User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Swedish?

I noticed you mentioned some swedes on your user page. Do you happen to speak Swedish? Carl Emil Pettersson is an unfinished translation and it doesn't have inline citations. I can get the book Kung Kalle av Kurrekurreduttön – en resa i Efraim Långstrumps fotspår through an interlibrary loan and scan pages, but I can't read it to help fix the citations. I'm looking for a Swedish editor to help out. Ryan Vesey 5:49 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

I can look for it in a library and translate what you need. If you need only a short section, then you can email me a scanned page or pdf file, and I can translate it for you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

Thanks, I've made a request and they're sending it my way. I'm hoping it has an index, which should be understandable in any language, so I can figure out what I need. Ryan Vesey 6:22 pm, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

From discussions, it actually doesn't appear that Neotarf intends to finish the translation from the Swedish version sv:Carl Emil Pettersson. If you've got extra time and you're up for it, it would be nice if that translation could be finished. Ryan Vesey 9:54 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

The translation would take a few hours, I guess. One problem is that it lacks in-line references, which means that I would have to find the book, read it, and give page numbers for the article's statements. Also, Swedish humanistic scholarship is worse than British lit critters in the eyes of Morris Zapp, which means I would have trouble trusting the book... ;)

Is this a burning issue for you? I trust that you are not writing about the social construction of imperialism and patriarchy in the works of Astrid Lindgren. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

An editor began a translation in the mainspace, the article was tagged for some errors, then the editor threw a hissy fit and refused to finish the article. My initial offer of getting the book to help with the in-text citations was directed towards the editor; however, he said he didn't have time to fix the article and continue with the dramafest he started about how New Page Patrollers should be omniscient and shouldn't tag crappy articles when the creator is working on them. I was just hoping to make sure the article was fixed up. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 18 January 2013 UTC)

It's not a hissy fit for a writer to leave when harassed.

The ratio of busy-body bothers to writers' discussions has been increasing dramatically in the last months. Why don't people write articles instead of putting their little tags on works in progress, or making polite suggestions? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:19 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

That reminds me a little bit of when I was doing NPP and came across the original version of Meermin slave mutiny. But that one worked out fine - I just took over when the original author didn't want to do more with it, and he ended up really liking it. Pesky (talk) 7:51 am, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)

DYK for Alfie Fripp

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 9:02 am, 17 January 2013, Thursday (9 days ago) (UTC+1)

11,773 views! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07 pm, 18 January 2013, Friday (8 days ago) (UTC+1)

Wow! Awesome - well done :D Pesky (talk) 7:48 am, 19 January 2013, last Saturday (7 days ago) (UTC+1)

Nice to see a nice fellow from Dorset mentioned, instead of the Green fellow.... ;)

I had not known that The Great Escape was a British yuletime tradition. Of course, WWII must strike nerves in GB even more than in the US.

My grandmother was interviewed about meeting my grandfather in WWI, when she was a nurse who cared for him after he had almost lost his leg to a German bullet (discussing losing ships on the convoy to England, etc.), we had people calling the house in tears. (Don't get me started on The Zimmerman Telegram and "unrestricted submarine warfare"!) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 1:20 am, 21 January 2013, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC+1)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

Greetings Kiefer

I wanted to say hello and wish you well. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I trust that all is well with you! :)

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Finding secondary sources

Hello, I was wondering if you could consider helping me find secondary sources (when possible) for most of the metaheuristics? I noticed that even the older works such as the metaheuristics from the 50's only cites a primary source. For example "1952: Robbins and Monro work on stochastic optimization methods.[12]", where [12] = Robbins, H.; Monro, S. (1951). "A Stochastic Approximation Method". Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22 (3): 400–407.doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729586.

By the same definition you used to reject the huge list of metaheuristics (only reliable secondary sources), even the earlier methods are not satisfactory. So by the same reasoning you rejected the whole list of metaheuristics, we also ought to reject most of the metaheuristics you decided to keep. So to avoid being hypocrites, we need to find more secondary sources or delete even more of the metaheuristic list you left.

Considering that the historical work is important, I would appreciate you first finding secondary sources for those that are still listed on the metaheuristic page. I can look for secondary sources for some of the newer stuff as I already know several of secondary sources for CMA-ES, MOGA, and Ant-colony. I feel as if we ought to preserve as many as possible because it provides a quick lazy overview of what the research community has been up to. I admit some of the metaheuristics feel like garbage (especially in light of the NFL theorems for search and optimization), but there are some gems you excluded.Mouse7mouse9 00:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Every editor is welcome to delete anything that lacks a reliable source if he has any doubts as to the veracity of a claim. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the cite overkill. I hoped you would show me how many would be appropriate and you have. Should we aim for one primary and two secondary sources when possible?Mouse7mouse9 22:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Those references were useful for an article about "No Free Lunch", about which Stolfi has raised concerns. They may not be appropriate for an article about metaheuristics, which should follow WP:DUE_WEIGHT guidelines. Do surveys or review articles on metaheuristics discuss these specific methods? An editor is welcome to delete what you added and I spared as violating WP:Due Weight and as raising OR/COI concerns.

The article doesn't make sense and it is entirely based on original research, except for the critical overview that you don't like.

For example, there is no definition of heuristic (unless my senility fogs my memory). Robbins-Monro and the Metropolis-Hastings methods are iterative methods, with convergence theories. The simplex heuristic of Nelder Meade also converges, under rather restrictive conditions, so it can be considered to be an iterative method (of limited applicability).

It seems to me that this article has been written as an excuse for people to promote themselves and their friends, which is why there was no attention to secondary reliable sources until Ruud added the criticism. I suspect that, if people continue to be greedy (violating the go maxim quoted on my user page), then the computer science project will come in and wipe the article clean of anything looking like self-promotion, primary, or unreliable sources, and it will only be a stub of one paragraph in length.

What was written before on continuous optimization methods was rubbish, as I noted before (replying to Ruud). I'm afraid that similar concerns may exist for the rest of the article.

If we make a distress call to the math or CS projects, it's possible that any professor working in algorithmics will reduce the article to a 2-sentence stub, leaving the survey articles and books mentioned but never used. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metaheuristic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Procedure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite book template: Weirdness

Did anybody announce changing the cite book and related templates?

It's irritating that many of my articles have ugly red blotches. Maybe I missed something in The Signpost? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect what you're seeing is a side effect of the Lua rollout. See also Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Red_error_messages. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria,

Your link was informative. Thanks again! :)

I confirm that you have my power of attorney on Wikipedia. :D

My errors seem to have been isbn errors (one where I gave the printed isbn, which was a typo in the book, rather than official non-printed isbn) and no-tolerance for unsupported fields, which could be supported in the future (e.g., a field inspired by the BibTeX entry from Mathematical Reviews's MathSciNet). The WP error messages are likely reasonable, insofar as we wish to have a style guide (like any semi-pro publication).

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout's talk page

Hello,

Do you mind reverting the last edit you made to AutomaticStrikeout's talk page? I agree with Demiurge in the opinion that it should be hatted, my reason being that your message is pointless considering the script being already enforced; and that it is not very beneficial. I would have reverted myself, but I really do not wish to get into an edit war on AS's talk page.

So could you please re-hat it with an appropriate message?

Thanks!

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC) [Talkback please!]

Thanks for the polite note.

Please review talk-page guidelines, which prohibit messing with another's message(s) unless the talk page is your account. Please also read the instructions already given to Automatic Strikeout about disabling Java to regain control of his account. Further, please consider that Automatic Strikeout has retired at least once already.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

[You must have missed the "Talkback please" but i'm lucky I checked your userpage again]

I am not sure where exactly are those rules. Could you link them to me?

Also, in this case, we have a specific permission/instruction by AS towards all friendly stalkers to remove anything that isn't beneficial. I think that is enough reason for allowing the hat.

I am aware of those instructions given, but I do fail to see how they are relevant in the current scenario. Furthermore, I do not see how his previous retirements could have anything to do with hatting of the sentence you added.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You have trouble finding WP:Talk page?

You will need to change policy if you want a user to leave a power of attorney whereby other users may delete civil messages on the talk page.

Demiurge1000 collapsed my comments, in violation of the talk-page guidelines. It would have been a more severe violation to have misused the hat/hab template, in violation of its directions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you PLEASE leave a talkback? Thanks!

No. I had trouble finding which part of the talk page guidelines is Demiurge violating when he collapsed your comment.

The fact that AS allowed such an action seems to me to be enough to justify doing it, as long as it does not go against any other policies.

If another template is used for hatting, does that look like fair to you? If yes, I think I'll use that.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've explained the policy and why you should not edit others' talk page comments. Period. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in what Demiurge did, save the use of the wrong template. You are yet to show me the exact line of that policy violated by him. I'm re-collapsing that comment. I request you not to uncollapse it again.

And once again, I request you to please use talkbacks if a user requests it.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Soni, if you violate the policy, after I've pointed it out to you, you will deal with the consequences. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Keifer, that is an empty threat. I have pursued both good faith and all possible policies while doing what I did. When I did not find how it was a violation, I asked you, upon which I did not get any answer. As per all I see, Demiurge's action is completely acceptable save the questionable use of the wrong template, and therefore I reverted back. I once again request you to quote me the exact policy which he is violating in doing so.

Also, I again request you to use a talkback. How hard is it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I failed to find any other template suitable for the task. I am currently searching for one, but if there isn't then I think we have to use this one. Feel free to change the template type if there is a more suitable template. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Keifer, you have yet to explain what part of TPG is being violated by a collapse. If you don't do so, and continue making the threat, TheOriginalSoni can take you to AN/I for making wrong and unfounded accusations against them, which has in the past been found a violation of WP:NPA. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gwickwire, I have no obligation to explain policy to somebody who wants to play myspace rather than read the policy I linked. Neither of you should post here again.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no violation in hatting your comment. You're just overreacting to your comment being legitimately hatted. TCN7JM 23:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Because I will follow the rule to the letter, I am required to warn you that you are currently in an edit war before I report you to AN3R. Take this as that warning and do with it what you will. gwickwire^talk_editing 23:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting violations of policy is not edit warring. Hit the road, (Redacted)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your action is a 3RR violation and the subsequent reverts have not yet been shown as violations by you. Which makes your action edit warring [I had to comment, since you chose to revert again. If you keep trying to do that, I think I'll have to comment again] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the talk page guidelines are not policy, they're guidelines. TCN7JM 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

If you do not cease editing User talk:AutomaticStrikeout I will block you for disruptive editing. Administrators and most other editors have better things to do than fight over a pointless comment on the talk page of a retired user. Drop the stick, back off from the dead horse and go find something productive to do instead. Nick (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nick, your leaving this message demonstrates your priorities, pointless indeed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And it may be too late (sorry Nick), I've reported to WP:AN3 for edit warring, disruptive editing, and a bad warning of Demiurge. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Go away (Redacted), as I already told you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You have no right to command other users to "go away". Hostility gets nowhere in discussions. Can we please discuss this in a calmer manner? TCN7JM 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your recent comments could constitute WP:OUTING. Please refactor them as such and I will then request revision deletion. If you do not do so, expect further venues. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to leave this for about 30 minutes now, apologies for the delay. Hi Kiefer, you have been blocked for disruptive editing, this chiefly covers two areas of concern. There has been an allegation that you have breached the WP:OUTING policy, which is the reason for the indefinite block and why I removed access to your talk page initially. The disruption on your and other talk pages would normally have resulted in the talk page being protected and/or a short block of 12-24 hours.

In order that you may be unblocked, I need to know that you understand the outing policy and that you agree not to refer to editors in anything other than the way they ask to be referred to, i.e via their Wikipedia username, unless they grant you permission to use other names or forms of greeting. I'd also like to see that you've dropped your interest in the AutomaticStrikeout talk page and that productive editing will resume but that's really less of an issue in the grand scheme of things. Nick (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

And a note to other administrators - please do feel free to unblock, change the block duration or make any other alterations to the block or do what you feel is necessary/right. Nick (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite involved, but I will say an e-mail has been sent to the appropriate venue regarding the harassment and outing that Kiefer.Wolfowitz has (made? done? whatever the right verb is) recently which led to this block. I'd appreciate it if admins leave it in the appropriate venue's court, at least until I get a reply from them. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Those edits Nick rev-deleted were in no way outing any editor here. It is ridiculous to even think so. If this is the basis for the block then it should be undone, and those edits put back into the history. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You know damn well that they were outing, and if you restore them you're just as much at fault as Kiefer.Wolfowitz. ArbCom is aware of the outings/harassments (and as well will be notified of a recent one on a off-wiki site), and remember what happened last time? gwickwire^talk_editing 02:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not. In any way. Not even close. He wrote your username, with a space in the middle. If you do not want 'gwickwire' (or the initial and name that naturally comes to mind) associated with your edits, then I suggest you change it. Kevin (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop. The way in which he (and an IP which is now hardblocked conviniently right after Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked did) wrote it was meant to be outing. You know that. I purposefully make my username all lowercase, and his "space" included some capitalization and/or punctuation (different ways) that made it outing. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Gwickwire, stop making a fool of yourself. Maxim_(talk) 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as an FYI for all here, I've raised a question about the revision deletions on Nick's talk page, as I can't tell what they're actually intended to delete. They seem...haphazard. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Oh yes. He maliciously uppercased a letter in your username. The horror! Once you are done running about with your arms in the air, a nice cup of tea might make you feel better. Kevin (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. As you are aware now, AutomaticStrikeout does not want you to comment on his talk page and you must respect that. Continuing to make WP:POINTy remarks directed at another user will result in another block. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier. TY King of Hearts. Kiefer, please take their comments to heart. As for the OUTING--I'm sorry, I don't know what to say. That was a silly charge. Kevin, be careful: you might be guilty of the same. Signed, Dr. Mies. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The apostrophes? I know, I just couldn't help myself. I'll go hang my head in shame. Kevin (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)