User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

RE: Freedom House

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

saw your comment on my talk page but im not sure what you want me to do? A 2O in what?Lihaas (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lihaas!

I reverted about 11 edits. The last 5 or so were by a very reasonable editor, who has been very good at working out a consensus. I haven't heard from the POV-pushing editor of the middle 5, or the student who incorporated an essay. I was afraid that all 3 would go bananas...! False alarm, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues his ownership of articles, and uncivil style of communication

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

Thanks!

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

Never mind the BLP/RS bullocks, here comes another future ANI critic with "civility" advice

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Incivility

recent diff

Hi.

Please take the tone of your rhetoric down a notch. personal attacks and incivility are simply inappropriate.

Please try to talk about the content in question and not an editor.

If this sort of thing continues, you may be subject to further sanction, such as being blocked. - jc37 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go ~~away~~ in peace.

I wrote about his stupid behavior, not any stupidity---per WP:NPA.

You should be concerned that he's damaging articles, without having a clue what he's writing about, per Pillars 1-3 and 5 of this "encyclopedia".

Have you left him a warning about any of the first 3 pillars, like "hey, this is an encyclopedia, so you should be responsible about editing, especially about living persons---especially since our biographies become the most visited biographies on the planet"?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz does not always follow his nose,
which sometimes doesn't know,
the flavor of loops,
where ever he goes.

KW does not write in Brian Eno that "Eno is recognized as a master of colorful breakfast-cereals", despite having heard that Eno is fond of loops and ....

KW wishes that a WP editor would not have written in Roger J-B Wets that "Roger Jean-Baptiste Wets is an American programmer".

Seriously You need to stop this right now. If I see this kind of incivility again, I'm going to report it. I'm telling you once more because I know that you know better and I'm sure that you're a productive member of the project. There's no reason for you to be so hostile and rude to others and if you don't stop, it's going to impede your ability to be productive as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying here and take this as a final warning (again) that you cannot flagrantly be belligerent to other editors. Simply put, Wikipedia does not need you if you're going to be so off-putting to others and keep them from wanting to engage the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Koavf,

Please read my reply to a similar but much better worded concern.

I don't rewrite your articles on Brian Eno and write that he is a cereal manufacturer---because at day care a friend of mine ate Froot Loops, and I read that Eno loops things. I am aware of my ignorance, and my humility prevents me from destroying articles, particularly BLPs.

Bot-like implementation of WP:MOS heuristics---regardless of BLP guidelines, respect for living persons, and veracity---deserves scorn. I am tired of your rigid editing on P J Crook, whose lack of periods has led another editor to a worse fiasco at Roger J-B Wets.

Please go in peace.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

False modesty

Hi David/WTT!

Nice message! :) How can I not give you my full consideration?

Justin has been showing up in article after article, in which I have been editing, and I cannot see how his noticeboard-style (rather than talking with editors on talk pages) results in a better WP or is reasonable. I repeatedly asked him to read the lede of articles before he recategorizes them, and I am sorry that he still has failed to reply to that request.

I am unimpressed with most of the discussion at the category noticeboard, which seems concerned with quoting poorly understood parts of the MOS, whose proper application requires first establishing the facts in question. Your recent edits showed that this expert panel had misunderstood the MOS. You looked at P J Crook's spelling in RSes, which none of the others has claimed; I believe that one has found an example of "P.J. Crook" once.

I had already struck-through "go away", adding " go in peace", before your non-redundant and thoughtful note. "Go in peace" remains good enough for some reliable sources, and should it be should be good enough for Wikipedia.

I noted your ascension to the clerkship on Malleus's page. I would trust your judgment not to close tight RfAs, and I think that you should consider helping out as a bureaucrat also. I have previously noted wishing that you had won ArbCom election, rather than AGK. I should be happy to co-nominate or be an early endorser for you as a bureaucrat.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So you did! I hadn't noticed, I don't habitually watch Malleus' page. I did however notice that I had been mentioned with regards for 'cratship on WT:RFA. I left a note there regarding my feelings on the matter, but basically it's a very high level of scrutiny for a button. I ran for Arbcom because I saw flaws in the system along with a negative perception, which I thought I could improve. I'm not a repetitive button pusher, it just doesn't hold my interest. As for clerkship, it's feeling horribly bureaucratic for very little useful output, so I'm unsure if it's a role I'll stay in. I'd much rather help new users at a twee drinking ceremony.

My thoughts on PJ Crook was that if she calls herself PJ (a common shortening, such as PJ Harvey) - then it's actually a common name, not an initiallisation. The sources seem to agree with that line of thought in any case. When it comes to the categories though, it does appear to the outside observer that you emptied a category which was up for deletion and placed all the items in an almost identical category. It appears to me that they are coincidental factors, but I can see why other editors are bothered by it. It also gives the impression of double the number of categories up for deletion, which never helps.

I've looked at Justin's recent tagging though and I don't see that he's doing anything wrong. He's raised these issues in the place that most editors would expect them to be raised. For example, bringing them to CfD exposes them to neutral editors who have no hat in the ring. It's not hard to post a neutrally worded note at the relevant wikiproject. If you consider an article that might be going through a deletion process, would you expect the nominator to discuss the deletion with the wikiproject first? I certainly wouldn't. Either way, negative comments regarding Justin using AWB or not creating articles only serve to take away from your other points which, in general, are correct.

Oh, and can I just say thank you very much for the vote of support and offer of nomination with regards to cratship, I really do appreciate them. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues his ownership of articles, and uncivil style of communication

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

Thanks!

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

Afd

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Thanks!

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

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

Never mind the BLP/RS bullocks, here comes another future ANI critic with "civility" advice

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Incivility

recent diff

Hi.

Please take the tone of your rhetoric down a notch. personal attacks and incivility are simply inappropriate.

Please try to talk about the content in question and not an editor.

If this sort of thing continues, you may be subject to further sanction, such as being blocked. - jc37 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go ~~away~~ in peace.

I wrote about his stupid behavior, not any stupidity---per WP:NPA.

You should be concerned that he's damaging articles, without having a clue what he's writing about, per Pillars 1-3 and 5 of this "encyclopedia".

Have you left him a warning about any of the first 3 pillars, like "hey, this is an encyclopedia, so you should be responsible about editing, especially about living persons---especially since our biographies become the most visited biographies on the planet"?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz does not always follow his nose,
which sometimes doesn't know,
the flavor of loops,
where ever he goes.

KW does not write in Brian Eno that "Eno is recognized as a master of colorful breakfast-cereals", despite having heard that Eno is fond of loops and ....

KW wishes that a WP editor would not have written in Roger J-B Wets that "Roger Jean-Baptiste Wets is an American programmer".

Seriously You need to stop this right now. If I see this kind of incivility again, I'm going to report it. I'm telling you once more because I know that you know better and I'm sure that you're a productive member of the project. There's no reason for you to be so hostile and rude to others and if you don't stop, it's going to impede your ability to be productive as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying here and take this as a final warning (again) that you cannot flagrantly be belligerent to other editors. Simply put, Wikipedia does not need you if you're going to be so off-putting to others and keep them from wanting to engage the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Koavf,

Please read my reply to a similar but much better worded concern.

I don't rewrite your articles on Brian Eno and write that he is a cereal manufacturer---because at day care a friend of mine ate Froot Loops, and I read that Eno loops things. I am aware of my ignorance, and my humility prevents me from destroying articles, particularly BLPs.

Bot-like implementation of WP:MOS heuristics---regardless of BLP guidelines, respect for living persons, and veracity---deserves scorn. I am tired of your rigid editing on P J Crook, whose lack of periods has led another editor to a worse fiasco at Roger J-B Wets.

Please go in peace.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

False modesty

Hi David/WTT!

Nice message! :) How can I not give you my full consideration?

Justin has been showing up in article after article, in which I have been editing, and I cannot see how his noticeboard-style (rather than talking with editors on talk pages) results in a better WP or is reasonable. I repeatedly asked him to read the lede of articles before he recategorizes them, and I am sorry that he still has failed to reply to that request.

I am unimpressed with most of the discussion at the category noticeboard, which seems concerned with quoting poorly understood parts of the MOS, whose proper application requires first establishing the facts in question. Your recent edits showed that this expert panel had misunderstood the MOS. You looked at P J Crook's spelling in RSes, which none of the others has claimed; I believe that one has found an example of "P.J. Crook" once.

I had already struck-through "go away", adding " go in peace", before your non-redundant and thoughtful note. "Go in peace" remains good enough for some reliable sources, and should it be should be good enough for Wikipedia.

I noted your ascension to the clerkship on Malleus's page. I would trust your judgment not to close tight RfAs, and I think that you should consider helping out as a bureaucrat also. I have previously noted wishing that you had won ArbCom election, rather than AGK. I should be happy to co-nominate or be an early endorser for you as a bureaucrat.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So you did! I hadn't noticed, I don't habitually watch Malleus' page. I did however notice that I had been mentioned with regards for 'cratship on WT:RFA. I left a note there regarding my feelings on the matter, but basically it's a very high level of scrutiny for a button. I ran for Arbcom because I saw flaws in the system along with a negative perception, which I thought I could improve. I'm not a repetitive button pusher, it just doesn't hold my interest. As for clerkship, it's feeling horribly bureaucratic for very little useful output, so I'm unsure if it's a role I'll stay in. I'd much rather help new users at a twee drinking ceremony.

My thoughts on PJ Crook was that if she calls herself PJ (a common shortening, such as PJ Harvey) - then it's actually a common name, not an initiallisation. The sources seem to agree with that line of thought in any case. When it comes to the categories though, it does appear to the outside observer that you emptied a category which was up for deletion and placed all the items in an almost identical category. It appears to me that they are coincidental factors, but I can see why other editors are bothered by it. It also gives the impression of double the number of categories up for deletion, which never helps.

I've looked at Justin's recent tagging though and I don't see that he's doing anything wrong. He's raised these issues in the place that most editors would expect them to be raised. For example, bringing them to CfD exposes them to neutral editors who have no hat in the ring. It's not hard to post a neutrally worded note at the relevant wikiproject. If you consider an article that might be going through a deletion process, would you expect the nominator to discuss the deletion with the wikiproject first? I certainly wouldn't. Either way, negative comments regarding Justin using AWB or not creating articles only serve to take away from your other points which, in general, are correct.

Oh, and can I just say thank you very much for the vote of support and offer of nomination with regards to cratship, I really do appreciate them. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues his ownership of articles, and uncivil style of communication

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

Thanks!

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

Afd

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Thanks!

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

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

Never mind the BLP/RS bullocks, here comes another future ANI critic with "civility" advice

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Incivility

recent diff

Hi.

Please take the tone of your rhetoric down a notch. personal attacks and incivility are simply inappropriate.

Please try to talk about the content in question and not an editor.

If this sort of thing continues, you may be subject to further sanction, such as being blocked. - jc37 23:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Please go ~~away~~ in peace.

I wrote about his stupid behavior, not any stupidity---per WP:NPA.

You should be concerned that he's damaging articles, without having a clue what he's writing about, per Pillars 1-3 and 5 of this "encyclopedia".

Have you left him a warning about any of the first 3 pillars, like "hey, this is an encyclopedia, so you should be responsible about editing, especially about living persons---especially since our biographies become the most visited biographies on the planet"?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz does not always follow his nose,
which sometimes doesn't know,
the flavor of loops,
where ever he goes.

KW does not write in Brian Eno that "Eno is recognized as a master of colorful breakfast-cereals", despite having heard that Eno is fond of loops and ....

KW wishes that a WP editor would not have written in Roger J-B Wets that "Roger Jean-Baptiste Wets is an American programmer".

Seriously You need to stop this right now. If I see this kind of incivility again, I'm going to report it. I'm telling you once more because I know that you know better and I'm sure that you're a productive member of the project. There's no reason for you to be so hostile and rude to others and if you don't stop, it's going to impede your ability to be productive as well. I hope you understand what I'm saying here and take this as a final warning (again) that you cannot flagrantly be belligerent to other editors. Simply put, Wikipedia does not need you if you're going to be so off-putting to others and keep them from wanting to engage the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Koavf,

Please read my reply to a similar but much better worded concern.

I don't rewrite your articles on Brian Eno and write that he is a cereal manufacturer---because at day care a friend of mine ate Froot Loops, and I read that Eno loops things. I am aware of my ignorance, and my humility prevents me from destroying articles, particularly BLPs.

Bot-like implementation of WP:MOS heuristics---regardless of BLP guidelines, respect for living persons, and veracity---deserves scorn. I am tired of your rigid editing on P J Crook, whose lack of periods has led another editor to a worse fiasco at Roger J-B Wets.

Please go in peace.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 12:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

False modesty

Hi David/WTT!

Nice message! :) How can I not give you my full consideration?

Justin has been showing up in article after article, in which I have been editing, and I cannot see how his noticeboard-style (rather than talking with editors on talk pages) results in a better WP or is reasonable. I repeatedly asked him to read the lede of articles before he recategorizes them, and I am sorry that he still has failed to reply to that request.

I am unimpressed with most of the discussion at the category noticeboard, which seems concerned with quoting poorly understood parts of the MOS, whose proper application requires first establishing the facts in question. Your recent edits showed that this expert panel had misunderstood the MOS. You looked at P J Crook's spelling in RSes, which none of the others has claimed; I believe that one has found an example of "P.J. Crook" once.

I had already struck-through "go away", adding " go in peace", before your non-redundant and thoughtful note. "Go in peace" remains good enough for some reliable sources, and should it be should be good enough for Wikipedia.

I noted your ascension to the clerkship on Malleus's page. I would trust your judgment not to close tight RfAs, and I think that you should consider helping out as a bureaucrat also. I have previously noted wishing that you had won ArbCom election, rather than AGK. I should be happy to co-nominate or be an early endorser for you as a bureaucrat.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So you did! I hadn't noticed, I don't habitually watch Malleus' page. I did however notice that I had been mentioned with regards for 'cratship on WT:RFA. I left a note there regarding my feelings on the matter, but basically it's a very high level of scrutiny for a button. I ran for Arbcom because I saw flaws in the system along with a negative perception, which I thought I could improve. I'm not a repetitive button pusher, it just doesn't hold my interest. As for clerkship, it's feeling horribly bureaucratic for very little useful output, so I'm unsure if it's a role I'll stay in. I'd much rather help new users at a twee drinking ceremony.

My thoughts on PJ Crook was that if she calls herself PJ (a common shortening, such as PJ Harvey) - then it's actually a common name, not an initiallisation. The sources seem to agree with that line of thought in any case. When it comes to the categories though, it does appear to the outside observer that you emptied a category which was up for deletion and placed all the items in an almost identical category. It appears to me that they are coincidental factors, but I can see why other editors are bothered by it. It also gives the impression of double the number of categories up for deletion, which never helps.

I've looked at Justin's recent tagging though and I don't see that he's doing anything wrong. He's raised these issues in the place that most editors would expect them to be raised. For example, bringing them to CfD exposes them to neutral editors who have no hat in the ring. It's not hard to post a neutrally worded note at the relevant wikiproject. If you consider an article that might be going through a deletion process, would you expect the nominator to discuss the deletion with the wikiproject first? I certainly wouldn't. Either way, negative comments regarding Justin using AWB or not creating articles only serve to take away from your other points which, in general, are correct.

Oh, and can I just say thank you very much for the vote of support and offer of nomination with regards to cratship, I really do appreciate them. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kiefer.Wolfowitz continues his ownership of articles, and uncivil style of communication

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

Thanks!

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