User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Relaxation methods

Category:Relaxation methods, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. You are right that there is ambiguity about the categories, but I believe that a renaming of the article was a first priority. Thanks again. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein


Yes, I slapped a notability-tag on the article on David Eppstein immediately after user:David Eppstein removed a reference to a new article on cellular automata questioning notability, for the simple reason that when I looked who was the person that has claimed that the reference I was adding was not notable enough turns out to lack of notability to have such a Wikipedia article. From the one hand Eppstein supports his own notability by directing the course of his own Wikipedia article when involves himself in the discussion page of his artice even when the notability issue has been recurrently raised by several other people with no consequence at hotel (perhaps because people like you immediately reverse any legitimate step to take a further step and let people to decide before basically banning me and writing me on my talk page). I am not driven by vengeance but by consistency and fairness not only to me but to all people that have better resum'es but not even have a Wikipedia article nor such a relevant and long article. If user:David Eppstein thinks that mentioning a paper published in a respectable journal which is extremely relevant to a section of a Wikipedia article about the topic but his Wikipedia article is completely biased towards the subjective judgment then I think there is a conflict of interest. But a second conflict of interest us that user:David Eppstein has repeatedly said in several places that Wolfram's classes are ill defined (which he clearly has managed to state it in the article section even though this is not a generalized concern but his own opinion). Yet this new published paper shows that an objective measure is capable of classifying cellular automata exactly into Wolfram's 4 classes with no human intervention, which user:David Eppstein claims is not notable enough (unlike the journal opinion). user:David Eppstein reaction only a couple of hours later to revert my contribution and the article of Wikipedia suggesting he is a great scientist is at least shocking.

I don't consider that user:David Eppstein is more notable than thousands, if not more, of other professors and researchers with at least or much better CVs. Written reviews are not a criterion according to Wikipedia notability neither contributing to a book chapter. Just to mention an example, I just looked for a professor that has written about 7 books, published more than a hundred articles, yet has no Wikipedia article, and even if he someday had it will certainly not be that cared which is clearly an indication imho of user:David Eppstein intervention in his own Wikipedia article or people very close to him. To support this claim, you can see how many people that have contributed to user:David Eppstein's article has been suspected of suck puppetry and have been banned of Wikipedia, yet their 'contributions' remain in user:David Eppstein's article as completely objective, and any attempt to raise the concern seems to trigger what you are doing now.

I just deplore the attitude of authority of these kind of users when it comes to the notability of a published paper of someone else but not so when it comes to expose themselves. Simply the length and content of his article does not correspond to his place.

In summary, I think user:David Eppstein has a serious double conflict of interest when it comes to suggest or perform editions that validate or refute his beliefs, including what he thinks about cellular automata and of himself.

Sincerely, (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Greg L.

Thanks for your reply. I believe that your comments should be made available to the other editors of the article on Eppstein, and so I would prefer to reply to your comments there. Please copy your comment and my reply there.
Like many editors who are notable in the real world, Eppstein monitors his biographical article. For several years, he has restricted his editing there to commenting on the talk page, fully in compliance with with WP's COI policy (and also BLP policy), imho (but I haven't checked the history). I don't have the time or inclination to argue about comparative status of academics. It is sufficient that David Eppstein's article be brief and list his main accomplishments.
Please don't make personal attacks on other editors. David is not controlling anything.
You should ask for a second opinion at the computer science or mathematics projects, if you think that you are being treated unfairly by me (or by the other editor who reverted your edit).
As I have said twice, and now a third time, :-) , it usually suffices to find a published reliable article that supports your summary of the paper (that you previously inserted). In any event, you need to get consensus from the other editors on the talk page, when you add material to an article: The burden is on the editor adding new material, when there is a dispute. Would you please acknowledge that you understand this policy?
Thanks again for replying directly and honestly.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Motions: A quotation from our intrepid reporter

"A request for arbitration concerning a hyphens and dashes dispute was filed last week. In lieu of opening a case at this time, the Committee passed the following motions:

1RR, civility probation, and moratorium
  • All discussions on the subject of en dashes in article titles discussion are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions, broadly construed.
  • Administrators are urged to be proactive in monitoring and assertive in keeping debate civil. Actions requiring clarification can be raised with the Committee on the appropriate subpage.
  • A moratorium has also been imposed on article title changes concerning hyphen/endash exchange; the only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below.
Discussion for obtaining consensus
  • With the goal of obtaining consensus, interested parties have been instructed to spend their time determining the structure of a discussion on en dashes in article titles. This may be the continuation of a current discussion or commencement anew. After May 2011, six weeks will be provided for gathering consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate.
Consequence of insufficient resolution
  • If a determination isn't realised by mid-July, the Committee warns that a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely."


To laugh or to sigh, that is the question.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Completeness: Statistics and classes

You said.. "I don't understand your edits.

The first chapter of TSPTesting Statistical Hypotheses explains that complete families are undominated, which is a concept from game theory/optimization. Have you looked at Lehmann? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)" Retrieved from ""

I could use my world-renowned telepathy to guess that this refers to Completeness (statistics). Does "TSP" correspond to E. L., Lehmann; Romano, Joseph P. (2005). Testing statistical hypotheses? ... which would be TSH. No I don't have access to that. But are they talking about the same thing? Completeness (statistics) seems to have moved on from discussing general types of completeness in statistics to being (only) about something called a "complete statistic" ... not a "complete sufficent statistic". But Lehmann might be talking about a "complete class of tests" which has an entirely different meaning, and its definition (according to a dictionary) seems to be based on this "dominance" idea. But as it stands in the article, the definition of a complete statistic involves nothing to do with optimality. JA(000)Davidson (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I left the message within an hour of your editing the article on completeness.
Testing Statistical Hypotheses is the standard source on Neyman-Pearson-Wald statistics, and is a good source on completeness.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Phelps

Hello, it is pitons that get "hammered in", not carabiners. The carabiner is a heavy duty snap link that gets hooked through a hole in the piton, or more commonly these days, there is an intermediate loop of nylon webbing. Take a look at Tom Frost who helped invent a tiny piton - I wrote his bio. Connections, connections. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For a Nobel prize winning, left wing, rock climbing physicist, see Henry Way Kendall. Tom Frost took the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
That guy (besides being just crazy goodlooking) is a good candidate for The Most Interesting Man in the World--the real one. What a great photo by the way. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Those days, the guy becomes a Nobel-prizing winning physicist. These days, he would have had higher self-esteem and probably joined the cast of Jack-Ass!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Tom Frost is a private guy and doesn't do email. So I had to negotiate with him by telephone and snail mail to get all the OTRS paperwork needed to use his photos. It took weeks because I screwed it up the first try. He is an old-fashioned gentleman, and was honored that we wanted to use his photos. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your effort in getting those made available. I've done that a couple of times and found people most agreeable, but it can be a hassle sometime. I'm going to have a look at his other work--thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RfA for gentle Drmies

A lot of discussion was generated by the Request for Administratorship by Drmies.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"The decision is yours"

I am leaving soon, and you will forgive me if I speak bluntly. The universe grows smaller every day, and the threat of aggression by any group, anywhere, can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure. Now, this does not mean giving up any freedom except the freedom to act irresponsibly. Your ancestors knew this when they made laws to govern themselves and hired policemen to enforce them. We of the other planets have long accepted this principle. We have an organization for the mutual protection of all planets and for the complete elimination of aggression. The test of any such higher authority is, of course, the police force that supports it. For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets—in space ships like this one—and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power over us; this power can not be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is that we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war—free to pursue more profitable enterprises. Now, we do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we do have a system, and it works. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet. But if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple: Join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer; the decision rests with you.

Barnhardt: One thing, Mr. Klaatu: suppose this group should reject your proposals. What is the alternative?
Klaatu: I'm afraid there is no alternative. In such a case, the planet Earth would have to be... eliminated
Barnhardt: Such power exists?
Klaatu: I assure you, such power exists.

Your request at Drmies's RfA

You might want to take it to either an individual admin or to ANI. (Sorry I'm not touching this beyond this post.) LadyofShalott 23:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and I appreciate your writing me: It shows character, given the unfair treatment of you.
I would like for the community to stand up for an isolated person, whose behavior they generally dislike, when that person is insulted because of religion---or politics, etc. I would hope that Snottywong would revise his/her statement, or that the community would take appropriate action. We have 100 people watching the RfA page, and so I feel there is no need for me to take further action.
I believe that "hate" is far too strong, but I believe that it couldn't hurt to remove the "invisible pink unicorn" badge from officially being part of the atheism project. It may be appropriate to move the other atheism-related (often amusing, and sometimes offensive) userboxes to a secondary page.
I am sorry for rambling, somewhat. I am tired and going to bed.
I admire your work in the last days! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, somebody closed the thread at the RfA, a reasonable course. However, I don't like the idea of the community approving a religious insult or leaving a personal already feeling that WP is a hostile place to receive an insult without comment. So I followed your advice and noted the insult at ANI. I hope that SnottyWong or another will redact the insult.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I should stay out of this altogether, probably. But for the record: I have no problem with the pink unicorn. I also have no problem with the Lady if indeed she is an atheist and were to support it on her blog and at her place of employment--I have never seen her disparage one Wikipedia edit or another for religious reasons. I also don't have a problem with Keepscases's non-atheism (I don't want to presume what they are--it's none of my business); since they don't have a lot of edits in articles, I can't tell if their opinion interferes with our various guidelines. Also for the record: SnottyWong shouldn't have said what they said, of course, though I understand where it's coming from (I live in the South). Finally, I have nothing but respect for those who quote Milton. Thanks Kiefer. I hope you have pleasant dreams--maybe you'll wake up and recite Book 13 of Paradise Lost to your amanuensis. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I have had my share of people telling me that I'm going to Hell too, and I dislike many displays of public belief, particularly by politicians! I understand the feeling of liberation atheists are feeling now in the USA (like homosexuals coming out of the closet) too. But now, I'm off to bed, unless I feel that there is an injustice to be righted! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Insult of User:Keepscases seems that most of the time AN/I only sees a block or ban as the answer to everything. I find that there are far too many people there who seem to carry a somewhat vindictive attitude, when we're supposed to be editing this Wikipedia collaboratively, carrying the water for one another, so to speak. I agree with you that attacks should be avoided, but I have to disagree that a ban is the only or the best option for dealing with insults. I've seen many times, simply reminding people what the discussion is about is enough to direct the conversation back on track. My two pence. -- Avanu (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in most cases. However, please review the treatment of KS at the RfA and his talk page. It is most important to protect unpopular people against personal attacks based on race/religion/politics, because this is when the community shows that it will enforce rules even when inconvenient.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on that. I haven't looked at the underlying situation in depth, so hopefully any resolution will end up being fair. -- Avanu (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer, you're acting like Keepscases was being dragged into the streets and beaten by the mob. SW generally dismissed Christianity as a 2,000 year old fairy-tail- that is inappropriate in a collaborative environment, as is calling someone an idiot, but neither were worth the drama your ANI thread generated. An indefinite block is a grossly draconian punishment for such a minor incident. No matter who said what to who, there was absolutely nothing that required administrator intervention. People who break laws are punished. People who violate Wikipedia's rules must certainly aren't and we only use blocks as a last resort. I'm sure you were acting in good faith, but in the future, please be sure if creating more and more drama at ANI is really necessary. Swarm X 07:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Swarm,
Personal attacks based on group characteristics damage the community more than personal attacks based more on behavior or individual idiosyncrasies, and such personal attacks are mentioned specifically by WP:NPA.
A 24 hour block may have been more appropriate, I agree. I explicitly suggested that Snottywong be unblocked immediately upon apologizing on his userpage, so the purpose of an indefinite block was more to signal the no-tolerance for such personal attacks rather than to remove Snottywong from WP.
I had been trying to reach out to Keepscases, because I disagreed with the content and tone of his/her statements, when Snottywong intervened with a personal attack on Keepscases. Because I had implicitly criticized Keepscases, I felt a special obligation to defend him/her. In general, the community rather than the victim should take responsibility for correct action.
I had hoped that the RfA crowd would roundly criticize Snottywong for the insult, just as the community had rightly criticized Keepscases for incivility towards the LadyofShalott (and inappropriate comments on WikiProject Atheism). Only after the discussion was closed at RfA did I go to ANI---and this was only the second case I raised there (the first being the aforementioned red-baiting, Jew-hating attack, which met with a block). Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps now you've learned your lesson about the type and severity of concerns which should be taken to ANI. —SW— confabulate 19:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Snottywong, please stop trolling.
You should be ashamed of your misconduct, and I wish that you soon properly feel shame and remorse, after which you should apologize to Keepscases.
I have already removed your clichéed trouts. Please don't post here again, unless you need to notify me of an ANI or otherwise are required by WP.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I found the time and effort you took to defend a fellow editor heartening, Kiefer. I hope you're not discouraged or abashed by the evidence that suggests the solution you tried was not embraced on this occasion. It's only by experimenting with an approach that boundaries are defined and the community is served. Exok (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I am new to the RfA process, and apparently Keepscases has made similar statements on several occassions (apparently not bothering directly to ask WikiProject Atheism to update their page), which is why the community chose to stay out of this drama. I can understand some irritation with Keepscases.
Perhaps Snottywong's behavior, for good and bad, is sufficiently known that non-intervention was wisely chosen by more experienced editors?
I still believe that blocks will be issued, according to WP policy, when there is a present continuation of abuse, particularly when directed at group-affiliation. I understand that isolated insults (like even this religious insult) or old abuse (like a series of political insults, mentioned before) need not merit blocks, given the scarcity of administrators and WP's problems with vandals (and failure to require user accounts for editing).
Thanks again for writing. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite clear you're not used to RfA. Swarm X 00:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Let us hope that nobody is used to RfA!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
RfA is different; the rules of civility don't apply there. Seriously, it's that bad. Taking every insult to ANI isn't the solution. Some of us are involved in a project to reform and improve RfA, but until something changes, it's going to continue to be a horrible, uncivil hellhole, unfortunately. Many a user have been insulted much worse than snide remarks about their religion with no action whatsoever. Even the good admins who call out incivility don't do a damn thing about it. Regards, Swarm X 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to push it, after we have found agreement about RfA, but ... the religious insult was made on the KS's talk page, not at RfA. (About reforming RfA: "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.")  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It was sparked by an equally offensive insult at RfA. If a higher standard of civility was enforced at RfA, the initial comment would not have been tolerated. If that was the case, SW may not have felt the need to respond harshly. The second part of it is simply that Keepscases has a long history of creating unnecessary drama at RfA, and it's entirely likely that that's all they're trying to do. Swarm X 17:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. (For onlookers' benefit, I'll note that I wrote a similar analysis on Swarm's talk page, also putting in a word on behalf of Snottywong, acknowledging his rightful irritation (without condoning his statement) and noting that he's made many contributions to WP.) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps ANI should suggest a template like this:
<pre>{{Uninvolved | type=behavior | Repeated religious-based personal attacks and incivility| answered=no}} </pre>
I can agree that this case did not the attention of the noticeboard, but I was ignorant of alternative routes. (Also, Wikiquette is not for reporting misbehavior, like religious-based personal attacks, that get blocked.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Second insult and contempt for civility/NPA/blocking

Swarm, SW returned to KS's talk page and left a message telling him to "shut up and stop your misguided religious blubbering". I believe that you would be a good person to mentor SW, or to block him(!), or both, etc.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Quotations from latest insults/baiting/contempt for WP policies of NPA/civility/blocking:

[...] shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself. —SW— spout 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
[...] If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block). You can get a preview of what the community's reaction to a block would be by taking a look at the recent ANI thread started by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. —SW— speak 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence. —SW— soliloquize 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me

Hans Adler convinced me that KS is probably troll; while SW over-reacted and expressed himself improperly.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Hey Kiefer--that biography of yours at DYK, that was one bizarre article! Incidentally, I ran into related difficulties just today. I clicked on that BLP button on my talk page and hit someone who was obviously a pretty famous and important architecture historian, but found it very difficult to verify using Google Books etc. Plenty of books by them, but not so much about them. I ran out of time (class...) so I had to let it go. But those issues (which are covered in whole or in part in WP:PROF) can get really tricky, and you have to go to the academic databases to find where that person has been cited, which is much more difficult than just perusing the newspaper archives. My penpal BongoMatic used to write up (maybe they still do) journalists, and the problems there are similar. So, in my case, withdrawing from a DYK is also in hopes of someone knowledgeable in the field to come and help out (I could do this in a second for scholars in my field--which, as you would have guessed, is not math), as often happens at AfD. Unfortunately, while there is plenty of traffic at DYK, lots of people never stop for long there except to review an article and to check on their own. But all worked out in the end, right? And I'm glad it did. And now for other important things: dinner! "Girls! It's ready!" Drmies (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I may tip off a student reporter at Washington to ask Robert Phelps about John Rainwater, and to see if he'd let them publish Rainwater's peer-review of a paper by Peter Orno! (We cannot have original research, of course.)
I wrote those articles while undergoing decompression (ascending to the surface) after the ArbCom decision on the Monty Hall problem, laughing to myself throughout. Maybe giggling to oneself is a sign of "the bends"?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm married. I don't need to giggle to be reminded (by another) that I have taken leave off my senses. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Obscenity in Alabama: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

Hej Drmies! I thought that you would appreciate this title:

  • Karthik Subramanian, “It’s a Dildo in 49 States, But It’s a Dildon’t in Alabama: Alabama’s Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act and the Assault on Civil Liberty and Personal Freedom,” 1 Ala. Civil Rts. & Civil Lib. L. Rev 111 (2011).

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Wolfowitz, I can take a tit joke and any kind of animal people throw at me--but if I wanted MATH jokes I would ask your P. Orno. Consider yourself duly warned! Ha! Drmies (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, you are glowing with an aura auguring your ascension as one of the celestials of Wikipedia!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean you'll drop math for a more worthwhile pursuit? Gardening has done more for humanity than Hilbert's Nullstellensatz. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Dem's fighting words!
I was thinking of Putinar's positive Nullstellensatz and useless para-statistics just last week! But first, I must tend to my garden ...  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)