Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 6 April 2012

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Labor donated

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

This page has archives. Sections older than 11 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Misplaced Pages literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, KW - and please take part in discussion on your edit

Here. Same good old FH:) KR, FeelSunny (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm rather constrained for time so was blunter than usual! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Afd

Hi Kiefer, I saw that there is an Afd open about a statistics related topic, and the article is flagged as "needing attention from an expert". Since I see you know a lot about statistics, if you're interested, you may want to look at Restricted randomization. (Note: I haven't !voted in the discussion and have no real opinion either way about the subject.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I saw it earlier on the math-stats project(s), and meant to have a look.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Yes album covers

Category:Yes album covers, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"All I know can be shown by your acceptance of the facts there shown before you

Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is all confusion"

Jon Anderson, "Starship Trooper", Yes,

Please make yourself redundant from the redundant task of moving "Yes album covers" to the redundant "Yes (band) album covers", which is redundant because no other Misplaced Pages Yeses have album covers.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Does mention without link (ordinarily) prohibit a See also?

Hi Kiefer!

Some time ago, here, you removed a See also link to Riemann surfaces. You kindly wrote a brief explanation, with a reference:

RS are mentioned in article, so cannot go in See also section, per WP:MOS

However, when I glanced through WP:MOS, I found nothing about this subject on its main page; but I did find something on its layout subpage, namely the following:

As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

(See WP:ALSO!) Is this what you were referring to, or did I miss some other text?

Note, that indeed Riemann surfaces are mentioned once in Multivariate function Multivalued function , but that there is no link to this article. Best regards, JoergenB (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi JoergenB!

I think so. It seems that I over-stated the guideline, which suggests not linking (rather than prohibiting such links).

For the multivalued function article, I think it would be useful to link Riemann surface where it appears.

If you look at the journal Set-Valued Analysis (which is edited by Mordukhovich or Wets, I believe), you can see that it neglects Riemann surfaces. Perhaps I am following that example?

Thank you for your understanding and for your gracious words. I am in a rush today, moving again....

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So, this isn't my field of expertise; I'm more of an algebraist and cominatorian; but I've got the impression that Riemann surfaces are more of an alternative to multivalued functions than a subitem. In multivariate functions (or set-valued functions), you manipulate the range (e.g., simultaneously considering two different "square roots", or the set of both roots as one value, for every complex number); in the alternative, you replace the domain by a Riemann surface (or by a higher dimensional complex manifold), and as the result get an ordinary univariate function (e.g., by defining the square root on the twofold helix joined at the origin). If I've understood this correctly, it might motivate a brief section on Riemann surfaces in Multivalued function. However, as the article is organised now, I think that a "See also" is more natural than a somewhat obscure link in the middle of the example section. JoergenB (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My judgment is that set-valued analysis has many more related topics, epigraphs, subdifferentials, level sets, tangent sets, cotangent sets, normal sets, etc. I have difficulty imagining a reader moving first from multivalued functions to Riemann surfaces, unless the reader were an editor depositing the link from the former to the latter (the editor's interest). I think that some Swedes have written theses generalizing convex analysis to complex spaces, with little results to show for their work, alas, and essentially no international interest. I am arguing against your adding the link. I am not stating that I shall remove it. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned, I do not belong to the "pluricomplex school", and I have no opinion on the relative merits of different subfields of complex analysis. (I mentioned the higher dimensional counterparts for completeness.) Since I also think that analysists would be better editors for a potential new section on alternative approaches, I'll defer this to your opinion. Thus, I only have added a link to the only occurrence of RS in the article, to wit,

... thus reducing the multilayered Riemann surface of the function to a single layer'

although I still think that this could be fairly confusing. (As I wrote, the function on the Riemann surface is not technically the same thing as the multivalued function on (a subset of) C.)

If you think this improves the understanding, you might add a {{further}} to the examples section. JoergenB (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that we could ask JEB and get a very strong opinion ... probably citing Beurling or having hallowed refererence to "hårdsvenskanalysis" (or was it "svensk hårdanalysis"?). ;)

There was a nice Russian monograph using residue calculus of multivariate generating functions that the AMS translated and published, that you should look at. (I like positivity: Sedgewick & the French guy's 2nd volume had a long section on Pringsheim's theorem; I don't remember whether it mentioned Boas's correction of Pringsheim's proof? The Generatingfunctionology books has a section on Hayman's method: You might look at Paul R. Rosenboom, who had a nice probabilistic paper on it, that seemed never to have been read, when I looked 10 years ago.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Today, I happened to run into Jaja (alias Professor emeritus Björk) in our department pentry, and did ask him... Yes, he (of course) had some things to say about Beurling, but actually said more about Weyl's contribution.

However, Jaja agreed with my opinion that RS should be described more as an alternative to multivalued functions, than as a property of them. He also pointed out that a certain multivalued function corresponds not to a RS, but to a certain meromorphic function on a certain RS. JoergenB (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hej Jörgen!

Lucky you! He's a very interesting personality, especially scientific, able to discuss with depth and originality on many many topics, of each of which I know very little. A friend of mine said he was very valuable on hiring committees because of his ability to evaluate algebraic and analytic contributions. He would be among the world's top 20 experts on discussing algebraic analysis, I would guess.

Another interesting fellow missing the E in JEB has similar , and has a nice paper on sums of sets, which is described in Krantz and Park, I think; a related question appears in a paper by C.O. Kiselmann. Did you know that sums of semi-analytic sets in the plane can have boundaries that are polynomial of surprisingly small degree? (Check the details!) I endorse COK as another interesting personality, in every way! Get to know him!

Come to think of it, I should shut my mouth, because you know all this stuff far better than me, if you are whom I think you are. If you like to relax in the commutative region of algebra, you might like looking at Shapley-Folkman theorem and think of Newton polytopes, etc.

Keep up the good work!

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Rainwater

On 1 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Rainwater, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a University of Washington fake mathematician created as a student prank became the author of several well-received papers in research journals? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• A dull hook for dullards.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  To understand this comment, look at the TLTR discussions over the last year on this article and ~Peter Orno, the latter dropped out of process from DYK, at a cost of 10 thousand readers. Also compare my original hook which had a lot more pep, "even after plagiarism and having planted an explosive booby-trap".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

QUACK

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

• Interview: An introduction to movement roles

• Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

• News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Misplaced Pages's day of mischief

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

• Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

• Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Related to my recent post here which was removed, I've transferred my concerns regarding the matter to the administrators' noticeboard. The direct link to the posting is here. Good Ol’factory 22:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

2*3*5. Playing the numbers game, e.g. by choosing 3 from "32, 33, 43, 46" is ill-advised.

Wow! SW certainly writes on civility with authority.

You described my response as a "put down". In fact, I expressed a wish that you have a record of similar concerns about the content of Misplaced Pages.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Block by Salvio Giuliano

Per this ANI discussion, I have just blocked you for a week due to an ongoing pattern of incivility. If you want to appeal this block, you can do so using the {{unblock}} template. Salvio 23:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Salvio,

I had expected more from you. I suggest you find yourself a better set of friends, if you wish to avoid going with the crowd and making further dumb decisions.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Benchmark: "die you worthless pathetic fucking cunt" =

For readers unfamiliar with blocking standards, let me benchmark the kind of "incivility" that (today) received a one-week block:

"you a bitch

I hope you die you worthless pathetic fucking cunt."

Nice place we have here.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Kiefer, I know this entire situation is probably upsetting for you and all, and I'm probably not someone you want to hear from—but really, comments like the above don't help the situation, and they probably only do harm. For one, they might upset Salvio, who obviously thinks he is doing the right thing; but even more significantly, for users sitting on the fence about whether you should have been blocked or not, your comments will not give them a good impression of you and they might probably tilt general opinion against you in favour of supporting the block that was imposed. Just try to be polite to other users—it's not too hard once you get going. You don't have to be a perfect gentleman and you don't have to change your personality, but you do have to try to be less confrontational. Just don't belittle others and you're mostly there. Good Ol’factory 07:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

G. Olfactory,

Please read what you wrote and revise accordingly. Cannot you think of any counter-examples to "... probably thinks he is doing the right thing" to being a relevant, good statement? (Hint: Can you imagine anybody committing a mistake while believing that they were doing the right thing?)

Anybody who favors this block has the opinion of an idiot, and I would wish that this condition would be fleeting for you and Mario, for my sake.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I was just trying to help out. I suggest you take the time to reflect on how you might want to adjust your approach. I know you're upset, but you can't really write the types of things you have been writing about other editors and remain an editor on a collaborative project like WP. Just sayin'. Good Ol’factory 08:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

G. Olfactory,

You still have not removed bullshit accusations from the ANI discussion, even after Drmies's comment and my drawing attention to Elen's discussion. At least half of your diffs were bullshit. With such behavior, you should block yourself, per WP:NPA. Until you do, you have no credibility. Just as Salvio has lost credibility with this schoolyard bullying.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did address that issue later on in the thread. Good Ol’factory 08:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw you recruited JN37 to the block party. Let me respond to your comments on JN37's talk page.

Why did you think that my comment about the editor on the Roger J-B Wets article was oy-worthy?

Did you see what the editor had written ("American programmer"), and understand why it was absurd (c.f., linear "programming")? Here was a guy rewriting a BLP because of his concern about the periods in Wets's middle name, following the debacle at P J Crook. I don't know about Crook and whether persons mis-spelling her professional name is a pet peeve; I do know that Wets and other researchers in stochastic programming have to wage fights with copy-editors who try to put periods in Wets's "J-B". What kind of damage is this guy doing to other articles, when I don't correct him?

You and the block-party at ANI obviously are less concerned about WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS than about WP:Civility "civility".

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes Drama Drama (Yes (band) album)

Category:Yes (band) Yes Album album covers

The Yes Album has had at least 2 different album covers, e.g. front and back cover-art.

Would somebody please contest the speedy deletion of the category.

Please remove the entry for a cover of the debut album, Yes, which is not alternative cover art for The Yes Album. (My mistake) Somebody should create the category, Category:Yes (band) Yes album album covers though.

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to restore the category? If I did, I would tag it with a speedy deletion template, then we could see if another admin agreed with deletion. I'd be happy to copy any comments to the talkpage that you might have in justifying the existence of the category. I think you probably know, though, that creating a category for album art of a single album is not a usual way of categorizing album art. I took your creation of the category as a facetious protest against the proposed renaming of Category:Yes album covers, not as a serious creation—hence the rationale of "patent nonsense". I thought you were just being silly to make a point. But maybe not. Good Ol’factory 08:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• For comparison, Yessongs (Yes (band) album) already has four paintings displayed in its cover/sleeve art.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have suggested (at least) elsewhere, the category was inspired by the renaming of the "Yes album covers" to "Yes (album) album covers", a renaming about which whose wisdom we have agreed to disagree. I find it amusing, of course. (I have trouble understanding persons who find all of reality humorless, or whose understanding of "brilliant prose" goes against the Encyclopedic tradition: My discussion of Dutch book arguments in Bayesian probability linked to problem gambling, and this link was reverted because it seemed to be a joke.)

However, I have enough self-discipline not to create nonsensical categories.

I can propose redundant categories as a rhetorical ploy to make the proposer of the Yes-renaming a bit uncomfortable, or one hopes to smile at the occasional absurdities consequent upon consistent application of a WP heuristic. The "Yes (band) (band)" suggestion was horseplay, which you cited as grounds for blocking at ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger's hysteric misuse of "disruptive"

Bushranger keeps repeating the broken-record that I was "disrupting" the discussion on renaming the Yes album covers. Has Bushranger, at long last, no shame? ("Wikilawyering" seems to be his favorite fig-leaf covering his naked misunderstanding of WP:Disruptive.) What kind of totalitarian website does Bushranger want, where I cannot "disrupt" Misplaced Pages by suggesting the renaming of a category to "Yes (band) (band)...?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you want me to do, stutter?

That's one of the problems with consistently using aggressive language towards others—especially in written form, it is often difficult to tell when a user is participating in good-natured horseplay. If you were usually nice to others, everyone probably would have got the joke and taken it well. But if you often attack other editors and call their approaches "idiotic" or "stupid" or "brainless", users generally will find it more difficult to give you the benefit of the doubt and take comical ribbing in the spirit it is delivered. Personally, I have a hard time telling when you are joking and when you are attacking others. Writing on the Internet is not like real life, and we don't have all the verbal and body language cues which generally reveal the true nature of someone's language. Good Ol’factory 09:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed that such adjectives come out when you and your buddies are disrupting my productive editing?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the point. Misplaced Pages is collaborative. I'm not clear who exactly is being referred to as my "buddies", however, unless you just mean other editors out there. Good Ol’factory 09:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to condescend, don't write like a dimwit---it spoils the effect you desire.

You and your buddies hang out at category discussions. Mine at WikiProject Mathematics and at the talk pages of writers.

At ANI, which I would wish you avoid, you can find that of the 11 administrators Scottywong assembled in his hanging jury, more than one noted that they had a history of passive-aggressive busybodying/"encountering hostility from KW" (your choice).

I would ask you to count the number of those 11 who are exchangeable with a random editor or administrator---I think that most editors and administrators view my block, not as prevention, but as punishment, and that the block was unjustified (because there was no discussion of the context of any of the diffs), especially since I have acknowledged repeatedly that I was in a foul mood 1-3 April. 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But shouldn't these observations be un-necessary, for you, who offer so much advice?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, Kiefer — I did comment at the section and agreed with the principle your communication style is generally abrasive, but I did say a block wouldn't do any good. I do see the block as punitive. I'd rather see you either be sanctioned by the community (through a fuller civility parole discussion) or by ArbCom, but not by a small group of editors at ANI. So just to be clear, I don't support your block, even though I don't appreciate the way you do treat others occasionally. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the honorable action. Similar kudos are due to the redoubtable Wehwalt, Ched, Errant, etc.

My writing style waxes and wanes, and I appreciate your "occassionally". Perhaps you saw me quote, "When I point my finger at you, I have three fingers pointing at myself" a few days ago?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ched's question on Malleus's talk page

See the discussion at Talk:King Crimson about colonials (is) and imperialists (are).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:American socialist organizations opposed to communism

Category:American socialist organizations opposed to communism, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Koafv/Justin,

Please stop nominating categories I created for re-naming while you know that I cannot participate in the discussion.

"Anti-Communist" has negative connotations, unfortunately, because of propaganda by communists and anti-anti-communists. Thus, the use of "anti-communist" carries a considerable POV burden.

"Opposed to Communism" is descriptive and NPOV.

Please paste my remarks to the discussion.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I pasted your comment into the discussion. Good Ol’factory 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ken Batcher

Category:Ken Batcher, 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, please stop nominating categories for discussion, i.e. deletion, when I cannot participate.

Perceptions do matter. You may wish to review Pesky's comments about your repeated category manipulation---perhaps recalling my defense of your good faith (about which your ANI comments supporting blocking were notably silent). It's not often that Pesky complains about somebody's behavior, and then has somebody defend the criticized person.

Regarding Batcher:

Batcher is associated with a number of other important computer science topics, e.g. the Goodyear Massively Parallel Computer (at least one), associative computing, etc. WP doesn't have articles on many of these topics. See the description of his research at his (Computer-Science Nobel Prize) award. Hillis's book on the MPP called Batcher the original MPP hacker. That said, a rename may be advisable, e.g. to "works of Batcher".

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I pasted your comment into the discussion. Good Ol’factory 09:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Question by Scottywong (SW, Snottywong)

I had thought that alluding to Diogenese was an act of considerable restraint---when facing a question about how I could show so little respect to the opinions of Scottywong, Fluffernutter, etc. and what would it take for me to listen to an administrator... :)

C.f., one of my favorite exchanges:

Well, (Candidate)'s RfA has 72 supports, so i guess 72 established users are dumb and you're super smart right? Pass a Method talk 19:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That about sums it up nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

:D

I am glad that one ANI-reader, that most pitiable of Misplaced Pages denizens, admitted to chuckling. :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, Scottywong missed the point. Diogenese searched for an honest man. I paid due tribute to Pedro and Drmies already in the discussion. Does Scottywong want a note from me saying "Scottywong is honest."?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss the honesty of him and other administrators. Anybody who reviews what I wrote with the paraphrases of ScottyWong and WTT, etc., can see that ScottyWong and WTT have distorted my careful statements and presented falsehoods, which still stand uncorrected, despite my protests. It is a violation of civility to misrepresent other editor's comments, but ANI is just so full of shit that the honest persons have given up hope, and don't bother to protest.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to gloss the obvious: Doesn't a reference to oneself as Diogenes suggest some healthy self-criticism?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the fact you've been blocked symbolic of the lamp being nicked? Food for thought whilst you sit "in the corner" (was that the phrase?) --Errant 13:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes "sit in the corner" was the phrase by an administrator pretending himself or herself to be a school marm. ANI should be renamed WP:Hypocrisy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 11:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk about timing ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it?Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude,

Listen to Iridescent when he writes, as he responded to your posting the same message on Malleus's page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I did see his response. Frankly, he can read into my finding it ironic whatever he likes (even though he happens to be wrong on both of his assertions). Should the effort actually correct things (or be a step in that direction), so much the better.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a peculiar institution. Dispute resolution=a gaggle sipping mint juleps while fretting and occasionally swooning (because a worker in the fields has failed to learn from their patient scoldings) while waiting for a overseer to provide discipline.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Double standard and shameless bullshit of Courcelles

Malleus gets told to sit in a corner, and ANI ignores the personal attack.

Malleus responds and he's blocked, by an ArbCom member who signed (after reading, one would like to wish) the ArbCom "Civility" "decision"---pageantry of bad-faith bullshit---condemning double standards.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how you interpret telling someone to sit in a corner as a personal attack, Kiefer. Uncivil, perhaps, but I don't think such a comment actually relates to a user personally. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What was written was worse:

"Naughty or thoughtless brats being told to go and play in another sandbox"

"Thoughtless brat" is a personal attack, not a comment on behavior, and it was intensified by the school marm's ending.

Malleus has been blocked for his response, which was then redacted.

Nobody complained about the personal attack. Certainly not Courcelles, probably weary from quoting her Misplaced Pages-worthy ArbCom decision, and blocking Malleus. Of course, she couldn't be bothered to enforce civility when Malleus was being gored.

This is the problem with two-faced administrative behavior, which is driving down this place.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages-worthy" shall be used in the future for words recently thought "uncivil" by blockheads.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Courcelles actually wrote "disruptive editing". The intellectual dishonesty or sloth of the ArbCom decision now appears like intellectual highlights of the new Millenium in comparison with Courcelles's blocking.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)