for the other writers who read this page, not for you, for reasons that are obvious. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The problem with Fram's statement above is endemic these days from Admins. "I didn't do anything wrong, you didn't "convince me" and you can't make me, Nah!" The bigger problem is that there is no committee or admin cops that police the admins abuses, which are rampant. No matter how much fault you find and no matter how convincing the argument the admin always says its not enough and the system doesn't have the checks and balances in place to counter the obvious stupidity frequently employed with Admins with big ego's. I find it almost funny that so much effort is being put into crafting garbage like the new discussion notice and the new login page (all of which look a lot like Facebook to me) and not enough time and effort is spent on real meaningful changes like policing stupid admin decisions. Until this is a priority edits and editors (and admins too) will continue to decline. No one wants to put up with a shit head but right now the numbers of jerks are outpacing the ones who are trying to add value ot the project and the wrong ones have the tools to to police the problems. Kumioko (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we should keep a bit more perspective. I've had run ins with BWilkins before. However, can you imagine BWilkins behaving sticking a "Plagiarism at [article name]" header on a productive editor's page after the editor had provided a legible acknowledgment of the source of BW's article? Etc. It would have taken successful RfAs for Gwickwire, etc., for Fram to have a peer....
Second, you are also missing the point that I was responding to baiting/personal attack from Demiurge1000, when I referenced his record of dishonesty. Did that discussion advance anything? Wouldn't it have been better to have been avoided altogether? Had somebody blocked me and Giant Snowman and either blocked or given a stern warning to Demurge1000, one could have hoped that the atmosphere would be better in the future. Instead, we have dishonest one-sided blocks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I have fallen into that trap myself. I was blocked because they thought I might violate 3RR but didn't block the one who did violate it when I brought it to their attention. So now, I do not bring it to their attention anymore. I see violations at least 2 or 3 times a week. I saw one editor revert 8 times and still no one did anything. Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The appearance of condescension does not advance discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
                • Hi Kumioko, Actually there is a committee that police admin abuses and regularly desysop admins. It's called wp:Arbcom and if you consider that your case against Fram or any of us is strong enough then that's where you escalate things if processes such as RFC don't suffice. ϢereSpielChequers 11:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ArbCom has had a year to act on double standards, baiting, personal attacks, and incivility, since its dishonest "civility enforcement" circus. Show me one case where any member has done anything to show that any of them cared about even enforcement of civility beyond hortatory! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kiefer, I pointed out that it exists, I wouldn't claim it was perfect. Though of the few Arbcom decisions I've looked at in the last 18 months I've agreed with rather more of the 2013 ones than the 2012 ones. ϢereSpielChequers 11:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, WSC, but I'm not in the mood to waste time. You should regret your condescension in replying to Kumioko. Further, just answer me why you haven't blocked Fram for his many personal attacks? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think that was condescension then I won't waste my time by continuing to watchlist this page. As for your dispute with Fram, I haven't read enough to get involved either way. ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was condescension (with possible appearance of mild baiting), obviously, but I suspect it was thoughtless rather than deliberate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to a blocked user and then dewatching was condescending and for that I apologise. If Kumioko was aware that Arbcom exists but has given up on them then in my view that's unfortunate, I would be unlikely to comment if Kumioko had simply said "for me they don't exist". I have sufficient faith in Arbcom to think that a major part of our community problems is that people don't raise enough cases against problem editors including admins, another problem is that people tend to skip the early steps of dispute resolution. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note here, but I do think that the length of the process actually dissuades people from reporting poor conduct. From what I've seen, following all recommended steps could take months, and in that time it becomes simple to either stonewall the early stages of the process (a concern, legitimate or not, when it comes to dealing with problem admins) or cause evidence to slide away (not so much by deleting or oversight, but by being buried by events - although opportunities to take other action are there). If the view is that complaining about admin conduct leads to someone being "gang tackled" in the early stages of the process, people won't follow proper channels. They either give up and leave, or try to skip steps to get their concerns heard. Things won't change because there's too much OWN of policy. Intothatdarkness 13:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the leaks and bizarre mistreatment of Malleus should clarify that ArbCom is a dysfunctional institution with too many busy bodies, even now. It was apparently worse before 2009.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram's personal attacks: A selection
Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


From the talk page of Fram (Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)):[reply]

Uncivil comments

Saying, "Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?" is uncivil and uncalled for in any circumstance, not to mention the other comments. If you don't like what an editor is doing, don't lower your self to their level. You are an Admin, you should behaving alot better. Do not restore the uncivil comment. Bgwhite (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted some policy reminders on your user talk page. Next time, perhaps first discuss things instead of blindly defending the trolls (since that is what Kumioko has become effectively). Fram (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Effectively" isn't good enough. Just as a reminder for you, the policy WP:NPA says "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor", and "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room" certainly meets "derogatory" - so your rude edit summaries were incorrect as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever. Nice to see you all have gotten your priorities in the right order. Fram (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Please retract this

Per your comment at AN/I:

"Yes, I was aware from the above section that you consider copyright violations as no problem at all...

I consider this defamatory to my reputation at Wikipedia and ask you to retract it. I have NEVER said that I "consider copyright violations as no problem at all." Best regards, — Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You never said it, but you act like it. "Richard has really been run over by a truck for no good reason" and other statements in that discussion quite clearly show your priorities. If you care about your reputation on Wikipedia, you shouldn't be making such statements. Fram (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that is pretty descriptive of his situation. The original investigation was based on a couple instances of "close paraphrase" of sources, which is quite subjective. The case brought against him on that basis has been Kafkaesque. Do try looking at the world through his eyes... Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. Your misrepresentation of the original and of the current case, and his consistent very problematic behaviour and refusal to help in any way to solve this, don't give me any reason to look at the world through your or his eyes. Being blind to obvious problems is not something I want to experience firsthand. The more you comment, the less reason I see to retract my "defamatory" statement. Fram (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim,
Your reputation speaks for itself. Fram's reputation (ugh) too.
Has anybody written to you concerned that Fram mouthed off again? Who cares what he says? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Plagiarism at Robert Gardelle

You removed the atribution at Robert Gardelle (changing it to a citation), thereby giving the impression that while the source was Bryan, the text was own work. This is incorrect and violates our policies and guidelines like WP:PLAGIARISM. Please be more careful in the future. Fram (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a dick, Fram. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. It took me a minute to fix. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Ditto" yourself? Well, it must be nice to agree with yourself... Anyway, you may not have noticed that Carrite saw the need to lecture me on my talk page on what I did wrong on that page, only to make things a lot worse with his own edit. He shouldn't expect much patience in such a case. Fram (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patience is the least social skill you need to improve, if you think that you can correct Carrite's English. "at Geneva", indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I give the impression that I think that I "can correct Carrite's English"? Fram (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, you say you were "in an unrelated dispute" with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. About what? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He made some comments about me at a Peter Damian socks thread at WP:AN, and started complaining there about my "insults" to Carrite (comments which had nothing to do with that whole thread and were months old anyway). Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How did that thread work out for you Fram?
NE Ent indicated that you wasted the board's time with the thread. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Acting like a Dick to other editors he doesn't agree with is a standard Fram characteristic. Its also pretty much standard practice for him to ignore comments by other editors that the is doing anything wrong and he flatly refuses to stop. Kumioko (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no Kumioko, I never ignore your comments, I just take them as a sign that I am doing something right. Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thinking that Fram, your ignorance and arrogance will eventually be your downfall. Kumioko (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a dandelion eventually falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does anybody care? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AN/I shut down the thread after two hours, giving a clean bill of health to the ethically-questionable editing practice of copy-and-paste articles with a single disclaimer. It was suggested that if I wanted to do something about it, I needed to do an RFC, go to Village Pump-Proposals, or take it up at WP:Plagiarism-Talk. An RFC to forever end this bad old 2003 practice is the most likely outcome, but not this week. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I happened to see this discussion and have been waiting for you to start the RFC on the matter, not because I am concerned with plagiarism, as you cannot plagiarise out of copyright items, but because copying and pasting from old sources more than a hundred years old, as hundreds of WP articles do, creates very poor quality articles full of outdated information and ridiculously old fashioned language and attitudes.Smeat75 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fram's revisionist history

Fram is just fabricating fantasy on his talk page.

  • I have been unblocked because oversight and others realized that I had not outed GtetragrammatonSquared by writing G TetragrammatonSquared.
  • TParis unblocked me because he realized I had not accused anybody of sexual harassment, but rather merely tried to preserve a forum by which five-six persons with knowledge of related events could reply to a notice of that discussion---a forum which had been closed out of process with the very civil "shut up, etc." from another administratorcorpsman, just how one is taught not to respond to concerns about sexual harassment in adult life.
  • etc.

It is a pity that administrators making false allegations and bad blocks face no consequences for their NPAs and harassment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram does that. Frequently. I have brought that up before....but few if anyone really cares what I have to say because I'm not an admin so I can't be trusted to think independantly and how dare I criticize an admin for their actions. I'm glad some folks are finally catching on that I'm not just some loon that has it out for a poor innocent admin. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody is looking for loons or incivility or PA-style misrepresentations, he could start by looking at two "plagiarism" templates warnings (including an obnoxious templateheader) on Carrite's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to make bogus accusations of outing, but the thing that I find disgusting is that Fram actually blocked Kiefer with no reason given in the log despite having blocked him previously. How is an uninvolved admin supposed to review it?--Launchballer 12:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have provided a reason in the block log, I thought I had chosen one from the drop-down box but obviously didn't. I explained the block here instead, 5 minutes later[4]. Shouldn't be too problematic for anyone who wants to review the block to actually find this. Fram (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point but you shouldn't've had to explain on the talk page. Whatever.--Launchballer 13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from below
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A comment on User:My76Strat's obsequious posting:

My76Strat,
If Fram wrote that "'gullible' is not in the dictionary", would you similarly thank him for his "diligent lexicography", or whatever you found in your thesaurus? I was blocked for "outing" Gwickwire by writing a space after "G" and capitalizing the "w"; when oversight laughed at the charge, the edits were restored, but no apology was made. Now Fram is misrepresenting that block history, maliciously or fatuously, despite its being only 2 weeks old. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 09:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that I would Kiefer. That doesn't imply that I know what I would do, just that I have a fair idea of that which I would not. My76Strat (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is to correct your approval of Fram's misrepresentations on his talk page: E.g.,
"Fram, I was unfamiliar of your history of misrepresentation and abuse, and so I accepted your account in good faith, a mistake I shan't repeat. I would urge you to correct your false witness now, and then to go back and correct your other abuses." Short and sweet, and to the point.
This is not the first time you've just made things worse. Please don't concern yourself with me again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't flatter yourself Kiefer. My concern is Wikipedia, and my request to Fram was seeking its best interest. How about you respect my autonomy a bit, and strike the part of your comment where you presume to know what I need to do. My76Strat (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will respect my autoritah!

Earlier history.

C.f. South Park's Eric Cartman's "You will respect my autoritah!"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Calling another editor's actions 'bitching' and 'crying' is past the final straw. I've blocked Lihaas for one week. m.o.p 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Lihaas can get smeared as a "national socialist" for a week and you administrators just sit on your hands and do nothing .... What a political crib you crawl in if "bitching and moaning" is worse than Nazism.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user has a userbox proclaiming himself to be a national socialist. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots08:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas has hundreds of contradictory user boxes, as you know, BB, yet you shamelessly repeat the ns smear and neglect his boxes identifying himself as a classical liberal, as a supporter of Pahlin, as an opponent of Pahlin, etc. Your user name Baseball Buggs contains "ass" but it would be unfair to say that you identify yourself as an ass.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you're saying he's not necessarily any of those things, he's just being funny. 10-4. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots09:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in this ANI, you were told by around 10 users (admins and editors alike) that pointing out that a user has a userbox (self-created I might add) is not a smear. It's time to drop that stick. WormTT · (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas has been blocked for the straw "bitching and moaning", yet the smear "national socialist" went without chastisement of the administrator and familiar.
This is a double standard.
Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned Kiefer.Wolfowitz on his talk page that any further discussion by him of the whole "Lihaas was smeared" topic will get him blocked for disruption. This has gone on for far too long. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can discuss the smearing at appropriate venues, such as ArbComm Elections, RfAs, RfCs, etc. Please redact your "any" and replace with "inappropriate".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, wikilawyering, that will improve things. Just drop it. Fram (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please ask everybody else to not respond to these comments either. Any response will only invite further comments, and if he then gets blocked, he may claim that it was one-sided, and that he isn't even allowed to respond to comments and so on. Fram (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiefer.Wolfowitz now blocked for 24 hours for continued discussion of the "national-socialist" issue after ample warning. Fram (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long ago"

Kiefer.Wolfowitz, drop the whole "Lihaas was smeared" thing[6], or you'll get blocked for disruption. This has been discussed to death, no action is going to be taken, no one is going to do anything about it. Rehashing this over and over again is disruptive. Fram (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas was just blocked for using the phrase "bitching and moaning". Blocking Lihaas was disruptive of writing an encyclopedia.
Your double standard is disruptive to writing an encyclopedia.
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stating that you can't oppose the block of Lihaas, but it is a completely separate issue of your anti-smear campaign, which has to stop. It doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong about that, but when discussion is over (and that discussion is clearly over and done), you should drop it instead of restarting it any tangentially related discussion. Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas was just blocked. This is hardly "any tangentially related".
Please see my reply at ANI, where I object to to the overly broad scope of your gag order.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments about his userbox had nothing to do with the current block. Fram (talk) 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please acknowledge that many editors are concerned about double standards.
That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist" WP:NPA violations (etc.) is evidence of a double standard. (10:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC) striking through "national socialist")
That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours. What was so hard to understand about "drop it"? Fram (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org.
Discussion of block
I don't understand your block.
I just acknowledged that a general discussion of double standards is better made elsewhere, and I did not respond to Paul's statement at ANI.
This seems to be punitive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid rhetorical questions, particularly when acting as an administrator and especially when using the block button.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No, you just continued comparing the Lihaas block with the national-socialist thing, and how that is a double standard. "That Wikipedia blocks for "bitching and moaning" (etc.) and not for "national socialist" (etc.) is evidence of a double standard." How is that compatible with multiple warnings to "drop it"? Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence stated that it was unproductive to discuss "double standards" at ANI:

"That said, a discussion of double standards may be made constructively in another place than ANI."

Obviously, your block was punitive.
Admit it!
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what's your problem with rhetorical questions? Isn't "Who cares what 10 lightweights think when Geometry guy has explained the impropriety of smearing Lihaas?"[7] a rhetorical question as well? And a loaded one to boot, of course. Fram (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did it hurt your feelings?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit my comment again.[8] You did not "restore diff improperly censored from incomplete quotation", you inserted a later version of your post. Please don't accuse people of "improper censoring" when nothing of the sort has happened. As for your reply: you asked for the avoidance of rhetorical questions, even though you used them in this duscussion. And why would my feelings be hurt when I have never offered an opinion on the whole thing, and when I couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion of whether some people are lightweights or not? Fram (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You quote deliberately from the version without the diff, then---all of 7 minutes later. (Sadly, I am no longer surprised by such behavior by administrators.)
Why did you bring it up the "lightweight" rhetorical question? Why did you use "rat's ass"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, again)I went through your edits to that ANI discussion, thinking that I had seen a rhetorical question from you, and used the first diff of it, as it was an example of a rhetorical question. Whether you changed it afterwards was not (and still isn't) relevant for this discussion and the example at all. Why did I bring it up? Beacuse I didn't understand your reaction against my rhetorical question, something which you still haven't tried to explain, and I needed an example of you using one as well. When using it, I noticed that it was quite a loaded question as well (with or without the diff), so I noted that in my reply. I don't believe anything in my behaviour here was problematic, unlike e.g. your edit summary when changing my post. Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for hurting your feelings.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you apologize for something you didn't do, and remain mute on the things you did do? You did not hurt my feelings by adressing a loaded rhetorical question towards other people, how could it? Fram (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review of block
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgments: * I had just acknowledged that it was unproductive to discuss the "double standard" issue at ANI. * I had not responded to the latest mention of "national socialist" at ANI. * I had just written at ANI that discussion of the "national socialist" issue should be limited Wikipedia venues, e.g. RfCs, RfAs, ArbComm elections. This seems like a punitive block, given my acknowledgements that future discussions of "national socialist" were improper except perhaps at these venues (and only in rare circumstances, which I would imagine would only involve 2 editors).

Decline reason:

Right up to your last edits before being blocked you were persisting with your disruptive editing. Saying "I acknowledge that it might be a good idea to beat something other than this dead horse" while beating the dead horse is not putting the stick down and walking away from the dead horse. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall format the diffs outside the appeal box, because the diffs choke the compiler.

Changing this section's header from "Lihaas" to "Double standards: "Bitching and moaning" gets a block"[9], and starting the following section on "free speech", doesn't give me confidence that unblocking would be wise, but I'll let another admin decline or accept the unblock request as they see fit. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram,
You violated talk page guidelines by putting Lihaas's name in the header. If you can propose a better NPOV header do so. Please acknowledge your mistaken misuse of Lihaas's name.
Fram, would you explain yourself.
My comment about "free speech" (below) comments on another editor's inappropriate request to Lihaas, which is the only way I can comment, given your punitive block (of 24 hours).
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from an uninvolved admin: I must say I disagree with this block, but I would like to see Kiefer acknowledge he was in the wrong here before an early unblock request is accepted. — Joseph Fox 13:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the "national socialist" word from above, which Fram cites as triggering the block (which he foresaw at ANI, when he cautioned others to stop commenting).
I commented above with diffs showing my public pledges to stop discussing "national socialist" at ANI.
What more do you want?
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing "national-socialist" with NPA is the kind of wikilawyering that could be predicted, sadly. I warned you mutliple times to drop the Lihaas "smear" issue: i did not warn you to stop referring to "national-socialism" specifically, but to drop the whole issue, not only at ANI, but at user talk pages, unrelated discussions, or nearly everywhere else imaginable. Yes, if there would be an Arbcom case about anyone directly involved, you would be allowed to discuss it (or it would at least fall outsie the scope of my warning here). If you would start an RfC about the issue (one of the venues you mentioned as appropriate), you may well get blocked for it though: if there were recurring, similar problems with an editor, and this was one of them, then using it as an example would be logical (no matter if you were right or wrong): but starting another discussion about this (e.g. starting an RfC about it, or a talk page discussion), or hijacking unrelated discussions (and discussions involving you or Lihaas or anyone else involved are in most cases unrelated to this issue) would be considered disruptive and would lead to further blocks. Fram (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You "told me multiple times", "sadly", etc. Who do you think you are?
I'm telling you to enforce WP:NPA now, and I've told you multiple times. Should you be blocked?
You all failed to enforce NPA, and acquiesced when WTT disguised your double standard with a "There's nothing to see here" cover up.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to an earlier version of this page after multiple edit conflicts, again)If by "there's nothing to see here" cover up, you mean the collapsing of the discussion: that was done by another user[10]. Apart from that: you started by introducing the Lihaas - userbox issue into the discussion, and continued after you were warned to stop (not only by me, admin User:Worm That Turned also told you to drop it). Other users didn't start this, and didn't continue after a warning. I'm not going to warn someone more severely for one remark uttered by the provocation of your continued disruption. By the way, if you consider it to be a personal attack, why did you add it as the header text of your ANI recap[11]? Fram (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation shows your and ANI's double standard. You don't take WP:NPA seriously.
This is what you allowed to stand unchallenged at ANI: "It is not a smear. It is a self-proclaimed fact. His edits confirm it. BTW, I pointed out his user box on talk page long before Elen ever did. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)" (end quote)[reply]
Lihaas was blocked for his sentence showing contempt for the atmosphere at ANI, a contempt which is shared by many writers.
WTT has been involved from day one, and just days ago was approving of Elen's description of me as an "idiot", quoting the villain of Macbeth---rather appropriate, that! :)
He hushed up the discussion at ANI with a misleading edit summary and a cover-up description of the events.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly yet another poor block, but obviously you need to drop the national socialism thing Kiefer. I've rarely seen a request for unblocking granted anyway – Joseph Fox's observation above, that you have to express some remorse for something you don't agree you did – is typical of the convoluted logic that's so prevalent here. Best just to maintain your dignity and let the clock run down IMO. I've never requested an unblock and I never will. Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus, thanks for your advice. I shall be secret and take defeat.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Think of it as more of a tactical withdrawal than a defeat. And remember that the only real purpose of blocks is to infantilise both the blocker and the blockee. Don't play into their hands by apologising for anything you don't agree that you did. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption
A refresher of policy

I quote the disruption-section of the blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

How was I disrupting anything? I agree that I was drawing attention to the double standard at ANI, but this was not in any way disruptive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point", and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing: "continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors". When something is (repeatedly) discussed, no action is taken, and when you restart the discussion, you get asked by different editors (uninvolved admins) to stop it (with a clear indication that you will get blocked otherwise), and you continue anyway, then you ar acting disruptively and can be blocked. See also WP:FORUMSHOP, part of the consensus policy. Fram (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I quote the policy, so you can see from what Fram is cherry-picking:  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption policy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Signs of disruptive editing
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
  • Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
  • Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
  • Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
  • Does not engage in consensus building:
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
    • repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
  • Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

  • Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.
WP's description of "disruptive editing" does not apply to me, and so this block was improper, or at least its rationale was mis-stated.
I was not asking for sanctions against those violating NPA, so your description of "forum shopping" is grossly misleading. I was protesting against the blocking of Lihaas for his complaint about an editor's "bitching and moaning" at ANI; there is no policy warrant or "consensus" that expressions of contempt for "running to ANI" over minor or even moderate irritations should be blocked---otherwise, you would have to block half of the regular contributors at FA. Lihaas is a victim of a double standard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lord Sjones23

Sjones23(No, I'm not making this up.)

Lord Sjones23 would do better to develop his reading before again violating talk-page guidelines or wasting Dennis's time further. Don't edit this page again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You will respect my autoritah" II

His "I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously" is funnier than Fram's statements above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to comment there, but hit five edit conflicts, at least three of which came from SJones23 modifying his original statement. IMO he made an error in inserting himself into this situation. There was no need for it. But I'm also under no illusions about the value of my opinion. Intothatdarkness 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The community of Wikiputzia
It's easier to just focus on the truth, and don't worry about the Wikipedia "community", most of whom have never contributed anything worthy of an encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Most people are mostly wrong most of the time". Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[ec]Oh, I already know that the "community" is really little more than a shifting minority mustered when it's time to block anything that might disturb the OWN of policy or one of the shadow bureaucracies. No worries on that score. Intothatdarkness 22:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. There is no such think as this mythical community. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation from DB's talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Disable talk page access?

Hi. I don't know if you are aware of the recent activity at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. There's a probable issue going on in his talk page especially with regards to his disruptive editing since he is blocked for 1 month by Fram and he has posted a copyvio link to a Youtube video on his talk page. Can you please do something about this? I would rather not get myself blocked over trivial matters and I have an exceptionally low tolerance with regards to uncalled for disrespect or incivility obviously. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You probably want to stop reverting him. His link is not a copyvio, it comes from the publisher. The previous link that DanielTom posted was to YouTube, and it was a copyvio and rightfully reverted by Bbb23. There isn't anything wrong with the current link. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That almost sounds fair, Dennis. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly fair, you didn't add the link originally, you just reverted it back in. I only went back that far before quickly posting here so Sjones23 didn't revert again. Then I went and looked again. Kiefer added it originally, but he correct the error by using a proper source. Dennis Brown - © Join WER
I understand. Thanks. Unfortunately, KW made a bit of an insulting comment towards me, stating that I "would do better to develop [my] reading before again violating talk-page guidelines or wasting Dennis's time further." I think the part about developing my reading was pretty much in my view condescending, since I am a regular established editor here and I don't intend to cause trouble or violate TPG. I am sure that I did not mean to harass, hurt or upset anyone in doing so. So if I have caused any problems (whether its intentional or unintentional), then I am sorry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To a large extent, Kiefer is to blame. When he reverted putting in a proper link, he didn't bother to explain in the edit summary what he was doing, so it appeared to be a true revert when it wasn't. His comment in the edit summary calling you illiterate compounded the problem. You have nothing to apologize for.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the contrary, Bbb23, "editors" should know what they are talking about and avoid making assumptions of themselves, particularly on another's talk page---particularly in acting on hybris and reverting a good edit by a better editor the talk-page's user. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock?

Kiefer, I'd rather see you unblocked so that you can make edits yourself. Look, I know you have disagreements with the block, and I sure as hell am not going to insert myself into that discussion. I recognize you might be in a tough spot: a good unblock request requires that you admit to bad behaviour and promise not to do it again. Both of these are difficult out of principle when one disagrees with the block to begin with. I also recognize that submitting an unblock request requires one to "eat some crow", which - as a dish I've eaten before - is not overly tasty, even with chutney. Yeah, you could spend a month pointing out errors and making suggestions on your talkpage until the block expires, trying to show us how the project is falling apart without your direct editing (and yes, the project is affected without it). How can we all move forward with a) the least amount of dramah, and b) the least amount of crow????? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bwilkins!
Thanks for your thoughtful and generous comments.
I would prefer that Giant Snowman, Fram, and Demiurge1000 be blocked for suitable periods, which should send a message that civility is expected from all editors. Demiurge1000's passive-aggressive behavior should not be supported by Giant Snowman, and Giant Snowman's obnoxious baiting and calumny against Lihaas should not be supported by Fram. Fram's obnoxious behavior should have ended with his desysoping long ago. I don't mind being blocked if others are held accountable for their abusive behavior.
Fram gave reasons for the 30 day block, which were false (but which could have supposed to have been based on his misunderstanding, if we'd forgotten about Fram's previous abuses and dishonesty). But we've seen enough dishonesty from Fram in this episode to remember not to care about his "reasoning". But formally, his excuses for his block's length were false, so it should be reduced. I suggested 18 days, to remember the British and French who opposed Nazism in Belgium....
It's probably best that you other editors editors continue to use this episode to mock and otherwise express contempt for the behavior of Fram, Giant Snowman, and Demiurge1000, which you all are doing well enough without my participation.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already unblocked, this content was not used in the consideration
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{[[Template:unblock

unblock

]]}}

This unblock request is in danger of being lost given the chaos of the formatting on this page. To increase visibility, I've commented on the bottom of the page. Could everyone please try to keep that discussion focused. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teething baby

All else aside:

I had one of those around the house about 9 years ago, and it wasn't much fun, except that she was mine, so it's all fun, and special.

I want to tell you not to worry, because it's all downhill from there, but you're a very bright guy, and you have a fully functional bullshit detector (and maybe previous babies), so I won't. Now I'm less concerned about her crying and keeping me awake (that still happens, but it's bimonthly rather than daily now), and more concerned about other things like education, and impending teendom and such. I'm lucky - she's an exceptional kid, and bright, so problems are minimal. It's all priceless though, so enjoy every frustrating, sleepless minute while you can.

I'm at a loss as to how you're still blocked - seems bizarre to me, but then I remember where I am. Good to see you're still active, even while blocked, and hope to see your signature around more widely again soon. ttfn. Begoontalk 14:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just waiting for Fram to get around to deleting all the productive edits that others have implemented, as he does with other users who have been blocked, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, there's that kind of thing to consider, I guess. I've never been blocked, but it's all a game to some - I've seen enough to know that. When I look at the never-blocked destructive, trolling clowns who cross my watchlist daily, some with little tin badges, some without, and compare them to blocked guys like you, I wonder why I ever come back here. Guess it's the same reason I used to go to football games in the bad old hooligan days of the 80s. I liked the product and some of the company enough to learn how to stay away from the wankers. Begoontalk 14:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been blocked loads of times, and several of those times it ought to have been the blocking admin that was blocked rather than me. The lesson Kiefer has failed to assimilate is that for his block to be reduced he has to say three Hail Marys and two Our Fathers on his bended knee in front of ArbCom, after having admitted to all his his sins. Nothing else will do. In his position I'd just sit it out rather than debase myself. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a waste of others' time to have them implement my edits.
It only takes one administrator who has seen quite enough of Fram's behavior in this episode to end the incompetent and partisan block (with its dishonest explanation) which follows Fram's original dishonest-and-partisan block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That just ain't gonna happen. You and I know that you only have two choices: admit your guilt, kneel and kiss your blocking administrator's arse, or sit it out and preserve your dignity. Your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out his dishonesty and partisanship is mildly amusing. Maybe I should start assembling diffs for an RfC, leading to an ArbCom Desysopping?
On the other hand, if a little shit in the neighborhood were going to throw a snowball at me, I would probably just ignore it. Ben Grimm doesn't waste his punches on the Yancy Street Gang. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How long have you got to go on your block anyway? Can't be more than a couple of weeks. Bottom line is that we're powerless, we just have to suck it up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Literally if you want to be unblocked, figuratively if you don't mind staying blocked. Intothatdarkness 22:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of several problems I have with that Admins conduct on the pedia. One of the worst admins that we have running around IMO. Unfortunately I am a big meany for saying that but it is what it is. I'm not making him be a dick, I'm just calling him (and others) out for it. Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather surprised that you appear to be unaware that being critical of administrators, or the process by which they're chosen, has become a blockable offence according to ArbCom. Or maybe it's just when I'm critical, not you; it's hard to tell with ArbCom. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are administrators like Bwilkins and Sarek of Vulcan who block a lot of vandals and probably get a bit toughened from all the BS they deal with, and so so I feel that they make mistakes in predictable ways but which are a small part of their administrative work. There are administrators like Bishonen who are very clever, and so I don't care what they do, because it is surprising and interesting.
Then there's Fram, copying articles (without quotation) from 100-year-old books with a little ("this article incorporates ...") template as the only knowledgment (and slapping a "plagiarism" header on Carrite's talk page after he gave a regular footnote to the source) and doing semi-automated edits all day, before he gets a chance to tell an editor "You will respect my autoritah".... I have trouble thinking of a similar administrator, apart from the "puling masses" fellow who named himself after an Angel. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they're administrators, and you're not. Nuff said. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that NYB and BWilkins gave non-condescending advice that helped with the unblocking. I have mentioned earlier that I would be gladdened by a mutual improvement in your mutual estimation, which did seem to me biased worse than any (if any exist) maximum-likelihood estimator for the parameter of a uniform distribution on (0,θ). ;) 'Nuff said, there. I appreciate your notes, which bolstered my spirits. :) Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

I see that there is a pending unblock request on this page, which is in danger of being completely lost given the formatting of the page. The gist of the blocking rationale is personal attacks on other editors and one can understand why some of your edits might be understood in that fashion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I don't ask you to make any insincere confessions of wrongdoing or promises you can't or won't keep, but I do ask if you might be able to sand down some of your sharper edges if this block were to be lifted or reduced. Thank you for your response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
RE "sand down some of your sharper edges":
A super-reflexive Banach space can be isomorphically renormed to be uniformly convex and uniformly smooth.

"a lofty spirit is not fierce by nature, but only when excited against evil-doers"

— Aristotle, Politics 7.7
Hi NYB,
Thanks for writing.
As it stands, my block evokes feelings of pity/solidarity and terror in other editors, and it evokes anger in me.
In the past, liftings of unjust or disproportionate blocks were quickly followed by Eisenhowerian normalcy.
As in the past, I have not complained about a block for violating WP's prohibition on retaliation in responding to NPA. Indeed, I have stated that my block should have been matched with blocks (or at least serious warnings, in this imperfect world) to others.
"God bless Captain Vere!"
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

P.S. I have not been blocked for personal attacks, although that claim may have been made as a rationalization by Fram in this block and in my first block.
Fram blocked neither Demiurge1000 for his National Socialist smearing (recent or previous) nor Paul B. (previous) nor Giant Snowman (recent).
Apart from the descriptive "piece of shit" summarizing the previous discussion, I referred to Demiurge1000's record of dishonest behavior without imputing dishonesty to his character. Everybody familiar with myself or Demiurge1000 could produce dozens of diffs of Demiurge1000 making passive-aggressive and cowardly personal attacks, e.g., insinuating that I need to be controlled by Carrite (to which I responded by noting his record of dishonest behavior). (Do you dispute my claim about the record of dishonesty? Will you apologize on behalf of other administrators for having done nothing despite 10/20/30/40/50/etc. such diffs? How many are needed?)
He has repeatedly refused requests to stop or to accept an interaction ban.
It has long been past time for administrators who have talked the talk about "uneven enforcement of civility" to walk the walk.
Sincerely,
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I have no intention of breaking policy, and I shall strive to respond to personal attacks, falsehoods, and or incivility while complying with non-retaliation.

This block has long become punitive in its duration, which again was explained to be based on two falsehoods; it would be late in the game (but unsurprising, alas) for Fram to state new reasons for the 30-day length of the block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

  • I've unblocked Kiefer as it seems clear he wants to move forward based on this statement. As an admin, I sometimes make blocks that the blocked editor disagrees with, but in the end all that matters is the path forward. I accept that editors will often vent at the blocker (see my archives...) and I would caution Keifer that he should find a less aggressive way to disagree (or as Newyorkbrad puts it, sand down the edges). I have no opinion on the original block, I didn't go back to visit every detail, so I assume it was in the best of faith and for good cause, but it seems to have already exhausted its usefulness. Extending it further isn't in the interest of preventing disruption as I have faith that Kiefer has dropped the stick and will simply return to productive editing. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you and NewYorkBrad and Demiurge1000 have referred to my comments, I do not believe that I am allowed to remove such comments, per talk page guidelines.
I am willing to strike through comments, if I believe they violate WP policies or do not advance the goals of writing and maintaining an encyclopedia. I can look again at my comments in the morning, preferring the resonance of Agnetha to the dissonance of WP as my own bedtime ritual.
Demiurge1000, who complained about my comments on NYB's talk page, has never struck through his comments about Lihaas or Volunteer Marek, despite having been blocked for the latter; has he struck his comments that are inconsistent with the Westminster Catechism's teachings on the 9th Commandment (which have been long quoted on my user page)?
Similarly Fram has never struck objectionable comments, to my knowledge. In contrast, I immediately checked my discussion of his putting a "plagiarism" header on Carrite's talk page, and corrected my error. I believe that others will vouch for my attempts to correct errors of fact or judgment, when they are errors. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove anything from your talk page that you want, I promose. Please be kind enough to want, if only because I'm asking. I assumed we are moving past yesterday, and moving on to tomorrow. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I offered to NYB, I can provide diffs to document truth claims. What is being disputed? I am happy to rectify any mistake.
I am not going to remove a discussion of behavior in a behavioral dispute among editors, particularly when others do not have the consistency of striking their errors. You unblocked Demiurge1000, and you should be also asking him to remove his boxcutter remarks, which still litter Wikipedia. Then he can start on his comments on Lihaas. If he does that, he can remove his comments on me, if he wishes to be good. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resist the occupation of the Mule: Write the encyclopedia of the Second Foundation

Reply to Kurtis

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

McCain's acceptance of the NRC push for Palin indicated his readiness to serve as President, according to Colin Powell, whose monological interview should be reviewed.

You should review rhetoric: The beginning of a sentence is not the climax of a sentence (c.f., Wayne Booth, or Kenneth Pike and Alton L. "Pete" Becker, for example). I began with humor and ended soberly.

Either Kurtis or My76Strat is welcome to link to my response, or copy it---whatever is simpler. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert bad edit, Fram

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Fram, please revert this edit. The "trivial" theorem uses the axiom of choice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the bad edit, Launchballer. It's nice that you have an interest in the encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's to the state of Mississippi: Prom night

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Doin' the Charleston

Malleus,

Morgan Freeman paid for a desegregated prom. I recommend the documentary Prom Night in Mississippi [12].

Mike Wallace had an interesting profile and interview with Freeman on 60 Minutes.

Swedish television loves to show documentaries about the Klu Klux Klan in the USA, where they profile e.g. an old man whose daughter had been raped by a Black man and who is filled with hate, and who is pitied by the other residents, including the Sheriff.

A subvariety of "Orientalism", perhaps. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating diagrams please

Thanks again, INeverCry!  :)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Would somebody please upgrade the diagrams in Guitar chord from pdf to cropped svg?

Tertian harmonization: Sevenths chords are constructed by stacking third intervals on the major scale on C (and its relative minor scale on A). Sevenths via tertian harmonization of major scale on C.mid
Sequence of sevenths chords arising in the tertian harmonization of the major scale on C (with relative minor scale of A minor), arranged by the circle of perfect fifths (perfect fourths). FifthsC.mid

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kiefer. I replaced the image on the left, but I'm not sure where the one on the right goes. INeverCry 20:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. When they set themselves to achieve instead—often not recognizing fully what they were doing—was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. What matters at this stage is the construction of local forms of community within which civility and the intellectual and moral life can be sustained through the new dark ages which are already upon us. And if the tradition of the virtues was able to survive the horrors of the last dark ages, we are not entirely without grounds for hope. This time however the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time.

Hi INeverCry!
Thank you very much!
The smaller diagram should go at the top (right) of the subsection on intermediate chords, which has a too-brief mention of chord progressions by fifths (fourths), especially the ii-V-I progression. Expanding the intermediate section (and splitting off the quartal/quintal harmony to an advanced section) and providing uniform diagrams was to have been the next phase of improving guitar chords....
When I was blocked before (no doubt with a block applying even standards of civility and NPA to all...), George Ponderov, ThatPeskyCommoner, Malleus Fatuorum, and Piotrus boosted my spirits by copy editing a GA nominated article or doing a GA vetting (Tom Kahn or Shapley-Folkman lemma). Such acts sustain my waning belief in the utility of contributing here (on topics besides mathematics and Charles Sanders Peirce).
Your help—and a thoughtful query by BWilkins (following a previous heated discussion), like friendly relations with Elen of the Roads and WTT/David and (I'd like to wish) with Bishonen—all these are signs of natural WP hope, surely a better state than WP despair.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the image in the spot you indicated. It fits perfectly in that section. If you need anything else, I'll be around. You can always contact me at Commons too. Any message there, or here for that matter, that isn't a complaint about a deletion is always welcome. As for WP hope, it's definitely more than justified. There are some really kind, intelligent, interesting people here. INeverCry 22:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Shapley-Folkman lemma": Featured article on Russian WP

The Shapley–Folkman lemma depicted by a diagram with two panes, one on the left and the other on the right. The left-hand pane displays four sets, which are displayed in a two-by-two array. Each of the sets contains exactly two points, which are displayed in red. In each set, the two points are joined by a pink line-segment, which is the convex hull of the original set. Each set has exactly one point that is indicated with a plus-symbol. In the top row of the two-by-two array, the plus-symbol lies in the interior of the line segment; in the bottom row, the plus-symbol coincides with one of the red-points. This completes the description of the left-hand pane of the diagram. The right-hand pane displays the Minkowski sum of the sets, which is the union of the sums having exactly one point from each summand-set; for the displayed sets, the sixteen sums are distinct points, which are displayed in red: The right-hand red sum-points are the sums of the left-hand red summand-points. The convex hull of the sixteen red-points is shaded in pink. In the pink interior of the right-hand sumset lies exactly one plus-symbol, which is the (unique) sum of the plus-symbols from the right-hand side. Comparing the left array and the right pane, one confirms that the right-hand plus-symbol is indeed the sum of the four plus-symbols from the left-hand sets, precisely two points from the original non-convex summand-sets and two points from the convex hulls of the remaining summand-sets.

Somewhat streamlined, the translation is now a featured article on the Russian WP. Well done! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to INeverCry and Nikkimaria
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please delete the trivial proposition that Elizabeth Kucinich has a tongue stud, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done INeverCry 17:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...I tried, but I've already been reverted. INeverCry 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such human-interest trivia, which may belong in the gossip sections of major newspapers and comic interviews trying to boost their ratings, does not belong in an Encyclopedia. Otherwise BLPs would be over-run with trivia. (Does the article on Lars Leijonborg include his response to a journalist's question on whether he had measured his penis?)
Consensus need not exist for keeping the silver-stud tabloid-factoid. Arzel, you, and I argue against it. The claim to consensus was made when only Arzel spoke up.
(The superfluous and sexist "easy on the eyes" comments and dismissive comments about her professional contributions should never have been made even once on the talk page.)
One sentence may be reasonable. It would be better to source the one-sentence to a serious piece of journalism, which focuses on her work on health-care policy and development rather than on titillating idiots. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed TRJC was the source for the talk-page sexism, so take anything he writes with due skepticism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria! There's a remaining citation of Fox News, whose headline leads not only with the tongue piercing but also notes that she is one of dem foreignhers, and worst of all, British! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review of Battle of Belgium needed

The lede has a statement of "extraordinary bravery" of Belgian soldiers, but omits a discussion of far greater French and British casualties (90 and 68 thousand) in defending Belgium or of Churchill's condemnation of the capitulation, so there's a definite problem of WP:Lede (inadequate and POV summary of article). There's no criticism of pro-Nazi and anti-liberal reaction and cowardice, such as contained in Yves Simon's criticism of French decadence. The article is overly militaristic and has little on Belgian society Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interlibrary Loans

Rare books arrived sooner than expected, necessitating quick updating of articles.

Moot
Old text to be replaced
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

He also studied with George Russell,[2][3] helping to edit Russell's (1959) Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization.[3][4][5][note 1]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference s69 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Peterson36 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference PattBio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Russell, George (1959). The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation. Concept Publishing Co. pp. 1–50. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
New text

Patt studied under George Russell,[1][2] whose (1959) The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation he edited.[2][3][4][note 1]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Peterson36 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference PattBio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Williams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "My grateful acknowledgement to ... Ralph Patt for his valuable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript", wrote Russell (1959) harvtxt error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFRussell1959 (help).
    Russell, George (1959). "Acknowledgements". The Lydian chromatic concept of tonal organization for improvisation. 40 Shephard Street; Cambridge, MA 02138: Concept Publishing Company. p. vi (unpaginated). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

Block review

I see that there is a pending unblock request on this page, which is in danger of being completely lost given the formatting of the page. The gist of the blocking rationale is personal attacks on other editors and one can understand why some of your edits might be understood in that fashion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I don't ask you to make any insincere confessions of wrongdoing or promises you can't or won't keep, but I do ask if you might be able to sand down some of your sharper edges if this block were to be lifted or reduced. Thank you for your response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
RE "sand down some of your sharper edges":
A super-reflexive Banach space can be isomorphically renormed to be uniformly convex and uniformly smooth.

"a lofty spirit is not fierce by nature, but only when excited against evil-doers"

— Aristotle, Politics 7.7
Hi NYB,
Thanks for writing.
As it stands, my block evokes feelings of pity/solidarity and terror in other editors, and it evokes anger in me.
In the past, liftings of unjust or disproportionate blocks were quickly followed by Eisenhowerian normalcy.
As in the past, I have not complained about a block for violating WP's prohibition on retaliation in responding to NPA. Indeed, I have stated that my block should have been matched with blocks (or at least serious warnings, in this imperfect world) to others.
"God bless Captain Vere!"
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all."

P.S. I have not been blocked for personal attacks, although that claim may have been made as a rationalization by Fram in this block and in my first block.
Fram blocked neither Demiurge1000 for his National Socialist smearing (recent or previous) nor Paul B. (previous) nor Giant Snowman (recent).
Apart from the descriptive "piece of shit" summarizing the previous discussion, I referred to Demiurge1000's record of dishonest behavior without imputing dishonesty to his character. Everybody familiar with myself or Demiurge1000 could produce dozens of diffs of Demiurge1000 making passive-aggressive and cowardly personal attacks, e.g., insinuating that I need to be controlled by Carrite (to which I responded by noting his record of dishonest behavior). (Do you dispute my claim about the record of dishonesty? Will you apologize on behalf of other administrators for having done nothing despite 10/20/30/40/50/etc. such diffs? How many are needed?)
He has repeatedly refused requests to stop or to accept an interaction ban.
It has long been past time for administrators who have talked the talk about "uneven enforcement of civility" to walk the walk.
Sincerely,
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I have no intention of breaking policy, and I shall strive to respond to personal attacks, falsehoods, and or incivility while complying with non-retaliation.

This block has long become punitive in its duration, which again was explained to be based on two falsehoods; it would be late in the game (but unsurprising, alas) for Fram to state new reasons for the 30-day length of the block. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

  • I've unblocked Kiefer as it seems clear he wants to move forward based on this statement. As an admin, I sometimes make blocks that the blocked editor disagrees with, but in the end all that matters is the path forward. I accept that editors will often vent at the blocker (see my archives...) and I would caution Keifer that he should find a less aggressive way to disagree (or as Newyorkbrad puts it, sand down the edges). I have no opinion on the original block, I didn't go back to visit every detail, so I assume it was in the best of faith and for good cause, but it seems to have already exhausted its usefulness. Extending it further isn't in the interest of preventing disruption as I have faith that Kiefer has dropped the stick and will simply return to productive editing. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you and NewYorkBrad and Demiurge1000 have referred to my comments, I do not believe that I am allowed to remove such comments, per talk page guidelines.
I am willing to strike through comments, if I believe they violate WP policies or do not advance the goals of writing and maintaining an encyclopedia. I can look again at my comments in the morning, preferring the resonance of Agnetha to the dissonance of WP as my own bedtime ritual.
Demiurge1000, who complained about my comments on NYB's talk page, has never struck through his comments about Lihaas or Volunteer Marek, despite having been blocked for the latter; has he struck his comments that are inconsistent with the Westminster Catechism's teachings on the 9th Commandment (which have been long quoted on my user page)?
Similarly Fram has never struck objectionable comments, to my knowledge. In contrast, I immediately checked my discussion of his putting a "plagiarism" header on Carrite's talk page, and corrected my error. I believe that others will vouch for my attempts to correct errors of fact or judgment, when they are errors. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove anything from your talk page that you want, I promose. Please be kind enough to want, if only because I'm asking. I assumed we are moving past yesterday, and moving on to tomorrow. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I offered to NYB, I can provide diffs to document truth claims. What is being disputed? I am happy to rectify any mistake.
I am not going to remove a discussion of behavior in a behavioral dispute among editors, particularly when others do not have the consistency of striking their errors. You unblocked Demiurge1000, and you should be also asking him to remove his boxcutter remarks, which still litter Wikipedia. Then he can start on his comments on Lihaas. If he does that, he can remove his comments on me, if he wishes to be good. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cornel West Democracy Cafe Thing

Please read this: http://www.thedp.com/article/2012/11/cornel-west-lectures-on-socrates-democracy-and-social-responsibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsoMorpheus (talkcontribs) 04:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That was an interesting article. However, student newspapers need not be reliable sources, and in general they are of low quality and useless for due-weight considerations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).