Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) at 10:09, 14 July 2011 (→Your recent edit at The Denial of Death: I tried to help you, but you are wasting both of my time and your time. Please respect both, and go away.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

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

No Misplaced Pages for old men

Malice_____Thought seems like a code-less and cowardly Anton Chigurh.

And now we have a user publicizing the name of a rape victim /complainant in a rape case. "Now days are dragon-ridden" indeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

(Some jerk stole the ArbCom archives, and then published confidential email, which may result in serious harm to several persons.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC))

Well, thank you. I do try to be the voice of the better side of Misplaced Pages over there. Silverseren 02:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Publishing the names of rape victims

This apparently moot discussion was extremely distasteful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape Complaintant and WP:BLP

Where does it state that naming a rape complainant is against WP:BLP? There are MANY articles which name rape complainants on Misplaced Pages. See for example articles on:

Tawana Brawley Trisha Meili Crystal Mangum

You seem to be selectively applying a rule (which I can't find) to Julian Assenge's accusers (whose names are already all over the news and the internet.

Please also refer to WP:CENSOR. Misplaced Pages is not censored! Poyani (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Censor is trumped by 'WP:BLP, as you should know. (Earlier. Now updated with policy links and quotations 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

*WP:Biographies of living persons

• Reliable sources

• Avoid gossip and feedback loops
• Privacy of names
• Removing poorly sourced contentious material

• Presumption in favor of privacy

• Avoid victimization

*Restoring deleted content: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first"

Updated with policy links and quotations. 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I edit WP sufficiently that I have no need to apologize for failing to correct all its errors or violations of WP:BLP.

I live in Sweden and I was unaware of the names of the complainants until recently, because civilized press do not publish the names of rape complainants. What is your source, apart from the hateful and marginal CounterPunch?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Source? Typing this person's name on google brings up half-million results. What source would you like? This person's name is in the New York Times. As I said before there is nothing on BLP about rape claimants being censored. Please refrain from exporting your morality into wikipedia and demanding that other editors adhere to your moral standards. Also note I did not ask for any apology. I asked for an explanation. Poyani (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your link is broken.Please read WP:BLP, particularly the section giving victims/complainants the benefit of privacy to avoid prolonging victimization. What purpose does putting the complainant's name on that talk page serve? Answer: NONE!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources for you

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/08/1962779/accuser-in-wikileaks-saga-has.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20025270-503543.html

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-12-09/us/28247531_1_wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-swedish-women-condom

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/assange-fails-to-manage-his-affairs-111773324.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html

Poyani (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Miami Herald states that her "links to Cuba were posted on several websites Tuesday after Assange surrendered in London", which is consistent with a violation of WP:BLP, per Gossip.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

CBS News cites nobody for its identification of the woman. It cites cites the Australian website for news about the woman's recent activities: Indeed, it notes the weakness of even this sourcing: "Crikey also claimed, according to unidentified sources in Sweden,"... This doesn't establish a WP:BLP public identification of the complainant, and it is a very shaky description of the woman's other activities, if they were subject to a WP article.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Times of India states that "Based on information available on various websites quoting police and court files, and reports in the Swedish media, here's an account of what happened.", again violating BLP:Gossip.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Winnipeg paper publishes an article that cites no sources, apart from stating she was mentioning an interview (my guess Aftonbladet's as summarized in a couple sentences in the NYT). This source, like the last, should not have been mentioned if you were serious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The Asia Times is even worse—just a columnist writing sleazy nastiness about Hell having no fury like a woman scorned: "the twin Scandinavian version of Congreve's "a woman scorned"." It's hard for me to continue AGFing when you present such shit as evidence, particularly for your violating BLP about a rape complainant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why it is not mentioned in any articles about her. What are you talking about anyways? Please remember that the burden of proof is on you to show that WP:BLP prohibits the publishing of a rape complainant's name on a talk-page - and requires such person's name to be censored. There is no mention of rape complainants in WP:BLP.

You are wrong. WP:BLP puts the burden of proof on you for restoring deleted material.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the NYT link is not broken for me. Please check again. Poyani (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The NYT's identification of the complainant is based on the Swedish socialist tabloid Aftonbladet, which need not be reliable.

'Aftonbladets interview does not mention the name of complainant A, in fact.

Regardless of Aftonbladet, this falls under the BLP violation against prolonging the victimization of the complainant.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The NYT states no such thing. It states "But Ms. Finne, the prosecutor, has said the evidence appears to exclude outside manipulation, and one of the two women involved, **** *****, 31, has told the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that ..." Hence the NYT independently identifies the person I identified using * and then quotes them in the newspaper. The NYT does not use the Swedish newspaper to establish identity. It identifies ***** using its own authority. The NYT is a reliable source. Poyani (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While we are on the subject. Please note that CounterPunch is a reliable source. It fulfills all the requirements listed for reliable sources. Therefore this is a pointless exercise anyways. Poyani (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source - from Australia's The Age newspaper:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/did-he-or-didnt-he-the-murky-politics-of-sex-and-consent-20101211-18tie.html?skin=text-only Poyani (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One last thing. The "nastiness" or "sleaziness" of a source is not my problem. You are going around removing references to Ms A (as you call her) who is mentioned by name in a few talkpages but have no problem with the fact that Trisha Meili has an article. Whatever personal vendetta you have in this issue and with regards to this case please do not export them to wikipedia. This is getting absurd. Poyani (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have read WP:BLP and you continue to re-insert contentious BLP material about a ~rape complainant on a WP:Talk page, then I shall file a report at the BLP noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not libelous. This is ridiculous. Refer me to whatever you like. You are just making up rules as you go along. The you state that the Miami Herald's description of her Cuban activities are gossip. But what you censored were not about her cuban activities. It was her name which you removed. The Miami Herald states "He is wanted for questioning after ***** and another woman accused him of having sex with them without a condom and without their consent."

You are charging me with violating BLP on a talkpage meanwhile you, without a sense of irony, refer to Gwynne Dyer of the Winnepeg Free Press as "lazy". You refer to Pepe Escobar, a well-respected journalist as "sleazy", describing his work as "nastiness" and "shit".

You demand a source from the source, and possibly another source from the source of the source (as was the case from the Australian, which was the source for CBS for only part of the story). You dismiss sources because they are "socialist tabloid" or (in your opinion) "hateful and marginal" or "left wing". Please cease and desist from this nonsense! Poyani (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself "Which is us is more familiar with WP:BLP policies?" before you continue to waste my time. You seem still not to have read WP:BLP, which strongly recommends evaluation of sourcing before one even begins to consider merely adding material.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you for familiarizing me with WP:BLP. Now, since Pepe Escobar is a living person, would you mind presenting your reliable sources justifying your description of him as "sleazy"? What is your source for describing his work as "shit"? Poyani (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, I redacted my comment to apply precisely to the shitty, sleazy, or lazily sourced articles. Thanks for the help.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt you are interpreting this correctly. I don't want to revert someone else work in that page. But I am going to mention this person's name on Julian Assenge's talk page. Feel free to file a report on BLP noticeboards. I want to test this. Poyani (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poyani (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN and Talk:Julian Assange for apparent consensus against outing rape victims.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Reversion of Julian Assange TalkPage

My post on the Julian Assenge TalkPage which you reverted did not actually refer to the accuser by name. I was just asking a question. Poyani (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I took you at your word, which announced another attempt to violate WP:BLP by breaking WP to prove a point. You did in fact name the victim repeatedly in your first edit. At long last some sense of decency prompted you to remove the name in your second edit, which I had wrongly guessed to be merely copy-editing. I have not reversed your addition of your redacted text (without the name).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLPN and Talk:Julian Assange for apparent consensus against outing rape victims.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me your dirty WikiLove

The Signpost, 27 June 2011:

• News and notes: ArbCom database theft; WikiLove to roll out on the English Misplaced Pages; brief news

• In the news: Russian president uploads to Wikimedia Commons; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

A kitten for you!

For removing an erroneous asterisk and expressing friendship, I award you this WikiLoving kitten. Please be gentle with it, Mr. Wolf.

Drmies (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:-)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

And here's some wiki love that doesnt rely on the pet illusion. (for making me smile with the Ibsen ref) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Mercy buckets!

A fan of Lihaas and a fan of Simone Weil!

Maybe you can help me locate two Simone Weil quotes.

1. Justice, that refugee from victorious sides.
2. (something about stupidity of people in groups...) Beginning a sentence with "we" signals the end of thinking.

Cheers!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

De nada! 1) I think she said that in her 1937 letter to Georges Bernanos about the spanish civil war. Its been described as one of the political monuments of the 20th century - the former marxist fellow traveller reaching out to a hard core royalist. There's some interesting parallels with movements going on right now like Lord Gassman's Blue Labour. The letter certainly had a great effect on Bernanos, he started switching sides left right and centre. Normally the one thing I cant abide is a traitor, but one has to make an exception when its done at the behest of someone like Simone. You might have read the quote in Gustav Thibon's introduction to Gravity and Grace where he introduces it something like this:

This idea of counterbalancing is essential in her conception of political and social activity: "If we know in what direction the scales of society are tilted we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale. Although the weight may be something evil, if we handle it with the motive we shall perhaps not be tainted by it. but we must have a conception of equal balance and be always ready to change sides like Justice, that eternal fugitive from the campe of the the conquerors"

2) She wrote on that theme many times, you may be thinking of something from her essay "The Great Beast" (which is included in G&G i think) will have to check my books and get back to you next week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Not sure of the original source for this now, its not in my copy of the Bernanos letter, but as I said Gustav does quote it in his introduction to G&G.

2) Here's the quote you was thinking of, its from The Need for Roots in the 'Freedom of opinion' subsection.

"The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of ones thoughts is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word 'we'. And when the light of intelligence grows dim, it is not very long before the love of the good becomes lost. "

She also wrote insightfully on the difference between, group , personal and impersonal thought in her very classic essay Human Personality. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a beautiful quotation, which regrettably is too long to have tattooed on me (and shall be unless I become worthy of participation on The Biggest Loser!).

"If we know in what direction the scales of society are tilted we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale. Although the weight may be something evil, if we handle it with the motive we shall perhaps not be tainted by it. but we must have a conception of equal balance and be always ready to change sides like Justice, that eternal fugitive from the campe of the the conquerors"

"The intelligence is defeated as soon as the expression of ones thoughts is preceded, explicitly or implicitly, by the little word 'we'. And when the light of intelligence grows dim, it is not very long before the love of the good becomes lost."

Thank you so much! You made my day!

She wrote the essay "The Illiad, Or the Poem of Force" which is extraordinary despite being tainted by its closing self-hating anti-semitism); it was translated by Mary McCarthy for Dwight Macdonald's Politics, and which is translated in Alasdair MacIntyre's (and Methodist Stanley Hauerwaus's) anthology, Revisions, which you may enjoy. Her life was so sad! I feel much closer to her than to her selfish brother, André Weil, who called WWII "not my war". A. Weil was on of the last century's best algebraic number theorists; I have long wanted to read an essay of his on The Illiad, which was published (in French) in a Springer Verlag festschrift for one of its mathematical editors; maybe you would enjoy it also? Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Youre most welcome. Yep I created our article on The Iliad or the Poem of Force back in 2009. It maybe affected more deeply than any other essay Ive read, even though I think Simone was only seeing half the picture - the "ecstasy of battle... compared to with even the physical ecstasy of love ... is less poignant" is not due solely to the intoxication of force. Im not sure if Id agree she was ever a self hating anti semite, though I know many of commentators held that view. She did wrestle with self doubts, but generally I think she had that peculiar blend of awkwardness and invincible self-assurance one often finds with really exceptional people. Maybe anti semitism is correct, but for me her criticism was mild compared to the Hebrew prophets of the OT or even Christ Himself.

It certainly was a tragic life in one sense. Aside from Christ i cant think of anyone who seems to have subjected themselves through so much avoidable suffering - not just physical and emotional pain but spiritual pain to. Nor do I think human history has anyone else whose story is more beautiful. She had the most intense compassion and sympathy for everyone who was oppressed or afflicted - even at the age of 5 she refused to have any sugar with her food as shed heard the soldiers on the front were having to do without. Simone experienced that same direct union with God that was vousafed to Plotinus, Julian of Norwich , her beloved St John of the Cross and many other mystics – but she seems to have almost entirely missed out on the spiritual rapture they were blessed with. Most of her life she seemed to experience God as a kind of absence. In her last few years she did receive some joy in her mystical experiences, and also in sensing God through prayer, meditation, religious music and poetry, and the sacraments like a normal Christian can, but they seem to have been quite mild experiences. She seems to have had almost no spiritual consolation for her abstinence from almost any form of luxury and the suppression of the tremendous capacity for ordinary love one senses through her work. What makes it even more beautiful is that she had no expectation of any sort of a reward in the next life, she seemed to think nothing personal services death, even for the purest souls. Simone understood that both Joy and Sorrow are paths to God, and wholeheartedly choose to imitate Christ in choosing the path of sorrow. In her letter to a priest that was later titled her Spiritual autobiography , she said she felt God Himself had had a hand in the direction of her soul right from the start (c.f. Jeremiah 1:5 , Isaiah 49:1) and she concluded by saying every time she thought of Christ suffering on the cross she committed the sin of envy. In her last few weeks even her brilliant mind couldn't handle the strain and she began to lose her grip. As biographer Richard Ress said, whichever way one wants to look at it, she died of Love. So in another sense her life wasn't tragic - she had almost exactly the life she wanted. God willing I will one day expand and rewrite her bio as I did with our Keynes article.

All I knew about Andre if that Simone recollected he had a childhood and adolescence "fully comparable to Pascal". I see from his article that like his sister he was fascinated with Sanskrit and the old Vedic mysteries. If you ever find an electronic copy of his essay on the Iliad id be very interested to read it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA

Dudeman... RfA oppose

Did you deliberately indent your oppose so it wouldn't be counted? LadyofShalott 23:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I was trying to fix my indent. The weird quotation of MF by Ryan Vesey seemed to have messed things up before I made my mistakes. I'll go and fix anything. Sorry for the inconvenience,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I saw you fixed it, and came to say "nevermind", but you had already responded. :) LadyofShalott 00:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

For once, my fast typing worked to my advantage! However, I shall add the trick of mis-indentation to my "black ops" repetoire, in case a future important vote seems to be going the wrong way! ;) Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RFA formatting error

You could use the blockquote if you had placed it after the text instead of on a new line. Otherwise, your new edit works. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, do you know why the formatting for your talk page is incorrect at the bottom? The sections seem to be indented. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggested fix! I gave up on the block-quote, after several attempts failed to fix the problem of denying !votes to the following editors: I trust that the simply quoted test is sufficiently legible. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My misadventures with a GAR (quoted directly above) were responsible for the mis-formatting. Thanks for noting the error.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

• News and notes: Picture of the Year 2010; data challenge; brief news

• In the news: WikiLove roll-out; €25,000 in damages for being removed from Misplaced Pages; brief news

• WikiProject report: The Star-Spangled WikiProject

• Featured content: Two newly promoted portals

• Arbitration report: Arb resigns while mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin

• Technology report: June report: Virginia datacenter, parser, user profiles; WikiLove 1.0; brief news

RfA

Thanks for your comments on my RfA. I have responded to your post on my RfA talk page. --E♴(talk) 02:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the courteous notice and good response. I recognize that it is more difficult to write WP articles on scientific topics, because the need for precision makes most of us stay rather close to the source cited. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm sorry that your RfA is turning out to be a stressful experience for you. I think it might be best just to withdraw, and then enjoy editing again. As I wrote, you have improved a lot, and there's no reason to expect that you would have any problem with RfA in a year. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good decision, I think. There's so much work to do without being an administrator! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on . Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. If you genuinely believe the material is identifying information about a minor, then you should discuss that concern with WP:OVERSIGHT, not edit war over another user's userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DemiWit1000, you want me to ask Nyb to okay a deletion he endorses in his essay on minors? Don't be an idiot. Let the minor make the decision. Put your obsession with one-upping me aside for the interests of the minor.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys started the edit-warring, also.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the link. First, I have no way of knowing is a minor. Second, I'm going to take your word for it and say that he is. The link you have provided is a link to an essay but you are treating it like policy. I used a link to a guideline. A guideline trumps an essay in my book. is an experienced editor and has the ability to understand the consequences of his edit. He even used an edit summary specifically referencing his desire to re-add the information. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

He is a minor. Look at his RfA. This is a time you need to use common sense. You are familiar with vandals writing dozens of suicide suggestions on targets' pages, I presume?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Who gave you the authority to decide what can and cannot be on someone's page. It does not matter if they are a minor or not, you don't have the authority. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ryan,

Maturity is a necessary balance against the passions, particularly against the natural rebellion against silver backs common to the young great apes. When somebody highly intelligent and vastly more experienced than me suggests removing personal information from minors' pages, I listen and I would suggest that you do too.

You should have read a proper dictionary rather than Wiktionary to understand "obsteperous" and to understand the failings of the linked definition. I did not use that word to insult you but to urge you to moderate your passions when you write. Please understand that I deal directly with adults.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I used Merriam Webster long before the Wiktionary post was made; although, isn't it a little detrimental to the project if you do not consider Wiktionary a "proper dictionary"? Is Misplaced Pages a "proper" encyclopedia? Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to be confused with S. V. Benet—Ambrose Pierce's The Devil's Dictionary and Merriam Webster are written by travelled men that know what they talk about and maybe what they say is true about "obstreperous"? But "Oh when I was young and held the OED in my arms!"  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I count four reverts by you on that page. Your edits seem to be a bit obstreperous. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That would surprise me. Perhaps I saved a page twice unconsciously? I had counted three. I believe that your revert was the fourth, crossing the line of doom!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say I violated the 3rr? I only reverted twice and, in my edit below, you can see that I reverted myself as I would like to abide by a single revert rule. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Ryan, I don't edit war and I have only had one brush with 3RR when I warned another editor (who drove even sweet-hearted Charles Matthews up the wall some time later), and discovered that the 4th is the problem. I believe that your revert added to the other reverts of me was the fourth revert of me: I thought that such reverts were viewed as edit warring and 3RR violations, but I may well be wrong. sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on edit warring. The 3RR is broken when one single editor reverts an edit 4 times, not when multiple editors revert an edit 4 times. You cannot violate 3RR on your first edit. I don't really mind now, and any administrative action would be uncalled for. Besides, if we technically said I reverted back to the revision after your third revert you only made 3. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I can no longer stay on Misplaced Pages (2:50 A.M.) I have reverted my edit. I do not want my views to stay in an argument I can no longer discuss. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that you made the best decision, to let the editor sleep on the decision to add a statement that his considered judgment told him to remove and leave off for months. Thank you for letting your concern for the youth and moderation win the day.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, personally I think that the user should have been notified on his talk page and he could deal with it in the morning, but it is too small in the grand scheme of things for me to get "all up in bunchie boos" about. Hopefully this does not affect our ability to have cordial relations. Ryan Vesey (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on the users page

That's fine. I tried to safeguard the user's privacy by writing somewhat indirectly. I view this as similar to previous interjections by DU: I write something imperfectly, DU interjects himself and obtains the craved drama, then the original person deals with the issue I raised in a good faith manner, and I and the original discussant both shake hands.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring this morning

Morning Kiefer. Just to make a few points, firstly, you did cross 3rr by my reckoning, reverting the editor, a Strange Passerby, Demiurge1000 and finally Ryan. Secondly, the information, whilst personal, is not identifying - ttherefore I don't believe it actually contravenes NYB's guidance. Not forgetting, the editor in question added the userbox with the summary "should have re-added this a long time ago", implying it had previously been removed, he had considered the up and down sides and decided to replace it. On top of this, NYB's guidance is an essay, and while very sensible - it really does not give you the right to edit war. Please do consider carefully what I've said here. Worm · (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what computer scientists call an indexing error! Oops! My bad!

Well, in retrospect, I failed to count my correction of the imprudent personal information.

However, the natural numbers begin with 0, by the Dedekind-Peirce axiomatization, so the initial sequence (0, 1, 2, 3) is still short of the dreaded 4. (Whew!) ;)

Horseplay aside, did you see that peace had already been restored? and that Ryan and I had reached some kind of consensus? (Ryan was the only one who bothered to write and deal with issues.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, peace has been restored... in your preferred version of the page. Ryan contacted the user on the page and withdrew from the discussion, I hardly call that consensus. I do see why you were reverting, but constant reversions made a large fuss, something that would have been better avoided. Can you please ensure that an edit war like this doesn't happen again, this would have been handled much better by email, or a polite talk page note. Worm · (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WTT, it's time for you to hit the road, at least today, because I'm not in the mood for you to take the tone "please consider carefully what I say" when I have already acknowledged my 3RR mistake to Ryan and we'd resolved the issues: As I had written, I had never before even come close to a 3RR violation, so you try flexing your administrative musculature in a venue offering better reflections.

Now you have written that you understand why I was reverting. Before suggesting that I should have written a note to the minor, you should have checked whether I had done so, simply by looking at my contributions. (And my note preserved the privacy better than Ryan's well written note.) In any event, I shan't respond again today. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer. I was planning to leave this alone based on your last comment, but since your "copyedit" very much changed the tone of what you said, I thought I should respond.

• I was not "flexing my administrative muscle" as I was not an administrator at the time, I am involved to an extent (Ryan is one of my mentee graduates) and I am unlikely to block an established editor given the caution I showed at my RfA. I would have made exactly the same edit 2 weeks ago.
• You did not acknowledge your 3RR violation to Ryan. In fact, it appeared that your interpretation was that if 3 editors all revert once against 1 editor, then the final editor is the one who crossed 3RR. However, you did acknowledge it when I showed you your 4 revisions. You were clearly editing against local consensus and from what I've seen of you in the past, I expect better.

I do appreciate that the note that you left Dylan was attempting to keep his privacy, but by that time you had already reverted him. I certainly don't think it was a call to action, and it was not clear that you were removing his information for that reason. Perhaps you over-obfuscated to ensure privacy, but I am curious as to why you take such pains to protect his privacy, before announcing what you were trying to keep private in multiple venues, even pointing to where users can confirm it.

I don't mind if you reply to this or not, no action will be taken by me for the reasons stated above. I just wanted to inform you that I'm not impressed by your behaviour there in this instance. Worm · (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The secret of being a bore is .... 17:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, Ryan told me that I had violated a serious WP:Policy, and I noted surprise. Obviously I then confirmed what he'd said and so felt no need to defend myself. Since there was no further reversions by me, the case was closed.

If you want to impress anybody serious, stop this nonsense and write something useful. Seriously, you are too intelligent to be writing so many GA frivolous articles on food and none on any topic worthy of your attention. The world has so many problems, and so many solutions are known, and you could help by sharing your knowledge: You have a B.S. degree, apparently. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, don't let this get out of hand. I would suggest archiving this or deleting it or something. Perhaps Worm spends so much of his day doing whatever he does it is a nice relief to do some work on food pages. In addition, perhaps you should do some research before you run your mouth. Here are the pages Worm has created. Ryan Vesey (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He's got a point there actually. I do "waste" my mind. I have two degrees, BSc Mathematics and MSc Autonomous Systems, but you'll see I've never edited a maths or comp sci article. I'm much more interested in the articles I write though, I don't think I've been interested in a mathematical theorem in years.

I'm happy to consider this matter closed also, though I may be revisiting here sooner or later to get an opinion on an essay I was thinking of writing. Worm · (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I was quite familiar with the pages created, having participated in his RfA last weak without misfeasance. His intelligence and character suggest that we should all look forward to his future writings. :)

(ec) With great worms, comes great responsibility! ;)

WTT confirms my judgment about his intelligence and back-bone. Where is the article about modularization of computer programs, particularly about specifying each procedure's behavior without describing its implementation, for example? I was looking just last week to understand this post-"structured programming" innovation. (I have sometimes relaxed by writing about P. Orno and John Rainwater and in the last month by writing about the American democratic left, now recalling the sectarianism that cooled my interest decades ago.) :D

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would honored if you would ask my opinion about any essay, WTT. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do Kiefer. And no offence to the listening computer scientists that are always watching on Misplaced Pages... it's boring. It's bad enough I do it all day, that I'd do it as a hobby too is terrible. Worm · (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Mail

--Dylan620 15:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dylan, Sorry for my delay in responding. I hope to write today or tomorrow. With every best wish,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edit at The Denial of Death

You stated: "I removed the following unsourced, original research which reads like an essay". Unsourced? The source is the book itself. I suppose page numbers should be cited for several statements. As far as Schizophrenia, far from "Phantasimic" as you stated in my RFA, it is from the book and calling it a public nuisance is just inflammatory and suggests a strong POV. "Reads like an essay" has not normally been cause to nearly blank an entire page, especially one about a book, as far as I have ever seen. Please further explicate your OR claim. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tim, your summarizing the book is original research. I'm sorry that you still haven't understood even this basic WP policy. You have to source everything to secondary sources. That's the good news for WP, and the bad news for you. The good news for everybody is that the book won a Pulitzer, so you should have no difficulty finding summaries and discussion.

Scientific psychologists better understand schizophrenia then neo-Freudians did in the 1970s. Genetics is a major component, as Paul Meehl insisted in the 1950s.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have contributed little to that article except a stub back in 2005. So you are referring to some OR I did 6 years ago (if using a book to describe itself is OR, which I'm still not clear about). I do not appreciate your tone with regards to this matter. You are talking down to me, do you see that? To look at one article I wrote 6 years ago and conclude from that I do not understand a basic WP policy is plain wrong. I don't agree with you about schizophrenia, having experienced some schizophrenic episodes myself. I am fortunate they we merely episodes. Schizophrenia has been treated by psychoanalysis (Dorpat, 1996). So your first statement is simply your opinion. A very strong one obviously and one that I strongly disagree with. The scientific community must have a very poor grasp on Schizophrenia if it's come to conclusion that genetics is a major component. Also, I had no idea Becker was a neo-Freudian. How did you come to that conclusion? --TimL (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Tim, first of all, I must say that I am sorry to hear about your episodes, but I am very glad to read that they were just episodes.

Meehl observed, when analysts were blaming mothers' neuroses for schizophrenia, if one monozygotic twin has schizophrenia, then the probability the other monozygotic twin has schizophrenia is c. 50%. Apparently this is 2-4 times the rate for fraternal twins. This finding was startling, because it is was difficult to find any variables that helped give better predictions of schizophrenia. As you know, our DNA controls the protein chemistry that keeps us alive, and controls our brain chemistry, so it is not surprising that some genetic component is present. Of course, genetics is not everything.

Perhaps I was being sloppy with my labels: humanistic/Jungian/whatever if he is not Freudian. However, Becker does not quack like a scientific duck. That is the only point.

The paragraphs I moved to the talk page read like an essay, perhaps a very good essay, but there were not any citations. I trust you agree that some citations are needed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way I'm wondering if you assumed I was the 207.210.1.42 IP editor? I have made less than 10% of the edits to the Denial of Death article (avg article size when I made edits 2 KB, final size 5 KB), it still puzzles me why you would have chosen to focus on this rather than my recent edits, say on the Dvorak Technique, you have conveniently ignored this issue. At any rate, your conclusion that Becker does not quack like a scientific duck is unfortunate. Being scientific minded myself, it is exciting to find books/minds such as his. From my reading of his works he understood science quite well, much better than his peers. Do you realize Becker was an anthropologist, not a psychoanalyst? Do you quack like a scientific duck? What is your criteria for that?? Scientific reasoning is a highly uncommon character trait. The experiment you mention sheds little light on things as far as I can tell. We know that identical twins share similar personality traits, even if Schizophrenia were totally due to environmental factors, it is entirely possible that only certain personality types (i.e. those with certain genetics) would end up with the symptoms. That is perfectly consistent with the experiment you cite. Nature and nurture are exceedingly intertwined.
Regards,
--TimL (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The article states that it was influenced by Freud, etc! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like most of the community disagrees with you. --TimL (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear TimL!

Correctness and truth are not matters of opinion; compliance with WP policy is not a matter of majority-rule or consensus: The fact is, when I read the article, it read like an essay and lacked citations to secondary sources; even the citations of secondary sources looked like OR claims. I would like to wish that those problems have been addressed, and the community's acceptance of the article is warranted.

I am pressed for time and so cannot edit to present a less arrogant or less self-righteous persona.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. The other editors have not addressed any of the problems I mentioned. In particular the reference to Spalding Gray is OR, and not a reference about Denial of Death. It really would be a fine addition to a blog, but it is not yet ready for WP, imho.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Spalding Gray is OR? It's a cited fact. "The fact is, when I read the article, it read like an essay" That is definitely an opinion, your opinion, "and lacked citations to secondary sources; even the citations of secondary sources looked like OR claims." Does not lack citations, secondary sources look like OR claims? Just an opinion unless you can be more specific. You are certainly allowed to it and tag the article with your concerns and make specific references to your concerns. But nearly blanking the article? That was uncalled for. I'm sorry you have not apologized for attributing this article to me (which again I wrote as a stub as a newbie Wikipeidian and was not "my article" at all) in your opposition to my RfA, and completely ignored for example Dvorak technique. Pretty childish and feels like it was done in bad faith, however I assume good faith. Thanks. --TimL (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion does not seem to be getting anywhere..... Frankly, anybody who reads that book, or who relies on our article, with its lack of scholarly references, deserves what they get, which ain't much. I don't have enough interest to fix it anymore, or to argue with you.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is ironic, this book has more scholarly references than you could possibly shake a stick at. I guess you just want to cut and run. So be it!--TimL (talk) 08:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The article lacks references, and the book is shit and so isn't worth my time. Is that clear?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Article does NOT lack references and your opinion of the book is irrelevant and it is clear that this is why you opposed my RfA, because your opinion of an incredibly well sourced book. Thus it is now clear the your oppose to my RfA was in bad faith. Is that clear? Stay away from RfA's if all you care about is the content people choose to contribute to. Seriously. --TimL (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TimL, I tried to help you, but you are wasting both of my time and your time. Please respect both, and go away.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Auld Lang Syne

SDUSA convention links

Hi. I've uploaded the NYT stuff to my server:

• Template:Cite article
• Template:Cite article
• Template:Cite article
• Template:Cite article.

Hopefully those links work, let me know if you have a problem. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another:

• Template:Cite article

I've reformated them and shall add them to the article.

I must say, that I am very concerned about the possibility of copyright infringement: There is a ban on "further reproduction" at the top of each article. Is there something I am missing?

I assume that I shall have to add urls to the NYT, where users can decide to pay or not.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Reviewing the quotes from Harrington on the DSOC page, I'm beginning to accept (SDUSA-member) Paul Feldman's analysis that the "irreconcilable disagreement" was the working-class (AFL-CIO) versus middle-class (Withdrawal activists in the McGovern campaign) issue; they could have reached a compromise on the Vietnam War. As usual, Bogdan Denitch has some comments worth considering, about MH's difficulty with breaking with his associates (on the DSA org's page about Isserman's MH biography).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that the mildly Trotish, moderately Christian, and irrepressibly catchy (Paul Heaton's) Beautiful South broke up because of "irreconcilable similarities"? ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

Tom Kahn was an organization genius who advanced social-democratic politics around the world, particularly in the USA.

(I think that Mayer Zald and _ Thompson would have enjoyed discussing him from the standpoint of their resource mobilization theory of social movements, which was often associated with the University of Michigan's Sociology Department.)

Because of his open (but personal) homosexuality, and my ignorance and inexperience, I requested reviews of that section in particular. Turnabout being fair play, I was delighted to respond to a request to look at a debate about the Stonewall rebellion, whose resolution involved reviewing an article written by a Professor (and former undergraduate) at UM's Sociology Department.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Kahn

• ... that Tom Kahn organized American unions' $300,000 aid to the Polish labor union Solidarity in 1980–1981, despite Secretary of State Muskie's warnings that this aid might provoke a new Soviet invasion? 13 June 2011 501 Visitors

On 13 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Kahn, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tom Kahn organized American unions' $300,000 aid to the Polish labor union Solidarity in 1980–1981, despite Secretary of State Muskie's warnings that this aid might provoke a new Soviet invasion? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos on this one--a good hook, an interesting guy, and a great addition to the wiki. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! James Miller's Democracy is in the Streets recorded Kahn's being menaced by a man, in Irving Howe's words, in whose "soul" had seeped some of the "totalitarian poisons" of the last century. Kahn and impressionable youth deserve better.

Kahn's work in the civil-rights movement and to help Solidarity deserves to be remembered. I only wish that he and Michael Harrington had lived long enough to reconcile, the way that Steve Max and MH did and in the spirit of Rachelle Horowitz's memorial article, which records the depth of their friendship and suggests the pain of their estrangement.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on Socialist Party USA

copied from late addition to closed and archived review. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we had an edit conflict. the Review wasn't archived when I wrote my review. Your too quick closure (a few hours before, or at least the previous day) was also contested, and should have been reversed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Review

(Sorry for the 10>7 day delay in drafting this.)

This article falls short of meeting the following criteria for good article—

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

The second paragraph of the lede illustrates the article's need for copy-editing:

The party is officially committed to left-wing democratic socialist ideas. The Socialist Party USA, along with its predecessors, has been met with varying support. Some attribute this to the party having to compete with the financial dominance of the two major parties, as well as the limitations of the United States' legislatively and judicially entrenched two-party system.

This quote reveals other problems, particularly POV regarding "the" 2-"party" system. There is a huge literature on the question "Why no socialism in America?", which is just igored in favor of the party members' fantasies.

The most egregious problems concern reliable sources and NPOV:

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

In 1958, the Trotskyist Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman, whose politics had changed since his days as a Trotskyist leader, argued both for militant opposition to Soviet-style communism and that the Socialist Party should work within the Democratic Party. By 1972 Shachtman's Unity Caucus had taken control of the Socialist Party and blocked a resolution opposing the Vietnam War. In the 1972 presidential election, Shachtman's caucus initially backed hawkish Cold Warrior Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, then adopted AFL-CIO President George Meany's position of neutrality between the two candidates nominated by the major parties.

In response, two groups broke off: the Coalition Caucus led by Michael Harrington supported antiwar Democrat George McGovern and went on to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (later becoming the Democratic Socialists of America), while the left-wing Debs Caucus backed People's Party anti-war candidate Benjamin Spock. The Debs Caucus formed the Union for Democratic Socialism, which officially reconstituted the Socialist Party USA in 1973, when the Shachtmanites who remained in the Socialist Party re-named their organization Social Democrats USA. Numerous local and state branches of the old Socialist Party, including the Party's Wisconsin, California, Illinois, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. organizations, participated in the reconstitution of the Socialist Party USA.

I removed some of the most egregious errors and POV biases in this account, but it is still written from the perspective of an enthusiast of McReynold's faction, which was the smallest of the three so small that it is often ignored in accounts of the name change to SDUSA. (For example, Harrington's memoirs ignore it. The phrase "numerous local and state branches" participated in the reconstitution is wishful thinking. The crucial fact that is not mentioned is that the convention voted on proposals, and the heroes of this tale, McReynolds and Harrington, lost every time. It, like much of the conspiracy websites of the far right and far left, attributes everything to Shachtman, who was roughly 70

AND DEAD!!!!!Big text ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

at the time, and fails to mention any of the other leadership: For example, the notorious ex-Trotskyists and followers of Shachtman (sarcasm), A. Philip Randolph and the chairman Bayard Rustin. This is just not serious, as any honest and knowledgeable editor should readily admit.

There is no discussion of civil-rights work by the SPUSA: The majority of the SP civil-rights leadership stayed in the SP when it changed its name to SDUSA; however, James Farmer and others joined Harrington's DSOC.

The article fails to cite conventional, academic, historical references on these histories, but rather cites the Mooney controlled Washington Times! (I have not read Busky's book, and I would ask that knowledgeable editors check whether Busky has identified himself as a member of McReynolds's SP, the way Isserman has identified himself as a member of the DSA of Harrington (RIP).) A few minutes of work found that Busky is indeed a member and activist in the Socialist Party USA. "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! Sergeant Carter!"

And reading McReynold's notes about Leninist and Trotskyist wackos kicking out social democrats (like apparently the whole Pennsylvania chapter) and endorsing Leninists is one of the more disturbing experiences I've had---even more than the now dropped proposal to name the complainants in a sex crimes investigations (where FB sites advocating violence against the women had previously pushed me into the realm of disassociation and revulsion).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There are other NPOV/Reliability problems For example, it is written like many "in world" WP articles, written by fans of science-fiction novels and comic books. For example, it seems to be rather close to the Party's own description of itself, rather than a NPOV account based on disinterested academics, or using accounts by major newspapers (as opposed to local newspapers who print news releases).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Rude message

I have posted these here as that GAR is closed. Which bit of "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." do you not understand? Please open a new GAR, following the instructions at WP:GAR if you feel strongly about this. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, stop acting like an asshole. You closed it without notifying me. We had an edit conflict, while I was adding it.

You should be more concerned with NPOV and COI violations than with giving me attitude.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Please moderate your language. There is no requirement to notify people who have commented on a GAR. There were no comments in the last 10 days, although you stated on 22 June that you would add comments in one week. Please renominate with your reasons. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't come to my page and ask me an insulting rhetorical question. Either apologize or leave.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dwight Macdonald

You're right in your comment on my user page: Macdonald did say that he would choose the west if forced to take sides (as you say, it was in a debate with Norman Mailer in 1952). I thought it safer to remove the whole paragraph as unsourced, and I apologize for removing a legitimate passage. Perhaps you could feel free to restore it, with a source and date? There are plenty of references to it online. Since this is a point that you made, I would feel uncomfortable taking it over as my own. Incidentally, it's odd that, apparently, one can't figure out from the page history who it was who added the mythical reference. Perhaps that revision was removed from the record along with other revisions by the same vandal. Macspaunday (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Macspaunday! You have great tastes in authors and great WP spirit in insisting on sourcing and editing in a team spirit. I added a quick reference, with sloppy formatting, I'm afraid. I am tired and need to go out for a few hours. (OHIO Only Handle It Once) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I regret ending my summary with a crack about it taking a few seconds on Google. I'm tired. (I've been finishing an algorithmic paper today, besides off and on editing here, and my eyes and brain are fried!) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the crack, so no apology required. - I've now edited the paragraph to clarify the date, the fact that he said (not wrote) the comment, and that it's documented that he later repudiated the debate-style either/or statement, which was never his style. I'm now finished with this - it all got started because I noticed that unlikely reference to the non-existent "Aeron Potter." I certainly didn't intend to get into an edit dispute. Please feel free to revise or revert my edits without any complaint from me! Macspaunday (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

After writing this, I went back and added Macdonald's printed, published statement of choosing the West, which is a stronger citation than a quotation from a spoken debate. Finally done now, and am not watching the Macdonald page. Macspaunday (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Macspaunday! Primary sources feed the minds of our serious readers, and secondary sources slow the heat death of the universe, at least by slowing chaos on WP. I suppose that Macdonald would have never chosen Soviet communism, given his declaration of uncompromising opposition after the Warsaw Uprising, although he may have had his doubts about the West. (BTW, I agree that some skepticism is in order about RR, when he was on the extreme left and later when he was on the zealous right, altough he has always been serious.) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stonewall riots

I'm sure both of us would welcome your comments regards The local press and national gay press covered the event extensively. Pjefts (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Be still my beating heart! I may be perhaps the greatest Nordic fan of the Professor Armstrong:

• Armstrong, Elizabeth A.; Crage, Suzanna M. (2006). "Movements and memory: The making of the Stonewall myth" (PDF). American Sociological Review. 71 (5): 724–751. doi:10.1177/000312240607100502. JSTOR 25472425. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Armstrong, Elizabeth A. (2002). Forging gay identities: Organizing sexuality in San Francisco, 1950–1994. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226026949.

I was delighted to help. (00:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC))

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 04:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits regarding Socialist Party of America

Talkback

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

Self, this looks like a nifty tool: http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ This would have saved me a lot of time.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

1) An accusation of disruptive editing is a pretty strong one, and there are a hell of a lot more civil ways of expressing disagreement than threatening a block; 2) You're doing this for edits from 5 years ago! You need to assume good faith and remain civil, or I will have to take this dispute resolution, not so much over the content of your edits as for your behavior. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what Democratic centralism means?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I used the standard TW:template for a POV-warning. As noted, you introduced a terrible slander and severe copyright violations (of an unreliable source, which makes it worse).

My recognition that your other edits at the time were constructive and NPOV displayed my recognition of your general good faith and my charity.

And you have yet to apologize for the "democratic centralist" slander, which you need to do if you want to be a good person, and you need to ask for help with removing the copyright violations from the history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Templating of editor's talk page

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC) This is what I had left on User:Peter G Werner's page.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Socialist Party of America, you may be blocked from editing. This edit introduced the slander "democratic centralism" in the article, also suggesting copy-right infringement of the SPUSA's history.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't know what "democratic centralism" implies. If so, then I can forgive you, but there is still a problem of close paraphrasing. If you have done similar paraphrasing in other articles, then it needs to be corrected, I understand.

• This edit was NPOV and well done.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility complaint

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What an unfounded complaint. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I appreciate a vote of support especially after we have had direct differences discussed, which ended amiably and with mutual respect, I'm glad to note. It may be that the culture of biology has different standards for paraphrasing and citing things than in history, so that a clash of cultures may be occuring:

You should consider his point of view. I'm coming down on him tough for 4 edits he made years ago. I was rather blunt and tough on his talk page. I assume he is rather ignorant of the history of these organizations and of the broader left history, and that he accepted the SPUSA history somewhat naively, and repeated the slander of "democratic centralism" without understanding that this is a diabolical slander (particularly given the blood, which could fill rivers, between communism and socialism; the non-rhetorical observation of rivers of blood was also made by Irving Howe, perhaps in his autobiography A Margin of Hope). He may well have cited Drucker in the spirit of "this is a good book, which covers these events, which a lay reader would benefit from reading"—such loose citing is suboptimal but harmless when there is a carefully written account using 2 or more reliable high quality sources. Here Drucker was the only independent/reliable source cited for these events, which are contentious and covered by WP:BLP, since many are still alive.

I think my tone was tougher in the later exchanges on his talk page than on the article page. Make sure that you know what I've written before you vouch for me, okay! :)

It's always good to be tough on ourselves and gentle on the opponent when push comes to shove.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Misplaced Pages in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Misplaced Pages compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Disequilibrium economics article

I would like to start an article on disequilibrium economics. I would start by taking the current content on History of macroeconomic thought, expand on it, and create a new article. I would replace the content on HMT with slightly shorter and more basic treatment. Please let me know if you're OK with this, and if you have any ideas on the contents, scope, title, etc. for an article on disequilibrium economics.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Like most of your ideas, this is a good idea, and consistent with the spinning-off policy for large articles. This would allow interested readers to learn more.

There is a need to discuss serious GET theory in the macro article. "Arrow-Debreu GET" is invoked by the RBC people the way Julia Kristeva invokes catastrophe theory, or the way country preachers invoke their month of Greek and Hebrew. I would hope that you would remove illegitimate invocations of GET, even if "authorities" (with no contributions to GET) repeat them.

I seem to be the only one championing general-equilibrium economics, and the extension to price-rationing GET (which has disequilibrium consequences for macroeconomics). I'm amazed that people living (especially in the U.S.) during this deep recession are so happy to assume instantaneous market-clearing and that the economy should be modeled with 3 agents solving stochastic dynamic-programming problems: It's time for me to re-read When Prophecy Fails.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RFB question

Just curious, did you read that entire thread that you just linked to?--Cube lurker (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, Cube lurker, I read the statement containing an apology which was dated in 2010. This sufficed for me to reply to TCO that Hershold had apologized.

Following your prompt, I shall read the entire thread.

Of course, I shall correct any mistatement (following my reading).

(I was just looking at Bertrand Russell!)

Thanks for your gentle prompting! Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I only ask because the apology only came after someone (ok, me) called him on failing to apologize.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I read it. He states that he was incorrect but that he's pressed for time by other events (IRL??) and irritated at having an apology demanded from him (which seems to be to be an honest admission of human limitations). The next day, he states that the thread has been archived, but makes an apology on his talk page.

To me, that may not be the best response possible, but it looks like the response of an honest and considerate person who admitted a mistake.

If you tell me to read the ANI archives, to understand why I was wrong to reply to TCO, I will need coffee but I'll do so.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I accept that your view of the conversation may not match mine. That's natural, perceptions vary for a multitude of reasons. My only real issue is that you specifically state that he apologized 'not because he was called on it' where if you check timestamps between the ANI thread, my comment on his talk page, and the apology, It's clear that it never would have occurred had he not been called on it. I just found your firm statement there at odds with the chronology of events.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Just saw your modification. 100% cool with it now.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your gentle manner, and your letting me discover my error rather than rubbing my face in it, made it easy to forget my ego and clarify my statement, to stress my objecting to "just now" (while allowing for TCO/your "calling him on it"). Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Winger, Richard. "Institutional Obstacles to a Multiparty System," in Multiparty Politics in America, Paul S. Herrnson and John C. Green, eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997)
2. Ansolabehere, Stephen and Gerber, Alan. "The Effects of Filing Fees and Petition Requirements on U.S. House Elections," Legislative Studies Quarterly 21 no. 2 (1996)
3. Fitts, Michael A. "Back to the Future: Enduring Dilemmas Revealed in the Supreme Court's Treatment of Political Parties", in The U.S. Supreme Court and the Electoral Process (2nd ed.) David K. Ryden, ed. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002 ISBN 9780878408863 pp. 103-105 and passim
4. 2008, pp. 63.
5. Beichman, Arnold (July 28, 2002). "Communism to anti-communism in lives of two rival editors". The Washington Times. Goliath.ecnext.com. Retrieved February 7, 2010.
6. Heilbrunn, Jacob (February 1, 2008). "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of The Neocons". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 7, 2010.
7. ^ Busky 2000, pp. 164.
8. Busky 2000, pp. 165.
9. "Socialist Party Now the Social Democrats, U.S.A." The New York Times. December 31, 1972. Retrieved February 8, 2010.(Pay-fee for article)