Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 25 October 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 8 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.

Thanks

Thanks for your (re)consideration. I hope my answer to the plagiarism question doesn't put you back into oppose. I agree what the nominee in the other RfA did was poor form, but I think he's getting a crash course in close paraphrasing right now, which is why I ended up supporting him, since there don't seem to be other problems. Gigs (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

My wrath about the Assange case and your forthright (erroneous) disagreement misled my reason. You did accept the talk page consensus, reasonably and civilly, and I believe you have otherwise shown that you can be trusted to use the tools in the spirit of consensus. We need honest and intelligent administrators, since we have not found angels to govern us. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Building administrator solidarity by scapegoating

If you're *trying* to ensure Malleus gets banned...

...you're doing one hell of a job. If you're trying to defend him, however, then not so much. Please, please, please, dial it back several notches. It doesn't look too likely right now, but I'd really love to see Malleus stick around, and regardless of what he decides he wants to do, that can't happen if he's sitebanned. Just this once, consider his continued participation more valuable than the joy of getting more kicks in at ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam,

The honest members of ArbCom won't take out on Malleus any anger at me. To Hell with the others.

The ArbCom institution has my respect. SirFozzie used to have it, and I think he's realized that he's acted imprudently, and I trust that he should like to do what's right, even if it means backing down. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Except the ones you think are dishonest have a vote too, so "to hell with them" doesn't mesh with "I hope Malleus sticks around". I'm not asking you to lie, or say something you don't believe, or whisper sweet nothings into SirFozzie's ear. Just please stop screaming at them. it feels good, but it doesn't help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You overestimate my powers of infuriating persons not already in Hell. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But what if you're underestimating them? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that you mention it, I have underestimated those powers on occasion.... I had already concluded my contributions to the ArbCom page, and I should like to think that SirFozzie will think about how his motion looks, this week, after the personal attacks against Malleus and the ANI apologetics for the "paranoia" charge. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey..

Someone pointed me at your comment, and there's a lot I want to say here, but A) don't know if I'd be welcome, and B) was about to head to sleep (it being midnight here on the east coast). Do you want to discuss this via email (my page is open), or via a talk page? (yours, mine, doesn't matter). First of all, I didn't arrive at deciding to file the motion easily, or quickly. Was some of it frustration that we have to deal with comments like those Malleus Made shortly after we almost opened a case? Yes, I'll freely admit there was some frustration there. However, what led me down this path was the following: Before I could judge the complaint, I was immediately sidetracked by the comments Malleus made (the dishonest fuckers/twats comment). This is what I meant about incivil comments diverting attention from bona fide complaints to a side show. Malleus's comments had the affect of taking attention away from the main issue (Malleus at RFA, whether the ban was working or whether it needed to be modified and put it on yet another re-run of "Malleus is incivil, Volume 81". That's why I originally directed him to stop the personal attacks. I know not everyone agrees that civility should be enforced, or in what way, but it is a pillar of Misplaced Pages. As Brad, Tony, and folks more eloquent then myself explained, it it a serious issue with Malleus and becomes the focus of all discussions around Malleus.

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative environment. You have to work with people you disagree with and find disagreeable. I've fallen short of this myself (dealing with a reincatnation of one of Misplaced Pages's most annoying serial vandals/sockpuppeters).. and just like I called Malleus out on it, someone called me out on it. This administrator, who was attempting to help me resolve this issue, told me exactly what I'm saying here.. by lowering myself to that level, I obscured the point I was trying to make. That's what the other person wanted, because then they could point to ME as the extremist in the discussion.

Then, I saw his passionate defense of his right to call people that, that he'd consider himself an obsequious coward if he DIDN'T call people fuckers and twats, and I just sat back and said "Ok. This isn't working. As much as some people disagree with how civility should be enforced, it's still the law of the land (and the majority view in the civility enforcement RFC is that it should be enforced).. Malleus has now basically said that no matter what we do, short of banning him, he's going to continue down this path, because he feels he has a right and duty to make these comments.

So, I proposed the ban, but made it very clear that should Malleus agree to work within the lines, so to speak, that I'd rescind it in an instant.. no zero tolerance, none of that. I even made it a time-limited ban instead of indefinite (as several other arbs wanted.) As I said, I knew any ban that required Malleus to come to the Committee to ask for his right to edit restored would be indefinite, but as in permanent. If he came back and just toned it down a bit, that would satisfy me (not that I'd be on the Committee when he returns). That's all I want, really.. If Malleus would just stay within the bounds of civility in his replies, if other people are hectoring him, it'd be easier for him to point that out, that they're the ones in the wrong, to prevent it from becoming "Hey! Look at Malleus insult people!" yet again. There's ways to disagree, even to vehemently disagree without going to that length.

Quite frankly, I'm pissed at JClemens. I find what he said to be completely wrong. I've said that. Risker's said that. Brad's said that. I just went and struck my vote for the ban motion to get it below the passing level while this final outreach to Malleus is active. All he has to do is work towards moderating his behavior, before he calls someone an objectionable term, figure if there's a way that he can say it WITHOUT turning everyone's attention to HIS comments. I don't want to ban Malleus. If I did, I wouldn't go to these lengths to try to keep him around. He does a ton of great content work.. stuff I could never do. The best possible outcome for Malleus to stay, continue his good GA/FA work, and soften the edges a bit. That's what I'm hoping for. I'm sorry if this decision has made you lose respect for me, even after I've described where I'm coming from here, I'm sorry to hear that. But I stand by my actions here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Much Ado about cunts, twats, and (in the future) quims

Hi SirFozzie!

A look at Malleus's talk page shows that I have tried to help out when my help might help---including when I have thought that he could disengage from a conflict, as recently with Dr. Blofeld (where both were needlessly escalating at every turn, until they both resolved to focus on editing).

I don't defend his use of referring to "dishonest cunts", although I am familiar with enough Scotsmen that I understand that somebody from Manchester (Northern England) uses "cunt" frequently.

I do object to any mischaracterization of his editing as "uncivil" or "non-collaborative", because anybody who looks at his talk page or contributions can see that he is helping others more than anybody else on Misplaced Pages (or at least as well as the other saints).

I have raised the issue of equity, before, but you have not replied to it, directly. Malleus is being subjected to personal attacks and incivility, sometimes unintentional by persons with poor English or without benevolence, and ArbCom has failed to address such attacks, most recently "paranoia". You motioned to ban him for months because he said that he may in the future say "dishonest twat" if he sees a dishonest twat, while this in the last days he was called paranoid (and this was called "not a problem" or only "not constructive" at ANI). This is an atmosphere were Malleus is being attacked now, and you motioned to ban him for 6 months for announcing his intention to call a dishonest twat a "dishonest twat".

User:Mogism suggested a remedy that at least seemed to have the appearance of equity, and could be considered.

Consequently, your motion was ill-advised at any time but (besides being improper, according to my limited understanding of ArbCom procedures) also premature yesterday. I am glad that you and NYB have sought to engage Malleus in dialogue, and you can see from his response to such discussions that he will discuss the conflicts with you reasonably.

You have justly tried to stop your motion from passing prematurely, for the good of Misplaced Pages, and I think for justice with Malleus. I trust that you all may continue a dialog---perhaps by email---and work out a good solution.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AGK dishonest?

Hi Kiefer. I was interested in your allegation here. Can you substantiate this? --John (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

AGK failed to disclose his accounts, as required by the elections. I don't know whether he was dishonest, or just has trouble reading: I've known stroke victims who remain extremely intelligent but have trouble processing simple ideas. He certainly continues to miscite WP:Point. He's certainly incompetent and he has no place on ArbCom.

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.

Extended content

You can read what others said about him at the last election: MichaelDSuarez stated his distaste, but listed AGK's known alternative accounts and his failed RfA in an alternative account to avoid having AGK disqualified. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Discussion of AGK last election 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. No faith http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679&st=120&p=290211&mode=linear#entry290211 – I don't have any any faith in AGK's ability to settle behavioral disputes. He or she carelessly accused me of being a banned user and an abuser of anonymous accounts. AGK also fails to understand what that thread was discussing ("I haven't read much of this thread, and I don't know the history of Fae's accounts"). AGK has deleted several revisions related to the Fae dispute, yet he or she admits to not knowing the full story. Should we elect a candidate who deletes revisions without question? Without knowing the full picture? Without understanding the concerns of the other side of the dispute? Should we really elect a candidate who doesn't do any research and who jumps to conclusions so quickly? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Addendum: I also agree with Elonka's assessment of AGK: I have worked with AGK on various projects, and have not been comfortable with his level of emotional maturity. I have found him to react very defensively when challenged, and I have strong concerns about his ability to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I just don't think he would be a good arbitrator, and therefore, I must oppose. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Note: Yes, that's a WR link. AGK 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Is that a reason to not click on the link in order to examine the posts there? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately I have to agree with this. I'd had a past encounter with AGK and his behaviour related to an Israel/Palestine issue, and I was also aware of what seemed to me to be a concerningly determined tendency for hat-collecting. I'd pretty much disregarded all of that, on the assumption that everyone makes mistakes and Arbitration Enforcement is not the easiest of things to be involved with. But, his stoking the dispute on Pesky's talk page after another administrator had already issued the stark warning "What's going to happen here eventually is that the constant hounding of Pesky will cause the loss of a truly industrious contributor", rang huge alarm bells for me - especially after that is exactly what happened following AGK's involvement. That's what prompted my questions. AGK's reply to those two questions on his candidacy page here really confirms that there is a problem; seemingly the discussion "may not be so important if she's stopped editing" (is this really how easily content contributors are trampled underfoot and thrown aside, in AGK's world?!?), and he "can't really remember the background" to his less-than-civil remark to me earlier this year. The picture that emerges is of an arbcom candidate that is very good at writing answers and explanations that work as sound-bites (for example criticising "administrators who enforce civility for civility's sake" in his reply to Rich Farmbrough), but at the same time likes to throw his weight around and doesn't care who gets squashed in the process. Where does "I'm not sure where you learned to socialise, but" fit into any claim to be able to deal equitably with the most difficult of conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages, where it can be expected that people whose social backgrounds vary wildly might need equal treatment? Was this a hasty turn of phrase that was later regretted? No, I left allowance for that in my question, and seemingly AGK had no concerns with his original comment. "I have the stomach to speak up and not be a yes-man" is very telling. There's little doubt that AGK will speak up, and will act against all manner of perceived problems, or perceived problem people. The question is, who will speak up for those people? How many of us actually read every single arbcom case all the way through, and make objections at an early stage that are read with care by those who might curb this sort of impetuosity? Any credible arbcom candidate must have better social skills than this, must have the maturity to deal with people properly, must not be the sort of person who joins in harassing behaviour without reading properly before they type their comments. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC) While you are entitled to restate your concerns at your leisure, it might be more constructive to address my rebuttal to your question on my Q&A. AGK 10:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I've addressed your replies here; and in particular, what I find most concerning about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC) You have either misunderstood or misrepresented my response to your question. For instance, much of the start of your comment here focuses on my comments, but when I said may not be so important if she's stopped editing, I meant that I place far more importance on the issue of retaining Pesky as a contributor and ensuring she is not distressed or angry at her treatment by BD, than on asking her not to refer to angry young men. Did you actually read my answer, or just cherry-pick some of my sentences for your follow-up here? AGK 10:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC) No, what I focus on is your behaviour, on two separate occasions, several months apart. You've said you don't think there was anything wrong with what you said on either occasion (my question also asked if you could've handled either situation differently). I happen to disagree, but that's my personal opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 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. Election guides v t e 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections Voter log Contact the coordinators Discuss the elections Give your feedback Candidates Candidate guide Candidate statements Questions for the candidates Discuss the candidates Voter guides These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. William M. Connolley Wizardman Kiefer.Wolfowitz RegentsPark Guerillero Carcharoth Monty845 Elonka Joe Gazz84 NuclearWarfare Rschen7754 Badger Drink Heimstern Master&Expert SandyGeorgia Ealdgyth HJ Mitchell Sven Manguard Elonka 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. AGK (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) • questions (2009 questions page) N Oppose. Continue to have concerns about his list at User:AGK/Drafts where he is claiming substantial article-writing credit (such as rewriting stubs), when in actuality all he did was make minor edits. Examples: London Paddington station, Obsessive–compulsive disorder. I have worked with AGK on various projects, and have not been comfortable with his level of emotional maturity. I have found him to react very defensively when challenged, and I have strong concerns about his ability to handle the workload of being an arbitrator. I just don't think he would be a good arbitrator, and therefore, I must oppose. See talkpage for AGK's response. 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.

Thanks Kiefer. --John (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As AGK has now explained on User talk:John, these are accounts that AGK created for newbie editors following requests at WP:ACC. The suggestion above that AGK tried to conceal dozens of sockpuppet accounts (after have carefully created them in such a fashion as to directly link them to his own account) is inaccurate and should be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I reproduced verbatium texts.

A diff documents Suarez's addition of exactly 9 accounts of AGK (not "dozens"),

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.

1. Agkwiki
2. AgK
3. AGK!
4. AGKbot
5. AGKtalk
6. Anthony cfc
7. Anthøny
8. Cfc Anthony
9. MedCom

of which most (now emboldened) of which seem to be personal accounts used only by AGK, precisely what Suarez said and I paraphrased.

Another account listing is linked, to which NewYorkBrad presumably refers. This listing of accounts has been updated since the elections; members of the community should note the time stamps, to see which ones were created before and after the elections. This list is not the problem. The list of 9 accounts added by Suarez to AGK's candidacy statement is the problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Now I have enlarged the main points, for readier access. I changed a "him" to "AGK" (to avoid confusion with Suarez). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

AGK's dreadfully failing RfA, curiously not linked to his current account

This was the RfA that was not disclosed by AGK in his last election statement:

• "Dreadful", indeed.

Curiously, it is not linked to his current account. Curiouser and Curiouser....

AGK's hidden failed RfA also has a note, added by AGK without a signature, that "this nominee" had a successful RfA, which is linked. Asymmetrically, the second RfA does not have the corresponding note that "this nominee" had an earlier RfA, which failed. Curiouser and curiouser.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I should say that Sandstein's comment at this RfA is one of the most ignorant and harmful things I have seen on Misplaced Pages. There was an RfA in which Sven Manguard noted the injustice of such stereotyping. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nimrod?

Kiefer, the unfortunate thing about Arbitration is the stupid bureaucracy that it involves. I spent about a month as a clerk before it infuriated me. If you've got a request for some clerking at an arb case, you'll need to request it done at the clerk's noticeboard, this includes changing other editors statements, especially ones you've had disagreements with in the past. Also, if you don't mind, can you try to restrain yourself from calling editors Nimrods? I've not seen Scotty hunting, that doesn't leave many other options as to your meaning. Worm(talk) 17:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hunting for incivility? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nimrod's Son

Oh, my! Words do have multiple meanings and connotations, which may not be covered in a two-sentence definition from MacOED. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Most uncivil, but moodswings are expected among horsemen: "Jules, You Give that Fuckin' Nimrod $1500, I'll Shoot Him on General Principle." Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification & Amendment

Please stop reverting back-and-forth over words in User:Scottywong's statement. If you have an issue with another editor's conduct on the Requests for Clarification and Amendment page, please contact a Clerk. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Lordship,

I read and obey.

Your humble servant, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict / revert?

Looks like you removed some of Peskys' content here: Nobody Ent 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pesky is a much better dancer than I am, and alas this is not the first time I have stepped on her toes during an EC shuffle. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent 11:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

While you are at it

Since you're now redacting "personal attacks", fell free to venture over to my talkpage and strike the comments directed at me (and a few I flung back) where the chosen one and another of his disciples left an extremely small (compared to the pedia as a whole) smattering of less than cordial love notes. After that follow the edits (about every 5th one on talk and discussion pages) of the chosen one and redact those too...if you dedicate 10 edits a day to that endeavour, you might get it done by 2015. Hugs and kisses!MONGO 18:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi MONGO!

I am gladdened by the news you mentioned on AGK's talk page and trust that the end of hostilities is soon at hand. Please do not refer to "your Messiah" or "the chosen one" when referring to ordinary men, such as editors on Misplaced Pages. I thank you for having replaced "your Messiah" with "your friend". "Disciples" is another term that should be avoided, especially in the context of "Messiah" and "the chosen one".

If you will cease the hostilities and focus on something constructive, I should be happy to return to try to mediate when you and other editors have problems. I did try to be fair to you when you had disagreements over 9/11 and I am glad that you responded well to civil discussions. Let's return to that good record. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am very pleased you have joined the NPA patrol squad. I'm sure we'll bump into each other in a few weeks...MONGO 20:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As I hinted before, I walk the earth as a man of peace. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

• Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective

• Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule

• Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced

• Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution

• News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science

• WikiProject report: Where in the world is Misplaced Pages?

• Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

An authoritarian temptation

I've updated the following provocation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedians cannot tolerate prolonged conflicts

1) Misplaced Pages exemplifies authoritarianism. Wikipedians often express authoritarian statements paraphrasing MMPI propositions that diagnose authoritarian personalities: In particular, many editors demand that administrators or ArbCom stop conflicts, rather than let them continue. When stressed, many editors sustain themselves by imagining themselves to have a personal relationship with an all-powerful and all-knowing ruler, his appointed guardians, and a cadre of supermen.

Many Wikipedians are intolerant of prolonged disagreements, particularly conflicts. This intolerance seems most acute when Misplaced Pages administrators are criticized and mocked. Protecting Wikipedians from the stress of observing disagreement and protecting its administrators from ridicule and criticism therefore becomes prioritized.

Alas, ordinary Wikipedians have proved themselves in practice to be incapable of restoring the necessary conformity of the ruled. Even Administrators have been unable to restore the conformity of the ruled.

Therefore, our enlightened despots need to remove editors who do not conform to the majority's wishes.

The Administrators Corps cannot be ridiculed publicly, particularly not at Requests for Administrator

2) In addition to authoritarianism, insecurity and sadism thrive in Misplaced Pages's administrators; feelings of inadequacy can be temporarily alleviated by the frisson of punishing the scapegoats, particularly in public, where the punishment intimidates the population for years to come. Vicarious punishment of the scapegoats temporarily alleviates ressentiment.

Alas, ordinary Wikipedians and even administrators have proved themselves to be incapable of maintaining the esprit de corps of the rulers.

Therefore, our enlightened despots need to remove editors who do not conform to the majority's wishes.

There are examples of otherwise kind societies intolerant of deviance

Please consider whether Misplaced Pages should be free from conflicts and deviance after considering the most humane examples of authoritarianism:

• Jantelagen,
• Sterilization in Sweden, and
• Involuntary commitment in Sweden.

Music

Congratulations, double barnstars for you!

	The Good Article Barnstar and Music Barnstar
	I congratulate for you tireless efforts on editing Ralph Patt to good article. You are, certainly, welcome for your ostentatiously valuable vast efforts for the mystery of music and honor of Misplaced Pages. --GoShow (............................) 17:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, GoShow! Your barnstars made my day! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Common ground

Haven't listened to emo rock for a long time! I'll have to listen to more Dinosaur Jr. Emailed BTW.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of this and this, aahhh the 90s.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just trying to find some power-punk guitar-based song, to make you and Ceoil smile. :)

Youtube suggested Sonic Youth's cover of The Carpenters's Superstar. :

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

God Bless Jools Holland for providing Ash, whom I'd ignored, with a platform to perform with fewer pouts and an everyman---well, at least, an every publicschool boy and every girl---a young man longing through the window. Of course, for me, the nerdy drummer serves like Big Bird, another everyman. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Dodgy, Sea Horses.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ash were great. Lost classic for ye guys. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ps Blofield, 18th dye are one of my favourites of all time, steve albini produced . Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a great song, Slight Return, by the Bluetones, linked on Dr. B's page. (Jools deserved a tip of the hat during the Olympics, for his role in elevating music. Bless the BBC!) I missed a lot of great music 1995-2007, when I focused on mathematics etc. Neither of you have ever disappointed me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny but it was around 1994 or 95 I really got into music but I'd started secondary school by then and it was dance music like the Outhere Brothers! By 1996 I started to get into Indie/Britpop music. The first album I ever had on cassette though was Different Light by the Bangles, a great album and how hot is Susanna Hoffs!☠ Count de Blofeld 13:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Right from the start, Kiki Dee was given my heart.

My daughter was smiling at my lip-syncing to Monkey Gone to Heaven, until I reached the "If man is 5, then the Devil is 6,"], before my wife let me know that I had overstepped the boundary of lullabies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Major thirds tuning

Just been looking at your article on major thirds tuning, and it's almost persuaded me to get my guitar out again after heaven knows how many years. If I can understand it and make it work I may even do the GA review, God help you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That article probably needs another day of clean-up by me for it really to be at GA status. The Ralph-Patt article is better organized and more carefully written, I think; it was the shortest article and the least time-commitment of any Good Article I've had---but it was the article I wrote in part in the hospital..., so it has magical associations for me. :) I feel good writing an article about Patt, who seems to have been a very nice fellow and mensch.

I think that M3 tuning makes guitar playing much easier, as long as you don't have to play around camp-fires. With amplification, there is no need to throw in all the open and barre notes possible in every chord, as in standard-tuning.

M3 tuning also a lot easier on the hands and forearms. :)

Regardless of the tuning, it's better to start playing around frets 4-7 or 8-11, where your fingers don't need to stretch so much, and you don't strain to hit the lowest notes. Of course, it's a lot easier to play open-notes of the standard-tuning, but then the jump to the rest of the fretboard must be monumental....

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. These are the (light) gauges I use for a steel-string guitar having a scale of 25.25 inches:

There are different recommendations from Ole Kirkeby, who doesn't declare his scale-length: Kirkeby is certainly vastly more knowledgeable and experienced than me. He also has suggestions for jazz-guitar and classical guitar. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to warn you that you need an electronic tuner for major-thirds tuning, for reasons explained by Griewank. It doesn't work to tune by ear, using the fourth fret on the current string to tune the next string. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Speed kills

You've heard the term fret wanking right for mindless shredders. The King of all Fret Wankers, plus he looks like Maculay Kulkin to boot. He should never be allowed to touch a guitar!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look at it. Thanks! :) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, there is a fellow who hit 1300 bpm. It reminds me too much of the Wild, Wild West episode with the speeding-up potion (Season 1, Episode 26, The Night of the Burning Diamonds"). Alas, it did not have your distinguished colleague, Dr. Lovelace. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

1300 bpm! Try something more tasteful. That goes for you Dennis too, listen to this one, love it. Looks like a 1992 Andre Agassi with Jack Sugden from Emmerdale.. Its a C# minor 7, B, A, mostly, and then B7, E major, something interesting chord voicing in it, the B and A are major 9ths I think. I can play most of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An antidote. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The flamenco guitar duo was great. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How about this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Ralph Patt image at major thirds tuning

Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. A few things I wanted to say, and so I'll use bullet points to avoid a wall of text-

• My recommendation was leading the biography with an image of Patt with one of the iconic guitars, thus cutting down the amount of non-free content used; currently, there are two images, and it seems that there could be one.
• I'm not convinced that the guitar images meets NFCC#8, in either usage, as the articles could reasonably be understood without the use of the image.
• The same's true of the Patt image in the tuning article- just because he's the one who invented it, does not mean that we need a non-free image of him in the article. His appearance just isn't that significant. Equally, we wouldn't need a non-free image of him in every article about an album he released.
• Another, more general point- a separate non-free use rationale is needed for every use of a non-free image. Currently, there are rationales only for the Patt article (not the tuning article) for both images.

My recommendation, for the reasons I've outlined above, would be finding an image of Patt with an iconic guitar for his biography, and orphaning the two images that are currently used. Due to the lack of free content, the tuning article would probably have to go without a photograph of Patt/his guitars. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn!

Thank you for again sharing your expertise. :)

Let me read and think about your remarks for a day or so. (I had thought I had added rationales to the RP picture, but perhaps I failed to write a proper one....) I trust the soundness of your advice, and I certainly will either follow your suggestions or rewrite the rationales and run them by you again (after I've reviewed the guidelines).

There was a 6-page article on Patt and especially his Saul Koll guitar, in American Luthier. When I have a copy of the article, I shall try to contact the photographer listed. Otherwise, I can try to talk to Saul Koll, and ask him to donate a picture. I hope this can be done soon.

Thanks again for your help.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now securing a free image would be the best result. Good luck with that! J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Categorization

I recently created Memphis Daily Post and I'm trying to figure out the best way to add it to a category related to civil rights. We don't have Category:Civil rights literature so I added it to Category:Civil rights organizations in the United States. The organizations in that category aren't similar to the newspaper. Can you think of a better way to categorize it? Ryan Vesey 17:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at.

Speaking of civil rights, I don't understand your wanting a speedy deletion. You should take your argument for deletion to the resumed deletion discussion, but it's improper to use speedy deletion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the G10; however, the category doesn't serve a constructive purpose. I endorsed the deletion on the grounds of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; although, I didn't state that in my comment. I might clarify later. Ryan Vesey 18:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryan,

As I said, those are considerations for arguing for deletion through the standard deletion procedure. They are not grounds for speedy deletion, which is a procedure for obvious problems or BLP violations. Now I repeat myself.... Don't you think that the distinction is important? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would ask at US history, which may have a Reconstruction task force. You might also look at the projects and portals associated with e.g. the great A. Philip Randolph. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wikiproject US History has no work groups and WikiProject United States doesn't have a work group on the reconstruction or on civil rights. If I wasn't so busy, I might propose a task force, I might attempt to tackle it over Christmas break. Ryan Vesey 18:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

They must. Look at Tom Kahn or Bayard Rustin. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)