[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipediocracy. (TW)
→‎June 2013: We've had enough ridiculous complaints from administrators for this week. Can't you find something better to do, like block yourself, instead of wasting my time?
Line 91: Line 91:


To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. See [[WP:BRD|BRD]] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. See [[WP:BRD|BRD]] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
:We've had enough ridiculous complaints from administrators for this week. Can't you find something better to do, like block yourself, instead of wasting my time? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">'''Kiefer'''</font>]][[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|<font style="color:blue;">.Wolfowitz</font>]]</span></small> 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:47, 23 June 2013

Labor donated

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)


Guitar

David Russell

See 2:35 [1], this guy is one of the most beautiful sounding guitarists ever, in my top 5 list of greatest guitarists.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, he is wonderful. Here's a guy I discovered about 2 years ago. He has some lovely stuff. And he's really into bat boxes!! [2] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me more! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy these!

Musical discussion with Dr. Blofeld

Some handcuffs for you
As you've been a very naughty boy I thought you might enjoy having these slopped on you during your term in solitary confinement in D-Block. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hah!
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask your captors if you're permitted to watch this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Dr. B. Barney Kessel is always a treat. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative tunings and "Amazing Grace"
Repetitive open tunings
BTW, I changed the Russian 7-string's tuning from a repetitive open-C (inverted as E-G-C-E-G-C-E) to the open-E tuning E-G#-B-E-G#-B-E. It sounds much better, and my daughter and now wife are having more fun strumming. (I scratched F, G, A, B, C, D, E on the neck for a crib sheet.)
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped tuning

I tuned my acoustic guitar to C# drop tuning earlier, standard dropped 3 semitones with a "drop D" like base string to play Amazing Grace♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! I did my best Paul Robeson impression (okay, 2nd best, without the Stalinist pieties) and "Amazing Grace" quieted my daughter, who had had enough Swedish Midsommar. However, Mamma delivered the coup d'boob, which led to both sleeping.
You saw that I'd changed from an inverted open-C to a canonical open-E on the Russian 7-string? It sounds much better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifths

Do you know a reliable source for the 5-string claim? It's plausible.

Thanks for your other edits. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can check out bill sethares all tunings guide for a description of all-fifths tuning and other tunings. Note that he refers to it as mando-guitar tuning. It has also been called guitello tuning (for 5 strings).
For more detailed mechanics of tuning to all-fifths, d'addario's sting tension chart is useful. It provides formulas and string weights, as well as a table of tensions for varied string gauges.
From their data, one could tune a 7 string guitar to (e' a d G C F' A"#) with moderate (~13 lbs/string) tension using 9, 13, 20(or 22w), 32w, 49, 74, and 115 strings. That leaves room to tune up to g' or down to c' as a starting point. One could also tune a 7 string to (g' c' f A# D# G'# C'#), with about 15 lbs tension, using 8, 12 18(or 20w), 30w, 44, 66, and 100 gauge strings, leaving room to tune up to a' or down to e' as a starting point. 75.150.168.6 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that such inferences involve original research or synthesis, which has been avoided per Wikipedia policies since I rewrote the articles on regular tunings. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits seem reasonable, and likely fall within the usual bounds of exposition for mathematics articles on Wikipedia. (Non-research mathematics)/"Trivial" computations and inferences are not OR, although such additions can be challenged and then be evaluated as need arises. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malcom X as a reliable source on Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Hi Kiefer.Wolfowitz; I reverted your edits at Council for United Civil Rights Leadership because I do not believe you are correct that these connections are "original research".

On the topic of Malcolm X, he was a star critic of the group, and his response to them specifically in Message to the Grass Roots is well known. See this Google search if you're not convinced. (Edited to add: see particularly here, here, and here.)

On the relationship between the March, the creation of the CUCRL, and lobbying for the Civil Rights Act, the sources currently presented make the connection. As do numerous histories of the civil rights movement. These claims border on common knowledge. But also see this relatively recent article in the NYT. It's also made quite clear in David Garrow's popular history Bearing the Cross: you can read the relevant pages in the online preview version here.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want. Wikipedia deserves more articles based on Malcom X. I'll check whether the human evolution article is based on the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I think Stephen Jay Gould might be more so the Malcolm X of evolutionary biology... E. O. Wilson never put out a hit on him, though. groupuscule (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to claim Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionary biologist, was a critic of evolutionary biology? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Gould might be an American independent updating of J. B. S. Haldane, with his Marxissant analyses and support of the American New Left, as well as "popular front" (baseball) writings---but perhaps the latter makes him a complementary particle to George Will? However, the good-humored courage in dealing with cancer makes Gould an update of Haldane. (His dislike of flash photography and willingness to leave the stage when flash photographed reminds me of Robert Fripp.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Wikipediocracy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've had enough ridiculous complaints from administrators for this week. Can't you find something better to do, like block yourself, instead of wasting my time? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]