User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive

Mathematical optimization

Template:Optimization algorithms and Local unimodal sampling

Optimering's message

A regrettable dispute

Hello,

This is a friendly message.

For some reason we had a falling out on Template_talk:Optimization_algorithms. My recollection of the events is that we had been discussing changes to that navbox for months, off and on. I wanted to either delete the navbox or split it into several specialized navboxes because I thought it was too confusing to lump everything into one. You wanted to keep it the way it was, stating it held the most important items, but encouraged me to make edits to it. I finally did, and you apparently disagreed with the edits and considered them an insult somehow. This is most regrettable and I can assure you that it was not intended. I have studied your contributions to Wikipedia and I can see that you are very knowledgeable in certain fields of optimization and advanced mathematics. I think it is wonderful that you are contributing to Wikipedia and I think you and I do it for the same purpose: to help others attain the knowledge we have.

Now, your behaviour towards me was quite aggressive. You also exposed a real-world identity which you think is me (I will neither confirm nor disconfirm), which is actually a very serious offence on Wikipedia and could get you blocked, see WP:OUTING. Furthermore, you have expressed strong dissent and made derogatory remarks about metaheuristics in several talk pages, which means that you have a WP:COI in editing those articles regardless of your personal relations to researchers, publications, etc., because you apparently wish to demote metaheuristics. I have also seen your post making derogatory remarks about certain universities, which is also not suitable for Wikipedia discussions.

However, I think your presence and edits are generally valuable to Wikipedia and this dispute appears to be the exception. I truly regret that we had this falling out and I am willing to bury the hatchet, so to speak, so we can both continue contributing to Wikipedia without these unpleasant disputes. By the way, I have seen your concerns about Local unimodal sampling and as I note on its talk-page I will address them as soon as I can find the time.

Cheers,

Optimering (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, WP:AGF may compel us to conclude that you are simply a fan of the thesis in question. You are welcome to ask an administrator to block me.

I am not the first person to comment on your tendentious editing, which has occurred at least since October. At least 4 administrators have cautioned you about WP:OR and WP:COI concerns, and I see little reason to believe that you have taken them seriously, or considered the consequences of a larger discussion of your editing.

If you want to add the thesis to articles or write WP articles about its contents, few would notice. Your promoting such topics metaheuristics as "the most general/popular" optimization algorithms and adding "ant colony algorithm on the optimization template, raises your profile and subjects your edits to greater scrutiny.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC) (10:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

People who solve real problems in optimization and computer science, e.g. Papadimitriou or Karp, have earned the respect of the optimization community. They carry the union card. I don't have a COI against "heuristics", and I would recommend that you read good articles interpolating between something theoretical and something empirical, something old and something new:

• Stefankovic,Daniel; Vempala, Santosh; Vigoda, Eric. Adaptive simulated annealing: a near-optimal connection between sampling and counting. J. ACM 56 (2009), no. 3, Art. 18, 36 pp.
• Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C. D., Jr.; Vecchi, M. P. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220 (1983), no. 4598, 671–680

I am not an expert in heuristics or metaheuristics, generally, but knowing a fair amount about stochastic methods of optimization was a prerequisite to signing my name  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

You misunderstand me again. I did not post metaheuristics in the navbox believing it was the most popular, important, or to promote it in any way. I posted it because it was how I understood the headline 'methods calling functions,' which sounded to me like programmer's lingo for someone really meaning to say 'metaheuristic.' Also, the list was made in a general-to-specific ordering in which metaheuristics are more general and gradient/hessian are more specific. Inside that category I ordered metaheuristics which I perceive - from experience and citation counts, etc. - to be the most popular first, i.e. genetic algorithm first, and so forth. However, as User:Ruud Koot has mentioned the original navbox was actually highly focused on certain types of optimization methodologies and domains so it really ought to be expanded and split up. We have now started separating the navbox into several independent ones and this should hopefully resolve the dispute. I have no wish to make further comments on this or your other (rather presumptuous and condescending) remarks. Optimering (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was problematic for a number of reasons. Your earlier edit summary ("tried to order from general to specific, and from most to least popular/relevant") was less confidence-building than your current explanation, which I'll accept, in the spirit of moving on, which you suggested first.

I welcome your initiative with starting new nav boxes, as I stated on the page. In particular, a nav-box with problem classes is probably more useful to many persons than is a nav-box on optimization algorithms.

The nav-box on optimization algorithms should continue to exist, and it should continue to appear on the bottom of the page of its algorithms. I would be pleased if the a line on graph/network algorithms would be added, as Ruud suggested. When I started a line on combinatorial algorithms, I just used the paradigmatic algorithms mentioned in the first edition of Cormen, Rivest, et alia, and the combinatorial algorithms mentioned in Shapiro and Minoux, for example. The weak state of many additional articles on combinatorial optimization and my own ignorance & time-limitations inhibited me from adding further algorithms. Again, I would encourage Ruud and others to add a graph/network algorithm line.

I mentioned my ideas of building nav-boxes on optimization theory (foundations, mathematics) and on convex/variational analysis. These might be viable simply because the mathematics articles are in better shape. The optimization articles are generally weak, and many are inferior to their counterparts on French Wikipedia, for example. It would be good to prioritize expanding content, for example, with improving integer programming or starting Roger Fletcher's filter method, imho.

I would encourage you to join the WikiProject groups on computer science and on systems and even on mathematics (which is large), and discuss your ideas there. I believe that such public discussions would help us both with redoing the optimization algorithms nav-box, etc.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I believe I was thinking of the Mockus family of stochastic optimization, rather than the Paulakus family, when I mentioned Lithuanians.

Let us then accept your account of your editing with the local unimodal sampling article. You seem to have understood my concern with the use of sources and apparent OR ... trying ... to document notability of the thesis. I would suggest you develop an appropriate article (which you outlined above) in your sandbox, and then add it to the mainspace, replacing the lus article with a redirect.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 08:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My further failures in conflict resolution can be seen at Ruud's talk page and also at Optimering's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard: Optimering

Others renewed the discussion of the edits of Optimering at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination: Criss-cross algorithm & Klee–Minty cube

I'm just creating an archival copy of the nomination for Did You Know?. (The last nomination had its picture somehow corrupted.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• ... that, while the criss-cross algorithm visits all 8 corners of the Klee–Minty cube when started at a worst corner, it visits only 3 more corners on average when started at a random corner?

• Reviewed: Susie Fishbein ([1])
• Comment: CRGreathouse has applauded this hook, which has 167 characters.

Created by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 16:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Criss-cross algorithm

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The KM cube received more than 5K visits and the criss cross algorithm received over 4K visits.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 07:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ominous cubes: Prolegomena to a navbox ?

For sentimentality, I'll put a copy of this here.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The old version had only two groups, "nice" and "ominous": The ominous cubes were the Hellraiser cube, the Cosmic Cube, and (!) the Klee-Minty cube.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Sergeant Carter

Probably under the influence of April Fools' Day ....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cubes

Template:Cubes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JaGa^talk 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Variable splitting

Another optimization-related topic....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Variable splitting, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://reasoning.cs.ucla.edu/fetch.php?id=102&type=pdf.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The bot is wrong. I created this article from scratch, using material I remember from Michael Andersson's thesis under Ake Bjork at Linkoping University c. 2000.

• Adlers, Mikael; Björck, Åke. "Matrix stretching for sparse least squares problems". Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications. 7 (2). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISSN 1099-1506. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Alvarado, Fernando (1997). "Matrix enlarging methods and their application". BIT Numerical Mathematics. 37 (3): 473–505. doi:10.1007/BF02510237. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Grcar, J. F. Matrix stretching for linear equations, Technical Report SAND90-8723, Sandia National Laboratories, November 1990.
• Vanderbei, Robert J. (1991). "Splitting dense columns in sparse linear systems". Linear Algebra and its Applications. 152: 107–117. doi:10.1016/0024-3795(91)90269-3. ISSN 0024-3795. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The cited paper failed to claim to discover the Americas and Africa, strangely, although it fails to cite any literature from the established literature. Their Dean(s) must be so very impressed with their magnificent research accomplishments!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion)

Monty Hall problem: WP:ArbCom

The next few items are motivated by the Monty Hall problem arbitration.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Original mathematical research: Example

I argue that explaining mathematical results for the general public sometimes requires original exposition, glossing topics that are familiar to mathematicians. The current version of Shapley–Folkman lemma is simpler but uses some original simplifications of a research result (of Ekeland).

Current article: Sequential convergence simplification

For a separable problem, we consider an optimal solution (x_min, f(x_min) )

to the "convexified problem", where convex hulls are taken of the graphs of the summand functions. Such an optimal solution is the limit of a sequence of points in the convexified problem

(x_j, f(x_j) ) ∈  ∑ Conv (Graph( f_n )).

• Ekeland, Ivar (1999). "Appendix I: An a priori estimate in convex programming". In Ekeland, Ivar; Temam, Roger (eds.). Convex analysis and variational problems. Classics in applied mathematics. Vol. 28 (Corrected reprinting of the (1976) North-Holland ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). pp. 357–373. ISBN 0-89871-450-8. MR 1727362. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Green, Jerry; Heller, Walter P. (1981). "1 Mathematical analysis and convexity with applications to economics". In Arrow, Kenneth Joseph; Intriligator, Michael D (eds.). Handbook of mathematical economics, Volume I. Handbooks in economics. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. pp. 15–52. doi:10.1016/S1573-4382(81)01005-9. ISBN 0-444-86126-2. MR 0634800. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Rockafellar, R. Tyrrell (1997). Convex analysis. Princeton landmarks in mathematics (Reprint of the 1979 Princeton mathematical series 28 ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. xviii+451. ISBN 0-691-01586-4. MR 1451876. MR274683. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Old version: Glossing closure of a set, at imho excessive length

For a separable problem, we consider an optimal solution

x_min = (x₁, ..., x_N)_min

with the minimum value f(x_min). For a separable problem, one could guess that an optimal point (x_min, f(x_min)) might be contained in the sum of the convex hulls of the summands' graphs

(x_min, f(x_min) )  ∈  ∑ Conv (Graph( f_n )),

but this guess would be wrong. In truth, a more complicated expression

(x_min, f(x_min) ) ∈  Clos( ∑ Conv (Graph(f_n ) ) )

using the closure of a set is needed. (Topologically closed sets are defined in the following subsection.) An application of the Shapley–Folkman lemma represents the given optimal-point as a sum of points in the graphs of the original summands and of a small number of convexified summands. ...

Closure of a set

The preceeding results use concepts of closed sets from mathematical analysis (the theory of calculus), which we define. As suggested by the preceding subsection, closed sets are useful for proving that some minimum solution exists.

• A set is closed if it contains its limit points.

An example of a non-closed set is the harmonic sequence

( 1⁄n  : n is a positive natural number ) =( 1, 1⁄2, 1⁄3, ... ),

which converges to zero. The equation 0=1⁄n is unsolvable in natural numbers, which implies that zero is not a memberof { 1⁄n }. However, because zero is a limit point of the harmonic sequence, the set { 1⁄n } is not closed.

• The closure of a set Q, denoted Clos(Q), is the union of Q and all the limit points of Q. (This definition implies that the closure of a set is indeed a closed set.)

Thus, the closure of the harmonic sequence includes zero, which is its only limit point

Clos( { 1⁄n } ) = {0, 1, 1⁄2, 1⁄3, ... }.

In terms of optimization theory, the set of the harmonic sequence lacks a minimum, but its closure has a minimum. This example shows the use of closed sets in optimization theory.

The Minkowski sum of two closed sets need not be closed, so the following inclusion can be strict

Clos(P) + Clos(Q) ⊆ Clos( Clos(P) + Clos(Q) );

the inclusion can be strict even for two convex closed summand-sets. In many problems, then, ensuring that the Minkowski sum of sets be closed requires the closure operation. In the optimization theory of the preceding subsection, the closure operation ensures that the set

Clos( ∑ Conv (Graph( f_n ) ) )

is indeed closed.

Discussion: RE Monty Hall Problem arbitration

The second version just glosses Ekeland's analysis, using the closure of a set. Glossing this notion requires a lot of work.

The first version simplifies Ekeland's analysis, using the sequential closure of a set, which is the same thing here, because of the uniqueness of (reasonable) topologies in finite dimension. All mathematicians would recognize that the second version is essentially the same version, but this requires knowledge of undergraduate mathematics (or beginning USA graduate mathematics).

My concern is that Phil Knight's (original and imho even revised) finding in the Monty Hall Problem arbitration would seem to ban the simplification of the first version as WP:Original research. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page of the WikiProject Mathematics, editor JRSpriggs notes that mathematicians on WP most often invoke OR (especially by synthesis, I'll add) when dealing with tendentious editing. Otherwise, WP mathematicians use examples that are similar in spirit to published examples; simililarly with proofs. My concern is that such (trivial to a mathematician) examples or proofs may be barred by the proposed wording.

In practice, the proposed wording (if adopted more widely) may make it impossible to have mathematical articles achieve featured or good status, which would be a loss to WP and mathematics.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 09:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone provides a new example for a well established proof or method, that is analogous to someone using a different example to distinguish a simile from a metaphor, to avoid copyvio, and no-one would challenge it. The issue with your gloss is that without there being a published version from which you are working, you would have a hard time with verifiability. In this case, it would be analogous to someone explaining how some new kind of jet engine worked on the basis that they are an aircraft engineer, and other aircraft engineers would all know it was right. He probably is right, but we wouldn't accept it on Wikipedia until someone published it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be easy to find reliable references explaining the use of sequential convergence in general. However, this explanation has not appeared for this problem, because it is trivial and not needed for the specialists reading Ekeland's original work. (Ekeland is also interested in functional-analytic problems, so he needs the generality). I believe that such exposition is not regarded as "OR by synthesis" in the WP Mathematics Project. We are worried that villagers with pitchforks and torches may stop our articles on the way to GA or FA status!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Geometry Guy asked a question about another example in this article. I'll make sure that the Shapley-Folkman lemma is vetted by the math project first, before asking for A-status or FA status. (It may be that the WP community could refine the OR by synthesis language for mathematics, now that the MHP has gotten attention.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I am troubled by the line, if any, between original research and original pedagogy or original illustration. I doubt this line can be drawn clearly but that seems necessary here at wikipedia; otherwise the research ban curtails development of original pedagogy that is crucial for many articles (not only mathematical ones). It's comforting that some people are paying close attention to this potential problem. Best wishes to all participants.

Re the illustration under discussion, I think the Old version gloss --from subheading "Closure" to "This is an example use ..."-- would be instructive only for readers who would skip the entire section "Mathematical optimization". --P64 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Standing up for Gill

I understand you feel strongly about this, but keep in mind that WP:COI is a guideline with no bright line, so "violation" is always going to be a matter of degree in the eye of the beholder. I can easily think of far worst cases, which make anything Gill may have done negligible in comparison, but it's up to ArbCom to decide how to phrase it; they have probably seen a fair share of that e.g. Insisting on a proclamation of absolute non-culpability from them is probably counterproductive at this point. As they used to say "Don't shoot the piano player; he's doing the best he can". Tijfo098 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary. I tried to give them a short statement, without argument, to avoid taxing their eyeballs. I have been encouraged that previously a few ArbCom members have indicated discomfort with the wording regarding Gill. Thanks again for your good judgment and advice.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 18:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		for your tireless liaison work at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Elen,

That's very kind of you and I greatly appreciate the barnstar, especially coming from you.

I was gladdened also by your spelling out that one of the editors could try cooperatively editing for a spell at the simple English Wikipedia, and then simply ask for a reconsideration.

Warm regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Diplomacy", eh?: Staying after school to write at the chalkboard

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Pipes

Please be more NPOV in your edit summaries. Corvus cornix_talk 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right: Referring to IPS as looney left was inappropriate: I am sorry. However, WP article does seem to plagiarize one of the less reliable pages at IPS, which is no mean achievement: IPS is not usually regarded as a reliable source. The WP article's referring to 1976 as "during the cold war" seems to me to be even more problematic and POV then my summary, also!

Also, the idea of citing Sheila Fitzpatrick as a source to attack Pipes seems to reverse the usual estimation of their scholarship by professional historians of Russia, at least among my friends, who are usually not considered to be reactionaries .... The statement that Pipes portrays Lenin as "merely a sociopath" should embarrass an intelligent and honest person, although therefore not necessarily a communist. He certainly was a sociopath who used terror against innocent civilians, in addition to being a meglomaniac, etc. The attacks on Pipe should be an embarrassment to WP, and certainly violate the policy on living persons.

To leave on a friendly note, IPS used to have an association with Barbara Ehrenreich, (Ph.D. in Botany from Rockafeller Institute) who is a great person, and Roger Wilkins did provide wisdom to the brave-hearted IPS softball team as it faced its annual thumping from the ex-Marines at Heritage Institute. And the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award from human rights honors great organizations, like WOLA, so greater respect was due.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 03:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

About edit summaries

I'm a bit concerned about the wording used in your comments and especially your edit summaries here and here. I don't disagree with your assessment, but it's best to refrain from expressing it so, ahm, vehemently. After all politeness is a basic pillar of Wikipedia. LK (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I transposed a few words from a famous polemic by John Hammersley, "On the enfeeblement of mathematical skills by so-called 'Modern Mathematics' and other soft intellectual trash taught in the schools and universities". I am rather fond of soft intellectual trash such as modern mathematics, btw,!

I should have summarized the contents of the edit in NPOV and gentle fashion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I do try to catch frogs that escape from my mouth---er, keyboard, and remove or strike out intemperate remarks, probably no more than once or twice a week, I'd guess.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK and mathematicians: Ekeland, Phelps, "P. ORNO", and "John Rainwater"

Ivar Ekeland: DYK nomination

• ... that Ivar Ekeland inspired the discussion of chaos theory and fractals (like the Julia set, pictured) in Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton?

• Reviewed: Polyfluorene ([2])
• Comment: Ekeland wrote about the Feigenbaum bifurcation etc., but not the Julia set (whose brilliant illustration would compel DYK attention, and so is preferred).

• ... that, by writing about fractals (pictured), Ivar Ekeland inspired the discussion of chaos theory in Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

5x expanded by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk). Self nom at 10:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for maybe making this harder work for you than it needed to be, but a good result in the end I think; well done! Jheald (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had made a mistake on the short entry for the Ian Malcolm character, where I had mistakenly substituted Ian Stewart for James Gleick, so in double-checking my work (because of your concern) I realized my error. Further, as David noted, and as even I admit, it's good to mention Gleick besides Stewart. (I was afraid of having to mention a gaggle of mathematicians, when I resisted mentioning "others".) Thus, you were right and indeed helpful. Thanks for your kind note.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ou sont les Snowdens of yesteryear?

DYK for Ivar Ekeland

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Phelps

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter Orno

Blessed be the peacemakers

Kiefer, I had/have no intention of derailing your DYK. It is clear that you and I have slightly different opinions, and if you look at the other comments, you'll see that neither you nor I are alone there. Reasonable people should be able to agree reasonably--for instance, I am not holding it against you that you are interested in math and Ohio State, whether the more reasonable person (that is, me) knows that the combination of English and the University of Alabama is much more righteous. But we can continue this struggle next year, hopefully in the BCS title game. In the meantime, I hope and expect that you will get tons of hits at DYK when it runs, which I am sure it will. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Drmies,

It's kind of you to write a personal note here, besides the last note on the DYK page. I am skeptical about the value of the articles on Orno and Rainwater, which amount to professional horse-play by mathematicians: Certainly such articles are excluded from printed encyclopedias. I started them after laughing at Phelps's article on Rainwater, and publicizing the (hilarious) stories of Rainwater and the puerile story of Orno was my main motive. Both would best appear on April Fools' Day, I think.

I certainly understand any concerns about maintaining quality and encyclopedia tone, by presenting Wikipedia as a sober source 364 days each year.

Again, I'm sorry for being irritated with your sequence of concerns. My allergies are killing me and my irritation was in retrospect more due to a headache, etc., but certainly not to any bad-faith by you.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. In another life, I could have been a English-literature graduate-student working on John Milton! I was delighted by Quentin Tarantino's discussion of Jack "King" Kirby's Silver Surfer in Crimson Tide. I was happy to defend the honor of Alabama's statistics professor Jean Gibbons some months back, btw. :)

Ah, all's well that ends well. Let's hope your dissertation, if that's where you're at, won't be derailed by your headache. Then again, if you are in Sweden, you must have a chronic headache mandated by law, no? Ju längre ekorren desto större nöje! Speaking of Miltonian headaches--many years ago I sent out an article on "Methought I Saw My Late Espoused Saint" and it got laughed out of court, so to speak, by no fewer than two reviewers (for Milton Studies, maybe). For revenge, I tried to pervert mankind, but with only moderate success. Good luck with the allergies, but medicate in moderation.

PS, both Milton Studies and Milton Quarterly are redlinks. Someone ought to take care of that. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Let Euclid rest and Archimedes pause, and what the Swede intend", indeed!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to think that Constantinos A. Patrides would have approved of this footnote: "Diestel (1984, p. 259) places Peter Orno in his index under the letter "p" as "P. ORNO", with all-capital letters in Diestel's original."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC) He had enlightening and tasteful glosses of Donne's "out do dildos" and Aeropagitica's defense of free farting....

BTW, I moved the Peter Orno discussion to the April Fools' DYK page, following EdJohnson's suggestion of nominating it there, instead. (I withdrew the main DYK nomination, thinking that Peter Orno may not be the best way to introduce WP to the public.) Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 14:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Then Folk are want to go on pilgrimmages ...., although professionals call them conferences

Congrats--I'm sure you'll get a lot more hits than I get for those odd medieval manuscripts. All the best! Drmies (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The mathematicians' silliness, Peter Orno, is prudish in comparison with Chaucer's Wife of Bath or The Miller's Tale---or with David Lodge's trilogy (Changing Places, Small World: An Academic Romance, and Nice Work, and lastly Thinks ..., which I still have to read)!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Martine Abdallah-Pretceille

Hello Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Martine Abdallah-Pretceille, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article in :fr says she is "professeure à l'Université de Paris VIII (« Vincennes à Saint-Denis »)". I think there is enough to pass A7, but maybe not WP:PROF - consider AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the courteous and helpful note, correcting my error. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 05:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Buggy editors since "upgrade" of JAVA

Netscape, Firefox (updated version 4), and Chrome have all frozen when I've used the editing templates in the last week, many times. Therefore, I've stopped worrying about the niceties of m-dashes and n-dashes, and now save changes with even slight edits. My apologies to Michael Hardy about my dashes.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 02:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kiefer.Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 04:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Potentially misleading comment at RfA

In this edit, you made a comment at Dylan620's RfA (one of your dozens of edits to that RfA) which some might interpret as trying to suggest that Dylan had made inappropriate edits to the files and article that you mentioned. In fact, he had made no inappropriate edits to them. Please could you explain the meaning and purpose of your comment? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Masochists may enjoy the following discussion, simply by clicking on the "show" button, to the right:

He has experience working with files, as I documented, following a statement that questioned his having experience working with files. (Close to a weaselly answer,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC))

Of course, since the question of maturity has been raised, the content of the pages is relevant:

• 2 image-files (of 5) involved penises.

Here is his COMPLETE list of file experience, which is supposed to be one of his concentration areas:

File

2 - Muggu.JPG

1 - RelaxedPenis.JPG

1 - TiananmennBrutality.jpg

1 - Dust_Bowl_-_Dallas,_South_Dakota_1936.jpg

1 - Prince_Albert_Piercing.jpg

• One of his few mainspace pageswas Fart, although 2/3 of those were apparently using other accounts (only 1 seemed to have been made from his account).

Here is the COMPLETE list of his talk-page contributions (posted at his Rfa):

Talk

11 - Rocko's_Modern_Life/GA1

7 - Hurricane_Paloma

7 - Rocko's_Modern_Life

6 - Timeline_of_the_2001_Atlantic_hurricane_season

5 - Hurricane_Ioke

5 - Timeline_of_the_1996_Atlantic_hurricane_season

5 - Hurricane_Kate_(2003)

3 - Fart

3 - Hurricane_Ioke/Poll

3 - Syriana

His lack of contributions to talk-pages should be grave concern.

Others can infer appropriate conclusions. My conclusion is that he is as mature and as immature as expected from an intelligent young teenager, which is to say, less mature than we should expect from administrators.

Now would you explain the meaning and purpose of your question?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What a curious conclusion. The file edits were reverting vandalism. How does that reflect on maturity?

"One of his few mainspace pages was Fart" - this doesn't seem to make any sense; he has over three and a half thousand edits to the mainspace. Looking at the history of that article, it has been edited by a number of adult administrators and other adult users. I certainly wouldn't question their maturity.

The purpose of my question was as stated - I wanted to know whether you were using misdirection to try to insinuate negative behaviour by the candidate, or if your comment had some other purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandals strike many pages, the candidate's choice of battles differs from mine and many adults.

I understand your concern, and today I would have written the remark with greater clarity, to show my respect. Please note my reply to Dylan.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see you're extensively altering your comments after I had already replied to them, which is less than transparent. However, even with the alterations in place, your comments are materially incorrect. For commenting on future RfAs I suggest that doing basic research would assist you in getting the facts right. Puffing yourself up as the self-appointed defender of minors' interests and spraying the RfA with dozens of arrogant and dismissive comments doesn't compensate for failing in that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I used the usual indenting to show that I had added content. I neglected to indent doubly the quotations of the candidate's contributions. (DONE)

What error of fact did I make? A correction would be welcome, but cannot you spew bile elsewhere?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You are a curious fellow: Your statement that you used to be spanked and used to spank boys stood out on your user page. Perhaps our concerns about young men differ.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I see it didn't take you long to descend to ad hominem. Have you worked out the factual error in your comments yet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

State my error, briefly, and then go away. You are presumably familiar with the policy about leaving user pages when asked.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 21:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such Wikipedia policy, no. Possibly you meant something else. However, there are other venues available for raising issues of repeated problematic or disruptive edits; raising concerns on the editor's talk page is merely seen as a polite first step. So it's no great inconvenience.

As regards your factual difficulties, I really am quite sure you realise it's not true that 11+7+7+6+5+5+5+3+3+3=186, if you had spent the time to think about it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote about "pages" and "images" (which I shall now embolden to help you). You should first master reading my words before you presume to guess my intentions.

Finally, you are not welcome here, and I ask you not to post again.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to the last word, as it seems that attempts to explain your misunderstanding are doomed to be futile for whatever reason. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Your error was simple: You imputed to me a concern about the distribution of his edits, when I had written about the pages listed.

I preferred you when you wrote your mind rather than retreating with a passive-aggressive "for whatever reason".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Here is the COMPLETE list of his talk-page contributions" -- your emphasis.

Since you mention it, I chose not to speculate about the reasons that you were unable to understand your mistake, purely because it is better to comment on content than on contributors. That's an approach I highly recommend. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I quoted exactly the summary that Dylan posted on his Rfa, no more no less, to save time and for fairness. I repeated the words "pages" and "files" many times. Now go away!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Time spent on WP: Error by K.W.

On a different aspect of that RfA: it seems to me your optional question to Dylan620 contains the assumption that he is sacrificing his social time and study time to editing Wikipedia. I don't know that there is a basis for that assumption. Dylan620's editing level actually seems quite reasonable (this itself has been cited by some opposers as a ground for opposing). This amount of editing could fit comfortably within what would otherwise be Dylan620's hobby time or his video-game time or his Facebook time, without eroding the more important things in his life. (I was going to point this out in a comment on the question, but instead will be interested to see what Dylan620 has to say for himself.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I shall review his level of activity. I use few tools, and it may be that I grossly over-estimated his time spent on fighting vandals etc. If so, then I shall revise my statement(s).

BTW, your essay seemed excellent to me.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You were correct and I was wrong. The candidate seems to have had appropriately limited levels of activity for some time. I corrected my remarks and withdrew my question. I am sorry for my asinine assumption, and very grateful that you corrected me, especially with charity.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 00:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)