Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 3 July 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.

Guitar tunings

Thank you for your help. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Paolo.dL

I thought you made very good efforts, and I trust that your knowledge of music theory (especially guitar) exceeds mine, so I just made some minor changes, I trust. I think that I preserved all the content of your edits, and just changed the wording. Maybe the link to partial order was pedantic or overly mathematical, but the order of the notes does seem to be an intrinsic feature, so that the tunings are 6-tuples (rather than sets, for which {C,C,C,C,C}={C}): If they are defined as sets, the discussions of lefty tunings don't make sense. Well, expository writing is full of compromises! :)

Thanks for the harmonious editing on guitars, after we had clashed on optimization, because my zeal for Knuth's first pages was not shared!

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK Nomination need review

The tritone tuning bedevils reviewers

The DYK nomination for * Template:Did you know nominations/Major thirds tuning and * Template:Did you know nominations/Augmented-fourths tuning still needs to be reviewed.

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 16:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Misplaced Pages's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: RfA

I had thought we had agreed that our efforts were better directed elsewhere, and that we would not have RfAs.

I love this kind of humor. We need more of it. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I intended My76Strat and myself with my "we", and was serious.

However, I wrote ambiguously (before WTT's gloss), and so it is understandable that you and others read another intention---and I'm happy that you smiled.

Thanks for the message! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is thinking of a section title so dang hard sometimes?

Hey Kiefer, I just wanted to drop by and say a couple of things. First, I wanted it to be known that whether we agree or disagree, I always enjoy reading your comments and admire the thought that goes into them. I also thought I'd seek out a comment for you on User:Ryan Vesey/Michael David Crawford. It was deleted through AFD, but I requested userfication through WP:REFUND. A relevant discussion for that is User talk:MichaelCrawford#Who Do I Have To Blow Around Here To Be Considered Notable Enough For A Misplaced Pages Article?. Honestly, in poor form on my part, in the 8 days since I responded to that editor, I have still not had a chance to read through his entire comments or even examine the article to its fullest extent. To be fair, I have had an exceptionally busy off-wiki life and a number of surprisingly time consuming issues on-wiki. I certainly plan to review the case more fully in the next few days, but I thought I'd ask you for thoughts since I was stopping by. My largest reasons for thinking notability are the appearance of Crawford's website as a source for mind.org.uk and "I was told by a Mental Health worker in 2004 or so that my fifty-page essay Living with Schizoaffective Disorder is on an official reading list that the State of California Mental Health Department distributes to its County Mental Health Clinics." The second statement would certainly need to be sourced. In any case, I hope you are doing well, Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I would delete this material to allow the subject privacy.

By our policies, we should ignore whether the author is the same as the account-editor submitting an apparent autobiography. If the account-editor were not the same person, I would judge it to be an invasive and unwarranted exposure of a vulnerable person, who should be afforded the full and strenuous protection of our privacy policies.

There is also the issue of the article being based on primary sources and having the appearance of POV pushing, in which inclusion in see-also sections of minor documents is being used to try to establish an appearance of notability.

For the first issues, I would delete everything and ask oversight to rev-delete everything (including this discussion).

For the POV/COI/Primary issues, really afterthoughts, I would still delete the article from user space. We should also have reminded the editor to avoid using "blow" unprofessionally.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Your title is a reminder that your are blending in with the natives during your summer internship.

How's the fishing? Any keepers?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Kiefer, I got a bit off track. I did some more research and found a CNN appearance, but I think you're correct. Any attempt to create notability would be a stretch. The person appears relatively significant, but not entirely notable. I'll leave a note on the user's talk page to make sure he is aware and then request oversight after he replies, or in the next day or two if he doesn't. I'll also have the information deleted from my userspace. As for fishing, I've never been much of a fisherman, I haven't gone out since I reached an age where people expected me to take my own fish off the hook. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

WilliamH (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Augmented-fourths tuning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Left hand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am black on the left and white on the right, and he is black on the right and white on the left. Cannot you see that he is inferior!?!!

Talkback

WilliamH (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is....

Rape the same thing as intimate partner violence....? If you have any comments to spare, at Talk:Rape_in_Pakistan#Difference between rape and intimate partner violence. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Intimate partner could include anything from a woman getting in a man's face and touching him chest-to-chest, or a man pushing the woman back. All of these things are considered assault and battery in the US, and in many places any sign of such assaults must result in the male (or larger?) partner being arrested, with no police discretion allowed, in many places. A verbal threat is also grounds for immediate arrest in Sweden. Ann Arbor passed such laws in the 1980s, I think. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Major thirds tuning

On 30 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Major thirds tuning, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Russian guitar's D-G-B-D-G-B-D tuning (illustrated) approximates the major-thirds tuning D#-G-B-D#-G-B-D#? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Major thirds tuning. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 1562 viewers) 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.

Thanks from the DYK team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A proposal that would make it even easier for children to view deleted (sometimes illegal) material

Please note:

A proposal that would make it even easier for children to view deleted (e.g. illegal) material

There seems to be no discussion of the liability of WMF for child administrators/moderators.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Good morning KW, I hope you had a good weekend. I certainly understand the point of view regarding people under the age of majority not being administrators, indeed, I've never seen one I'd be willing to support. However, I'm a little curious as to what sort of material you refer to here. I understand material which is in violation of copyright is deleted for legality concerns, but the vast majority of deletions are banal. Attack pages and other offensive material is visible to anyone who regularly reverts vandalism. On the other hand, is the objection to do with the very concept of deletion, which removes the information from public view - only available to administrators. The issue there is that the majority of accounts are pseudonymous, I believe there are larger legal issues with that fact than the age of the account. Worm(talk) 07:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi David/WTT!

The obvious things are secret information: Who really murdered JFK, evidence of UFOs, who is buried in Grant's tomb, the usual esoterica. ;)

Beyond that, the most important information would be passwords revealed by mistaken pastes (which has resulted in use of administrator accounts already) and other information that identifies persons in real life.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, I should compare List of The X-Files episodes with Wikipedias deleted edits... though I expect I'll have the FBI knocking on my door before long. You are right, that protecting personal information is an important role for an administrator (or an oversighter), and I could certainly see the argument that a minor may not realise the gravity of the situation. I do wonder though, if there is information that shouldn't be shown to minors, should all administrators identify? I spoke about minors on Misplaced Pages with Geoff Brigham about six months ago, when I was fortunate enough to meet him. It was enough to put my mind at ease, in any case. I do recommend you take any opportunity you can do meet him yourself! Worm(talk) 09:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz: your proposal has not yet gained any support, and I have removed it again from the proposal page, and moved the commentary to the talk page. Please get a consensus for it, before reinserting it on the proposal page. If everyone added their own amendments, the proposal and ensuing discussion would become hopelessly confused. I hope you understand my reasoning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Whom do you think you are, Kant?

It has not reached substantial support. It has been supported by several persons, whose comments you seem to have missed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

WilliamH (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Augmented fourths tuning

Wolfie, if you get a chance, could you have a squiz at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 and verify that the hook is correct? Thanks Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye!

The picture needs adjusting. It went with the other hook. I'll suggest something. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I switched the picture. I did some copy-editing of the others. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I also had to remove a bad link, which I may have added by mistake. I removed the other link, which is linked in the lede of the article, because I want people to read the article.

Feel free to re-link, or ask me to do so and I should re-link them. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements (re-links, and addition of the tritone link). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. In my experience, you have behaved honorably and set a good example for the rest of us. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Misplaced Pages: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

As I warned, you have now been blocked for persistent incivility, here. I strongly suggest you take this time to read WP:REFACTOR and accept the distinction between editing others' comments and refactoring talk pages for clarity. Someone moving your comments does not give you license to make personal attacks. Kafziel 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel beat me to it. I agree that this editor needs to take some time off. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While I am disappointed about Kiefer's remarks, specifically that of being numbered by the beast, a two week block is unreasonable. I fail to understand why he deserves a two week block. I am unsure of why he wanted to have the numbered remark, but was it really a battle worth fighting? Let him number it if he wants to. I understand that Kiefer could have read the page history, but nobody attempted to leave him a remark on why the discussion was moved, some communication on the part of other editors could have solved this whole thing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Numbering votes and moving discussions are not at issue; what is at issue is his unacceptable reaction to those things. First block for disruption was for a day. Then another day. Then a week. Then a month, shortened to two weeks. Now back to two weeks. This period of time isn't out of the blue; this is how blocks generally work. Maybe I'm just old-school, but to me this is Blocking 101. Kafziel 15:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition to taking into account the previous blocks, I feel it is necessary to take into account the severity of the behavior. We are referring to 2 comments on the talk page of David Levy and some disruptive editing at Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37 where Kiefer wasn't the only editor being disruptive. David Levy was rather curt in his first reply to Kiefer, which could be expected given Kiefer's statement; however, I feel that without the communication breakdown this could all have been avoided. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, Ryan, but we can talk about "what-ifs" until the cows come home (and believe me, I have spent many hours over the years, with other editors, doing just that); the fact is, this was simply the latest in a long string of incivility. Maybe next time Mr. Wolfowitz will get one of those warm fuzzy admins who like to give 6th and 7th chances, but this wasn't his lucky day. Kafziel 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends to a degree on how you view blocks. Makes for an interesting philosophical discussion. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an aspect. I think there is an effective argument in that blocking an editor for personal attacks/harassment prevents them for doing it in the future; however, I don't think a 2 week block prevents future incivility any more than a 2 day block would. What good does the extra 12 days do? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, I suspect the extra 12 days would simply harden the blockee's perceptions about either Admins or the standards of the community (and not for the better). Especially if it can be seen by the blockee as inconsistent or unevenly enforced. In some cases, it might encourage them to evaluate their behavior and make changes that are more acceptable to whatever faction of the community favored/imposed the block. Hard to say, really. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, I thought when editors were blocked they had to have that standard "you have been blocked" template splattered onto their talk page, with that bit about how to appeal etc? Or is this one of those new "close-up and personal, friendly, warm-feeling" blocks? Or maybe there's just no appeal allowed in this case? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates aren't required, and I don't generally like them for registered users. Too automated. So I guess you could say it is one of those friendly, personal kind of blocks. But, sure: Kiefer, if you'd like to appeal your block, feel free to post {{unblock|(your reason here)}} on your talk page. Be sure to give a good reason, and refrain from any further attacks in doing so. Friendly, helpful, and template-free. Kafziel 16:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

Did David Levy, think that I was accusing him of being a fundamentalist Christian? Would it help him if I had put a "wink", ;), after my remark?

I am sick of the American fear of being numbered by the Beast, and I laugh when statisticians state, "This is a method that is used only in the third-world countries, and the USA", because of the lack of a population registry.

There have been enough complaints about the heavy-handed administrative steering of that discussion. In this case, administrators with a need to demonstrate power or intolerant of my restoring my numbered comment labeled my restoration of the number as disruptive.

Is this a joke?

I would not be surprised if JC37 supported such a block, given his urging a block after I had misremembered his user-name as JN37 (after an Indian statistician's initials). I am going to be curious to read the bizarre arguments supporting this block.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment? Kafziel, you are just not serious. I have not intention discussing this with you, until you can fill out a block form without tripping over yourself.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, these people are not worth your time.

JC37's labeling of my amendment as "disruptive", David Levy's labeling of my restoring the number to my comment as "disruptive"---these are examples of the Courcelles school of misuse of "disruptive"---disruption being a blocking offense with a meaning codified by policy, rather than a label things that we don't like (or even bad or dumb).

I won't even ask whether the blocking administrator ever bothered to admonish his fellow administrators for threatening me with blocking over "disruption" or for heavy-handed and biased refactoring of the discussion.

Just ignore his statement about blocking 101. He's not worth your time. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to continued incivility, this user's talk page privileges have been suspended for the duration of the block. Kafziel 17:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)