User:FeralOink/sandbox

How to hat and avoid excessive comment indents

 * Hatting seems to be for collapsing talk page or other non-main page content from view.
 * After extended comment discussions between editors, use this to make another entry in existing thread that is flush with left margin: . It avoids excessive indents all the way to the right margin! It looks like this

Toolserver and other helpers

 * Limited global activity log
 * This is a very short-term log of ALL actions on English Wikipedia, see Log of Recent Changes. It could be useful, and is not secret or restricted, merely new to me.


 * USE THESE as of August 2020 as the replacement for the prior reflinks, dab solver, etc. tools


 * Main tools page toolserver.org
 * Reflinks - Edits bare references - adds title/dates etc. to bare references
 * Checklinks - Edit and repair external links
 * Dab solver - Quickly resolve ambiguous links.
 * Peer reviewer - Provides hints and suggestion to improving articles.
 * Watchlist checker: Wikiproject Watchlist, using WikiProject Medicine as a specific example
 * Statistics summary for English Wikipedia: Special Statistics
 * Statistics summary for all Wikimedia projects, in all languages: WMF project statistics
 * Dab fixer and other useful tools
 * Citation generator tool WMF labs yadkard to create shortened footnote/named reference for a given Google Books URL, DOI, ISBN, PMID, PMCID, or the URL of many major news websites; developed by Wikimedia developer Dalba, see yadkard on github for more details.


 * Page views tool
 * pageviews for article today


 * Degrees of separation of Wikipedia articles (is http, may not work anymore)
 * Six Degrees of Wikipedia by Stephen Dolan

More useful links maybe
Special:Linksearch article stats WP:FFA WP:SHORTCUTS Prefixindex Complete diff and link guide

essay on writing Featured Articles essay on personal attacks

user stats My contributions across all projects. Milestone finder Article stats Page traffic stats Bainer's user edit stat by page name Template:OTRS-talk Template:Convert/doc Category:Conversion_templates

CheckUser policy on meta Something interesting for me on WMF mailing list?

dablinks et al Tool Labs Userpage warnings Citation templates

How to comment code
För att skapa grundläggande dokumentation behöver lägga in denna kommentar i java koden.

/**

* Beskrivning av funktion eller klass.

* @param parameternamn följt av beskrivning av parameter.

* @return följt av förklaring av vad som returneras.

* */

Example
Result

Blinky!!!!

 * Thank you to Charles Juvon! Postscript, sadly he got blocked in the most denigrating way. He provided this too, for codon which is kind of amazing. A very bright man, lost to Wikipedia due to worship of Dr. Fauci.

For more, see here Blinking Warning symbols on Wikimedia Commons.

Identified.com
Afc declined by me and accompanied by the following rationale, on 4 Mar 2012 "Comment: Article contains information that lacks citations, is implausible, or impossible.
 * In the introduction, "As of February 2012, the site has over 202 million professional profiles and is growing by more than 3% - 5% daily, and doubling in size every three weeks". At that rate, every person on earth will be included in this service in no time at all.
 * In section One, History, it is alleged that Stanford University tried to shut down this company, Identified. No source, verifiable or otherwise, for this.
 * MORE SIGNIFICANT: Submission was written by an employee of the company, Identified. Sherilynn "Cheri" Macale is working as public relations ("social media") staff of this company, Identified.com. This was announced by Identified, and by @HeyCheri herself. Wikipedia user HeyCheri identifies herself as Sherilynn Macale on her user page, well, the only part that exists.
 * Finally, there is a question of notability. Identified.com is a web-based e-commerce company. Domain Tools WHOIS says the domain Identified.com is for sale by owner.

This is not in chronological order.'

NLP
Message w/ reminder re CH, neuro-linguistic programming etc. I revisited the NLP article today, read this,
 * ″ AnotherPseudonym, I mainly agree with you, and the abstract of Slut ’s paper in interesting. But you should read the paper, not only the abstract. So, the question is not about Slurt ... ″
 * The only variation missing was "Slurp"! I also noticed that the debate was raging, once again. I chided a little, mentioned martingales and thrashing, and came to visit your talk page. I was saddened when I saw your summoning to the Administrator's Tribunal. The upshot seems to have been to allow you to remain. I hope so!


 * I read C. Hewitt's biography article. I wish I were C.Hewitt, PhD too! It is a shame that he has such an awful past history here on WP. I do not think he's being unfairly treated, as I did a search on his last name on the Admin board archives. One quick glance at the first 20 entries returned was sufficient. Still, though, it is sad. He was a key, or maybe lead, designer/creator of Prolog. He's doing fun stuff even now that's he's emeritus, specifically, work on what seems to be homomorphic encryption. If you WERE he, Carl Hewitt, it would be rather impressive, as you are extremely conversant with NLP concepts (a very different field), and with legitimate behavioral psychology and possibly psychiatry. You also write very fluently, and are extremely patient, all of which would be unusual, if you were a distinguished, no-longer-young, yet still-active, former professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT!


 * (I think I said this to David Gerard.) Wikipedia is remarkable. It is stuffed to the gills with awfulness and cronyism and outrageous behavior, but in other areas, seems to bring out the very best in people. I don't believe in the crowd-sourcing, knowledge is free, wisdom of the cloud thing; it ultimately seems to be fueled by the hard work of unpaid people who are poor, energetic, bright, have internet access but not much else. Nevertheless, Wikipedia and even more so, StackExchange are the only instances of it really working as described. Sorry, I should also include MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) and forums. They're good too, but some of those people are paid, I presume, hope. I wish we were paid too!


 * I should stay away from the NLP article. It will only lead to heartache. You've made a fine effort, I just wanted to tell you that. 27 June 2013"

Note to self: Saying, "turtles all the way down" has a distinguished provenance independent of NLP.

Dr. Ted E.

 * Article to be deleted request,
 * This article is sourced by references to P of BLP and is peddling his Big Breast book. This is the first article that appeared in Google search when I looked for cosmetic plastic surgeons in the USA. This individual is notable for winning a Knife and Hatchet throwing competition, and for cranking out the most breast augmentations in human history. Not only is he non-notable, but since the prior deletion request in 2011 was declined, he has since self-published this book, Scoop on Breasts which he is aggressively marketing, and which is referenced in this article. See too Chpt 1, A Tale of Two Titties, make sure to look for the construction crane hoisting breasts, and of course, this lovely female-friendly photograph, The Booby Bank.
 * "'Filled With Extra Padding, This Book Is Sure to Entertain! Check Out Those Melons! Dr. Eisenberg a plastic surgeon who holds the Guinness Record for most breast augmentations done in a lifetime, candidly answers questions like: Am I too old for breast augmentation? Will my implants boil in a hot tub? Do I need to replace them every 10 years?'"
 * His co-author, who is cited in the WP article references is described thusly:
 * "'Joyce Eisenberg offers up titillating titbits and extra padding about breast goddesses, go-topless days, and Great Britain, whose women have the largest breasts in Europe. Filled with close to 200 photographs and illustrations, The Scoop on Breasts is an amusing and revealing read. By book’s end, you’ll consider the authors your BBFs: Bosom Buddies Forever.'"
 * I am really appalled. There are many legitimate plastic surgeons, including those who do breast augmentation and plastic surgery, who are not listed in Wikipedia. That is because they are NOT notable. Wikipedia is not a business directory for breast or other plastic surgeons. It should NOT be used as a platform for someone who is a hatchet throwing hobbyist to market his book! Here he is The Scoop on Breasts struck gold! It won the Independent Publishers Book Awards competition in the Humor category! with photo of course. And the update of 22 July 2013, Going bigger before the big day: Saying "I Do" to #breast implants before your wedding day, a timeline. There is nothing wrong with breast augmentation, whether for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes. THIS article makes it seem shameful and tacky. That is not what Wikipedia is intended for. 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the article about women's breasts, actually bras, it cites at length a supposed medical condition that causes a young woman's developing breasts to increase massively almost overnight. I checked all the sources cited, none of which said that any such condition was known to exist. Far be it for me to remove that. I would be afraid, lest, I sound outraged.

Aaron Swartz

 * Aaron Swartz's "partner" was a woman, but that was a subject of contention. The newspaper described her as "his girlfriend". Instead, user Mark Bernstein and others agreed that the gender "she" should not be used. They say, "Given that her name is not gender-specific, Taren, it is difficult to know what gender she is". What is wrong with having a girlfriend?

John Forbes Nash

 * Similarly, for John Forbes Nash, PhD and Nobel prize winner, he had a younger sister and married a woman who graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics from MIT. None of that was in the article. I added it. I also read the talk page, which went into lengthy debate about whether or not he is homosexual. A lengthy discussion is currently on the talk page about whether anal or oral penetration is necessary to define homosexual activity. The fact of the matter, which I wrote in the talk page (it was promptly deleted) was that John Nash had several relationships with different women, and was a handsome man, who loved his grandmother and parents. He was an excellent student, enjoyed school, and chose to transfer from Carnegie Mellon to Princeton because he wanted to be nearer to his family in West Virginia. According to the bio of Nash at the St. Andrews University math bio page, he would get sometimes get into bed with his dormmates at night but just wanted to be friendly and sleep warmly or kiss a little. They ridiculed him for not being more aggressively homosexual. He wasn't some sort of misanthrope or autist. He is happily remarried to his wife now, works, goes on trips with his colleagues at the Advanced Institute at Princeton, and takes nice photographs with beautiful women smiling at him and of himself interacting with his colleagues (all PhD mathematicians). But no, so many people who write on WP only want to portray successful men as alienated underachievers who didn't get along with their families, and were disliked because they were homosexual. I'm sorry, but everyone who is brilliant and accomplished cannot fit that profile. Nor are they Libertarian. The Noam Chomsky page describes HIM as Libertarian too!


 * I'm sorry. You are a kind person. I am too agitated right now, am unemployed and scared, frayed nerves. Thank you for your help and support. I will be back, I am sure. I really want to do more with good Richard Baron Kahn of Cambridge Circle. He conceived of the Keynesian multiplier and has hardly anything in Wikipedia. I also like watching over William Janeway's BLP. I'm not sure why. Jared Cohen's BLP is ridiculous. Dave Winer's BLP is slowly evolving to converge on reality. He's such an egregiously grumpy, mean person online. I've been trying to write the entry for The Levant in Wikitravel. That's going to be a challenge! Somehow, I think a tourist guide for Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will be less contentious than writing about brassieres on Wikipedia." (I left all of this as a single comment for DGG in 2013 in the aftermath of the Dr. Ted thing.

Colonel Gaddafi bio edits
Can't get this to save! Try again later.

Gaddafi was a very private individual, who described himself as a "simple revolutionary" and...

Move to human rights section
 * After the civil war, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, said there was evidence that Gaddafi told soldiers to...

OCLC
That math question is appalling. What's wrong with a nice number line for addition and subtraction, and a grid for memorizing multiplication? Nothing! The fact that parents would then be able to help their children with homework (and the learning approach would be familiar everywhere), well, that's what "rigor" and "robust" mean to me. I partially disagree with you here: "'this means that parents are purged from the educational process and professional 'educators' are more secure in their public school satrapies.'" The Common Core developers weren't professional educators. The math and English CC standards were created by politically connected public policy "experts" and NGO administrators. From what I've observed and been told, good public school teachers vigorously oppose the Common Core. Also, the teaching style and curricular content in English and math formerly used by U.S. public schools and reputable private schools e.g. Jewish day school, Catholic parochial school, were similar. Effective too. We survived very well without a Department of Education! We'd probably be better off without Secretary Arne Duncan and the massive (crony contract awarded) curriculum development and technology expenditures that he established.

Baird Family Reunion notes after AfD
The Baird Reunion, founded in 1897 by descendants of the formerly enslaved of the prominent Baird Family in Asheville, NC, is the oldest black family reunion in the United States. Their relatives, the Flack-Council-Coleman Reunion, founded in 1917 in Asheville, NC is the second oldest. Singer Roberta Flack is a descendant of both of these families (her mother was a Council and her grandmother was a Baird), as is her niece, figure skater Rory Flack.

Fusion GPS
You, me and Hidden Echo are not a cabal, surreptitiously canvassing or plotting. Yes, I am still involved in editing the Fusion GPS and Trump dossier articles. I feel like we are the target of pile-up's by a certain clique of editors, who do not seem to realize that perfidious collusion on the part of Fusion GPS and Russia most likely renders the infamous dossier invalid (not that we, and most of the mainstream media didn't acknowledge that already). Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that Trump and his family members are by default innocent of all wrong-doing. Although I am generally part of the MAGA crowd, I can edit with sufficient neutrality to realize that Trump (and/or family) has had various lapses of judgement during the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign.

Entities such as Fusion GPS need to be assessed in a non-partisan manner, as their involvement with the Trump dossier is merely one of many such smear campaigns that seem to be part of Fusion GPS's modus operandi as an equal-opportunity slanderer to the highest bidder. Cases in point include:
 * Bill Browder (defender of lawyer, accountant and whistleblower S. Magnitsky who was slowly tortured then murdered in a Russian prison to silence his allegations of embezzlement against Putin),
 * human rights activist Thor Halvorssen versus Venezuelan power company and power brokers, Derwick Associates,
 * Mitt Romney supporter Frank VanderSloot,
 * Planned Parenthood, and
 * Venezuelan journalists.

From 2013 to 2016, Fusion GPS was retained by Russian state-affiliated entities to advocate against the Magnitsky Act sanctions on Russia. President Obama was unconvinced and imposed the relevant sanctions despite Fusion GPS's pro-Russia lobbying. Browder has continued to suffer due to his corroboration of Magnitsky's findings. Details were provided by two July 2017 articles (in The Atlantic and NPR), describing Browder's travails, as well as his July 2017 testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about Russia and the disinformation campaigns provided on a retainer basis by private intelligence firms such as Fusion GPS.

In July 2017, Thor Halvorssen provided written testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee against Fusion GPS, due to Fusion GPS's involvement in facilitating notoriously corrupt Venezuelan organizations who opportunistically diverted the troubled nation's scarce resources by winning a series of non-competitive bidding contracts to build electric power plants.

In 2012, the Wall Street Journal published an investigate report about Fusion GPS's defamation of Romney presidential campaign donor VanderSloot's private life and marital activities, despite the fact that he was not a public figure.

Fusion GPS's work is not aligned by political party. Past victims (and clients) are not exclusively U.S. domestic, nor are they necessarily global. Fusion GPS clients (and targets!) include figures and causes associated with the right as well as the left of the political spectrum. I wish certain Wikipedia editors would realize this. For example, Politico (a center to left-ward leaning publication) was quite disgusted by Fusion GPS's involvement in the Planned Parenthood expose, describing Fusion GPS (who was retained for an investigative research/smear campaign against Planned Parenthood) as having manipulated the videos in order to "undermine their political, legal and journalistic value". Several months ago, I added this information to the Fusion GPS WP article with associated sources cited, see here. Unfortunately, a Wikipedia administrator subsequently removed Politico's non-partisan assessment of Fusion GPS's unsavory activities.

I am not making any accusations about the motives of currently active editors contributing to the Fusion GPS and Trump dossier articles. I suspect that patience and the passage of time (a few more weeks, or months, at most) should provide further WP:RS information about Fusion GPS activities.

USAA article edits
Go back and try to clean up this mess! Bluerasperry asked for my help on this in Nobember 2022, approximately

Leadership
...Peacock became CEO in February 2020 and is the first USAA CEO who is not veteran of the armed forces. He has been with USAA since 1988, serving in various leadership positions including President of the Property and Casualty Insurance Group. ...

Herres took office as BoD and CEO in 1993 until Davis in April 2000 as CEO and Davis as BoD Oct. 5, 2002. He was succeeded as CEO by retired Air Force General Robert T. Herres. It was under Herres that USAA expanded its services to enlisted members of the military.

April 2000 CEO, Oct 2002 BoD, article announcing BoD was in December 2001. Left in Dec 2007. Following General Herres as CEO was Robert G. Davis, a former Army officer who came to USAA with experience in a variety of financial services companies. Davis is said to have changed the culture at USAA; during his time at USAA, membership, assets, and net worth grew significantly. His tenure, however, was not without controversy. Davis oversaw USAA's first layoffs and by some reports had a confrontational style of leadership. Davis had indicated to USAA employees that he intended to continue to lead USAA until 2010, however, he retired in December 2007. 2008 The nature of his retirement seems to have been precipitous, as USAA CEO Joshua Robles stated that upon assuming the role of CEO, "I thought I was just going to be a temporary CEO and (the board) said, 'Guess what? The permanent CEO is you'."

German translating to edit The Jewish Question and On the Jewish Question
By Bruno Bauer (1842 or 1843) then Kark=l Marx, same year Summary in Wikipedia is sourced to Die Judenfrage by Bruno Bauer but translation excerpt doesn't support article content. Translation of article section (supposedly part of p. 61 only) to English by me: The emancipation of the Jews is only possible in a thorough, successful and safe way if they are not emancipated as Jews, that is, as beings who must always remain aliens to Christians, but if they become people who cannot be influenced by anything else no longer separated from their fellow human beings by any barriers that are falsely considered essential.

How to confirm?
Three approaches!
 * 1) See p. 61 German gothic script to modern typeface, translated to English by Google
 * 2) Most likely! this: Result obtained from Google translate for websites using as website input the Bauer book page(s), enter full URL in box.
 * 3) Try this too. Start here for original German gothic script circa 1842, in German language of course. Next, go to upper right corner for settings "gear" shape, click, choose last option, "plain text". I think this translates to English, in nice text, AND copy ctrl c is supported too!

p.61
"Emancipation cannot therefore be tied to the condition that they become Christians, a condition under which they would only be privileged in a different way than they were before. One privilege would only be exchanged for the other. The privilege would remain if it were extended to several people, even if it were extended to everyone - to all people.

The question of emancipation has thus far been completely misunderstood on all sides, right down to the most individual points that have been discussed, when it has only been treated as a one-sided question, as the Jewish question. Of course, it can neither be solved in this way theoretically nor will it ever be possible to solve it practically.

Anyone who is not free themselves cannot help others to be free. The servant cannot emancipate...The question of emancipation is a general question, the question of our time in general. Not only the Jews, but we too want to be emancipated. Therefore, just because everything was not free and paternalism and privilege had prevailed until now, the Jews could not be free either. We all excluded each other through our limitations; Everything was limited and the police districts in which we are classified, necessarily bordered on the Jewish quarter. Not only the Jews, but also we no longer want to be satisfied with the chimera; We too want to become real people, real people.

>>>My translation of this paragraph; see text for paragraph<<< >>>"If the Jews want to become a real people--they cannot become one with their chimerical nationality, but only as part of a historically capable nation of our time--then they must give up their chimerical prerogative, which, as long as they hold on to it, will always separate them, alienated from history. They must sacrifice their belief of belonging to an exclusive nationality of their own before they can even begin to see themselves as capable of sincerely taking part in real affairs of the state and the polity without secret reservations and hesitancy."<<<

...It is impossible that the actions of modern criticism and the general cry for emancipation and liberation from tutelage should be without success even in the very near future... But one thing is certain: all means will remain only palliatives, will only maintain the conflict and give rise to new fights over the same question, as long as the only means that is necessary has not been used. This one means means: complete disbelief in bondage and faith.

pp. 62 - 66 approx
VI. The French Jews in relation to the religion of the majority of French people.

Just let things go quietly, is the consolation motto from the point of view where you don't want to keep the indecision and discomfort of the present forever, but you also can't bring yourself to take the decisive and extreme measure: let it Just let things go quietly and everything will work itself out... blah blah

With its soporific aids, it calms not only the raging and raging theory in general, not only the theory of the thinker, but at the same time his own theory. In this way, the Christian can prove himself to be benevolent, benevolent and humane towards the Jew, that is, he can disavow his theory, which obliges him as a Christian not to have any fellowship with the Jews, and recognize the Jew as a human being, that is, he can prove himself not as a Christian, but as a human being. But ordinary life is so inconsistent that its theory and presupposition, which it actually abolishes, cannot also be abolished in the law and with complete consciousness. It does not dare to make its act, with which it abolishes its imperfect theory, the dominant theory. It allows the law to exist which denies the Jew general human rights, that is, it is itself still incapable of legally recognizing the general rights of man; it only allows the Jew to be considered a human being momentarily and in a chance arousal of human compassion, but otherwise in the same way prevailing law and in the legal relationships, which cannot only be regulated according to the accidental outburst of feeling and which may not even be abandoned to her exceptional generosity, because in these relationships she maintains the interest of all, not just that of individual sensitive minds It adheres to the cruel theory and only in this does it remain soft-hearted and discouraged, that it cannot understand itself to be so cruel and to abolish that theory of cruelty.

With regard to the Jewish question, as with all other political questions since the July Revolution, France has once again given us the sight of a life that is free, but which revokes its freedom in the law, thus also declaring it a shame and on the other hand his free vision refuted by his actions. The July Revolution abolished the state religion as such, emancipated the state from the church, freed it from all ecclesiastical influence, and restricted participation in all civil and political rights from religious and ecclesiastical influence [ocr errors] knowledge made independent. The French Jews are therefore completely free citizens and e.g. B. have become able to represent their fellow citizens in parliament regardless of religion...

The Jew e.g. B. would have to have ceased to be a Jew if he did not let his law prevent him from fulfilling his duties towards the state and his fellow citizens, e.g. B. goes to the Chamber of Deputies on the Sabbath and takes part in the public negotiations. Every religious privilege in general, including the monopoly of a privileged church, would have to be abolished, and if some or several or even the vast majority believed that they still had to fulfill religious duties, this fulfillment would have to be left to them as a purely private matter. But general freedom is not yet the law in France either, and the Jewish question has not yet been solved either, because spiritual freedom - (that all citizens are equal) is limited in life, which is still dominated and divided by religious privileges [OCR errors].

A day of rest is necessary, says the Journal des Débats of December 27th, but can the Gesek go so far as to determine it? Why choose Sunday and the holidays of Catholic worship? Isn't it better to leave the determination of the day of rest to the freedom of everyone? All "deviant" cults are recognized in France - hear: "deviant" dissidents! and enjoy the same freedom there: so why force the factory owner to close his workshop on Sunday when his holiday is Saturday?" [ocr errors] In the opinion of the Journal des Débats, the chamber was nevertheless right to reject Mr. Lüneau's amendment: “for although all cults are equal before the law, although there is no longer a privileged religion, there is always a religion of the majority, which may not be sacrificed to the Jew. To eliminate the mention of Sunday from the law would be to declare that there will no longer be any religion in France.” Correct! There is no longer any religion when there is no longer any privileged religion. Take away religion's exclusive power and it will no longer exist.

... the Commission's article did not contradict the Charter of 1830 and contained nothing that was contrary to the religious freedom of citizens. Because Sunday is mentioned in the law, no one is forced to work on a day when they have to celebrate according to the commandments of their religion. If Jews are not allowed to work on a certain day of the week, the law does not in the least prevent them from abstaining from work. But the fact remains that they are forced to celebrate on Sundays and on Christian holidays, which are not religious days for them. You have to look for that... END Bauer Point of all this is to check both articles for accuracy, i.e. Bauer's "The Jewish Question" and Marx's response and critique. Marx said that Bauer was not sufficiently anti-semitic enough about Jews and money (UNGH) in Marx's critique of Bauer, On the Jewish Question. Marx is so vile...

Image totally wrong
See Slope One Talk, section "Image_totally_wrong" "Okay, what the hell?"

This doesn't even add up.

( 4 - 3 + 2(2 - 3) ) / (1 + 2) = -1/3 not 0. And item 1 is rated more on average than item 2..."

--Tgr 02:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't make sense, and it has been implemented. I wish I knew what was going on.
 * I have same problem you said, it doesn't even add up!
 * -- FeralOink 29 Dec 2012

Algorithm result discrepancy

 * 1) Wikipedia article: Slope One Recommendation Algorithm,
 * 2) Technical Report, Doc. 01, Abstract; by Daniel Lemire,
 * 3)  arXiv version as Slope One Predictors for Online Rating-Based Collaborative Filtering (abstract), Sept. 2008
 * 4) My analysis, included as part of my review of Advanced Compiler Design by Stephen Muchnik, that confirms what Tgr described above, in October 2007.

To do list for Slope_One

 * 1) Create user page on Hungarian Wikipedia for me.
 * 2) Leave message for English Tgr on hu.user:Tgr re absurd results. Draft:
 * "'I am FeralOink of English Wikipedia. Obviously, I do not speak the Magyar language, I'm sorry! I know English, and can read and understand a little French and traditional character Chinese. To reply to me when I have left messages, or have had business here (so to speak ;o), please migrate on over to my English Wikipedia page...'"

First attempt
I left the following note on Orange Mike's talk page, in response to his invitation to ask for assistance or guidance in addressing the problem.
 * "'Hi Orange mike! Thank you so much! The article is Ven digital currency. Please have a look at Ven, and my comments on the talk page? This is my concern: Is it misleading for Ven to be promoted as a legitimate mainstream form of monetary transaction, with references to buying million dollar condo's, fine wines, diamonds etc.? Other digital currencies e.g. Bitcoin, don't claim that they are appropriate for real estate purchases! I keep seeing quotes from the Wikipedia entry on Ven, plastered all over the internet, but can't find corroboration of whether Ven is actually listed by Thomson Reuters (as claimed by the Wiki article), and every time I try to research Ven, or its API, or the company founder, I come up with bad websites, no documentation, no validation with anything credible. Thank you again, and if you want me to leave this alone, I will. Congratulations on your HighBeam account! Wow! I am envious, I've always wanted to try it as a legitimate user. I am certain that you are deserving. --FeralOink 08:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)'"

Second attempt
Okay, nine days pass. I'm in no hurry, but am worried that I may have said too much. I want some validation, or just to forget about it.
 * "Hello Orange mike! If this is not appropriate, what I've said, or if you feel no action is necessary, that is fine. But might you be so kind as to delete all this stuff I wrote here, as it might seem odd to others who read it? I am sorry, and merely asking that you consider my request, as it is YOUR talk page, my babbling, and I have no one to blame but myself. Thank you. --FeralOink 23 April 2012 (UTC)"

Third attempt
Knowing that I have TWO embarrassing messages on his user talk page for all to see, I want to forget about it. 16 days have passed.
 * "Hello Orange mike! Could you please acknowledge me in some way? Thank you. I apologize if I am being rude. I also apologize if you haven't been doing Wikipedia things during the past 16 days, or had more pressing concerns. If so, please disregard this message, until you have time. Thank you. --FeralOink 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"

Orange Mike responded with a sentence fragment, stating that he would NOT remove any of the message content I left on his talk page. That was it. He never did anything about my Ven inquiry. Yet he refused to delete (blank) any of it either! WHY???

Commentary by me, after the fact
I was very new to Wikipedia at the time. This individual had left a note on MY user talk page inviting me to expand upon my concerns. He did so at the behest of Sarah S., I forgot her last name. Such disregard, is HIGHLY atypical in my experience on Wikipedia, and particularly by a SysOp and whatever the heck else he is. I am not contentious unless it is necessary, which I haven't found to be the case often. I have had NO bad experiences e.g. vandalism, trolling etc. even from since-banned, anonymous IP users.

Outcome
Nothing came of this, besides the opportunity to have lots of users read my groveling entries. EDIT About a year later, after i had some editing experience, he most kindly suggested that I apply to be an Admin RfA on Wikipedia. I'm embarrassed now about what a fuss I made back then, over Ven digital currency article, but am VERY glad, I deposited the fuss here and no where else!!!

Telling someone about it

 * "Greetings to you, Administrator Rosoft! I'm back! NOW I understand... I have a new request (you were so helpful once already ;o) Background: I read an article yesterday, in Scientific American, about a website which is propagating misinformation about non-mainstream (to put it mildly) paleontology. This wasn't one of those fluffy SciAm articles, but rather, more like the sort they used to write back in the 1980's. As evidence of the insidiousness and pernicious effect of the situation, there was an example given, of how one of the fabricated "creatures" even has an entry here, in Wikipedia. And sure enough, it does. The WP article references a Royal Society publication, but without any link. I dug for the source somewhere online, finally found it, and confirmed that there was no such reference to this creature, nor the "scientist" (I think he was fabricated too) in the Royal Society proceedings. In fact, that citation is associated instead with completely different published work done by people with PhD's who work for the Museum of Natural History in New York City, about 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, the fabricated creature was entered in at least one of those online biological taxonomy databases (I noticed that too). I have the URL etc. I don't know that it was done with any ill-intent. Obviously, I am rather horrified that the taxonomic record of evolution that has been so painstakingly created is being undermined by a single flakey website. But that is not our concern here, and I am not a bioinformatics person, nor a taxonomist. What IS our concern, I believe, is the fabricated creature (as I am referring to it) article, here on Wikipedia. Of course, I could just be BOLD, and delete the thing, but it has a lot of visibility at the moment, and I wanted to get some input from someone such as yourself first. I can provide URLs and quotes from sources as corroboration, but I don't want to just deposit the mass here on your talk page without some prior notice. Or should I just be quiet and not rock the boat? The article in Wikipedia is not the cause of the larger problem. It is merely one consequence of the huge popularity of the website that was the subject of the SciAm article. --FeralOink (talk) 7:36 pm, 8 July 2012"

This received a VERY pleasant and courteous response, including supportive guidance on how to proceed further. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to doing so. I have all my work saved, and should just format and do it!

Hoax critter details
...temp parking...

Jimmy Wales talk page
I tried to comment; race conditions trying to save though, due to very high activity!
 * The case of the disgraced, indicted and sentenced chairman of Vonage is well-documented. The article should be updated, as the magnitude of the fine paid by Mr. Citron due to his criminal misdeeds has been greatly surpassed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's recent prosecutorial achievements, documented in their "worst offenders" report (December 2013). My original purpose in visiting was to inquire why the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't pay Jimmy Wales more adequately, so he wouldn't need to work side jobs for a telephone company.--FeralOink (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I came here to complain about the mess of paid advocacy, inquire about Jimmy Wales' non-Wikipedia portraiture on Twitter, see Wikipedia founder @jimmy_wales joins TPO today as Co-Chair to lead our global growth (it is an excellent, professional photograph, unlike so many others!) and to praise Jehochman for his sage suggestions regarding muted involvement by Wikipedia during the upcoming anti-surveillance day. I was curious about Ugo Colombo, and checked the article edit history. In fact, Jehochman did create the article in January 2013, although he misspelled Mr. Colombo's name in the URL,
 * "'Jehochman moved page Ugo Colmboa (real estate) without leaving a redirect: crazy typo.'"
 * (Perhaps that contributed to his difficulty in responding to the current enquiry?) Jehochman was the second most active editor of that article.--FeralOink (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2014


 * See ugo+colombo... WHY is Jehochman so preoccupied with ArticleFeedbackv5/Ugo_Colombo_(real_estate) Mr. Colombo???

re User 108.xx.xxx.xxx?

Not to worry, Giano! He has what appears to be most, or all, of a full set of 32 non-cosmetically altered teeth in this recent appearance in The Economist, Schumpeter: Dial J for Jimmy.-(talk) 00:10, 4 February 2014

JavaScript AWB
I asked for permission to use this on 24 Sept 2017. I don't want to use the version that I need to download. I want the JavaScript to have it show up in my toolbar. They said no.

Bouncy parking


Equity Fund and WMF Endowment
Sorry for my late arrival. Along with Chris troutman and Piotr, I am concerned about WMF monetization of the editing community. Let's start with the Knowledge Equity Fund (Equity Fund) grants. The issues broached by llywrch and Edward-Woodrow are echoed on by other Wikipedians on the metawiki talk page for the Equity Fund. Specifically, we are indignant that the WMF and/or Endowment gives money to organizations that have little or no benefit to any Wikimedia project, when there is great need by bona fide Wikimedia projects.

SJ said

SJ, most of the Wikipedians who are aware of these "out-of-community" grants (and have shared their thoughts on talk pages) do NOT view them as a reasonable conceit [sic]. The decision to spend a full 5% of the WMF Endowment on what you breezily describe as a "cool concept, deserves more integration and more & better proposals" is, well, distressing. You said 20:1 is the "ratio of investment" and that such a ratio is "plausible". Ratio of investment isn't a term with which I am familiar. Also, grants aren't investments. They are expenses. The Equity Fund was the VERY FIRST disbursal of Wikimedia Endowment money (correct me if I am wrong). It is regrettable that the initial use of donor money for Wikipedia community grants was used for Wikipedia out-of-community grants.

SJ, I also question whether the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Collaboration of the Week (or to be more faithful in quoting you, piped with "countering systemic bias") is truly to Wikipedians at large. I have no doubt that countering systemic bias is important to you and the WMF and to some Wikipedians, however, I followed the wikilinks associated with "countering systemic bias" starting with the one you provided. At the top of the page, it read, "This Wikiproject is defunct" last edited March 2022. It does say this:

"'NOTE: In line with a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, the CSB collaboration of the week has been discontinued. CSB will instead focus on the Open Tasks page, which better reflects the diversity of interests among CSB members. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the CSB CotW over the past several months!"

The discussion talk page mentioned was last updated in 2014. I visited the Open Tasks page. It says, "'This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.'"

It hasn't had any real activity since 2020.

Next, I navigated to WikiProject Countering systemic bias. There is some activity, but not a lot. Most of it seems to be vandalism recently e.g. the most recent edit comment summary is 9 September 2023 (←Replaced content with 'your mom'). Yes, it was reverted, but still not a good sign. Might anyone have answers to these questions? * Has the entire $4.5 million of the Equity Fund been disbursed to grantees as of, say, today, 12 October 2023?
 * Were the grantees evaluated for performance (e.g. meeting stated goals in the grant applications) before renewal for the second year/round of funding? If so, what metrics were used? What were the results? Establishing performance criteria for grant awardees then using them for evaluation purposes is an important part of foundation and endowment management.
 * If the entire $4.5 million has not been disbursed to the 2020-2021 Equity Fund grantees, what will happen to that money? Will it remain in the WMF Endowment account? (Does a WMF Endowment account--for which the WMF or Endowment has custody--even exist yet? I'll get to that part in a moment.)

Next, there are some conflicts in the WMF replies we received above.

* In response to what Andreas described as, Victoria said That isn't a great example of good governance, but mistakes happen. That's what I inferred although it isn't stated explicitly. Victoria's remark was dated 23 November 2022. The Blade of the Northern Lights, we are not making allegations. Rather, we are providing helpful independent challenge, also known as due diligence. There are standards for responsible management of a 501(3)(c) charitable organization. (Please note that mismanagement is rarely fraud and I am not suggesting it is!) Given that the WMF Endowment funds are for Wikipedia, and that the charter of the Wikimedia movement is primarily the open sharing of knowledge, the WMF seems off-track.
 * On 1 September 2023, SJ also said that the Equity Fund program was "one-time" only.
 * Why does KEchavarriqueen (WMF) continue to use the present tense regarding the Knowledge Equity Fund, if it was a one-time only grant program as Victoria and SJ said?
 * On 22 August 2023, KEchavarriqueen (WMF) said that she  I DO see a grant to an  as tangential to the Wikimedia movement. It could be years or decades until Indonesian indigenous people who are denied human rights by their government can create or edit Wikipedia articles. Use of WMF funds for such advocacy work seems grossly mismatched with the WMF purpose and funding size. Human rights advocacy for indigenous people of developing world countries is better suited to national development agencies or supra-national organizations, e.g. USAID or UNESCO not WMF. I have read through all the Equity Fund grant applications of awardees. Most are peripherally or not at all relevant to the Wikipedia community. I can give examples if requested. I did already on the WMF Equity Fund talk page.

I'll finish by reiterating my persistent concerns. which were broached by Andreas in the Signpost and his comments.
 * WHO is managing the Endowment investments?
 * WHAT are the investment criteria?
 * HOW and by WHOM was the market risk appetite determined?
 * Do all Endowment funds now reside with the Wikimedia Foundation, i.e. has Tides transferred all of the WMF Endowment money to a WMF Endowment account or does Tides still have control?

Thank you, Andreas for this helpful though sad update.--FeralOink (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

More Endowment notes and questions
I stumbled upon some other information while writing this, which led to yet other questions and ... revelations although not in a positive sense.

I perused this abbreviated financial statement for the WMF Endowment for the interval 30 June 2016 to 30 June 2023, see here for the wikipage and for the document, as provided by Tides and prepared by Deloitte.
 * Original source (canonical URL) of financial statement document is on Commons.

I scanned very quickly but have some questions. I am assuming that line item "Contributions" = donations.
 * The Endowment received donations of about $11 million in 2018 as well as its first full year, in 2017. Why were there unrealized gains of $500,000 in 2017 followed by unrealized losses of $3 million in 2018? From 2017 to 2018, dividends & interest increased by $160,000 and realized gains increased by nearly $1 million. Expenses increased proportionally, from $83,000 (2017) to $157,000 (2018) but that didn't have much impact. Seems like a lot of volatility. What are you investing in?
 * Why are the amounts earned in interest and dividends nearly the same for three years (2019, 2020, 2021) of $1 million per year, despite the endowment's growth from approximately $47 million in 2019 to $110 million in 2021?
 * What happened in 2022?! Despite contributions of $11 million in 2022, and identical expenses in 2022 and 2021, the Endowment decreased by over $9 million in one year, from 2021 to 2022. This was partly due to combined realized and unrealized investment losses of $22 million'. That's a lot. What are you investing in? As of 2022, there were no debits for grants
 * Also concerning in 2022: Donations were $21 million in 2020 and $24 million in 2021. In 2022, they more than halved, to only $11 million.
 * As of 30 June 2023, the Endowment seems to be on track for another bad year like 2022, i.e. donations are only $6.5 million at mid-year. Maybe not, as unrealized gains at mid-year are $9 million.

There are some footnotes.


 * 1) "As of June 30, 2023, Wikimedia Foundation was holding $5,274,448 in cash for contributions it received on behalf of the Wikimedia Endowment that was transferred to the new charity in August 2023." Unclear if this was for one month or two, or possibly a one-time situation because the the Endowment money had just been transferred back from Tides Advocacy in June 2023.
 * 2) "On June 27, 2023, Wikimedia Foundation was granted $1,297,620 for general support grant to cover endowment costs incurred by Wikimedia Foundation in FY2022-23." I don't know what this is for. Tides charged us $350,000 for investment management fees and $34,000 for bank fees,  transaction fees, and donation processing fees for fiscal year 2021-2022, and nearly the same for 2020-2021. Why would it increase to $1.3 million once we had the money, for 2022-2023?

Where is the $4.5 million of funds disbursed for the Knowledge Equity Grants accounted for? The only withdrawal from the Endowment is in 2023. According to this post by Phoebe Ayers dated 13 April 2023 and titled, "Launching the first grants from the Wikimedia Endowment to support technical innovation in Wikimedia Projects": "'When the Wikimedia Endowment was first launched in 2016, its aim was to create a permanent fund to support Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, sustaining the mission of our movement— to ensure that people can freely share and access knowledge into the future. Now in 2023, the Endowment has reached an important, initial stage of development: a portion of its investment income will be used to support technical innovation of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. The Wikimedia Endowment Board is pleased to announce the projects that will receive grant funding from the Wikimedia Endowment in fiscal year 2022-2023.'" Why are grants for the fiscal year 30 June 2022 to 30 June 2023 announced in April 2023?

"'The Wikimedia Endowment is first and foremost, an investment fund. That means that donations to the Endowment are invested in financial markets. A portion of the gains from those investments is reinvested to grow the Endowment over time, and a portion of the fund can be used as funding for Wikimedia projects and the free knowledge movement. The Endowment Board supported funding technical projects this year to help advance the infrastructure of Wikimedia projects.'" The Endowment is first and foremost an investment fund?!

"'In a series of interviews with Endowment donors, the Endowment Board and Advancement staff at the Wikimedia Foundation heard repeatedly about the desire to use their donations to support technical innovation to keep the Wikimedia projects relevant in a rapidly-evolving world.'" Endowment donor interviews? I thought donors were people who make contributions to Wikipedia online etc. The readers and editors, that is. Are these corporate donors only who are interviewed about grant choices?

"'For these initial Endowment grants, projects that are current priorities for the Wikimedia Foundation and community were chosen for support, in alignment with the existing Foundation annual plan and technical roadmap.'" This contradicts what Echevarria said about the Knowledge Equity Fund. (I thought that was the first use of funds from the Endowment.) Also, the financial statements only show one withdrawal of $4.5 million. Is that for the Knowledge Equity Fund or for the technical projects funding that Phoebe described?

Yet more notes and questions
Why are there off-site (i.e. off-Wiki) forums for discussion of Wikimedia-related matters? The one that I found uses the forum software developed by Coding Horror aka Jeff Atwood, formerly of Stack Overflow. I think it is called Discourse not to be confused with Disqus. It hasn't gotten much traction since Jeff left Stack Exchange to develop it in 2013 or so. I've only seen Corey Doctorow's BoingBoing and a blockchain-related non-profit, Etherum Foundation (maybe?) using it.

The site name is forum.movement-strategy.org; here is a topic: Ensure Equity in Decision Making; see too this, about "degrowth" (which is flagged as kind of specious on its Wikipedia article!) [https://forum.movement-strategy.org/t/int-cross-project-coordination-on-degrowth-post-growth/3235 Int. + cross-project coordination on Degrowth / Post-growth] along with a Wikipedia degrowth conference in Zagreb... who pays for THAT?! Here's the agenda. What does this have to do with sustainability of the Wiki movement?!

Why is there a second round of Knowledge Fund grantees? I thought we were done doing that anymore. These aren't the second year of the first round of grantees. FeralOink (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, this, "What we’ve learned from the Equity Fund’s first round" says "'knowledge equity is a radical concept. It asks us to reconsider what we think of as “knowledge' ... The Wikimedia Foundation launched the Equity Fund in late 2021, following the Black Lives Matter protests in the US and around the world.'" Why is Wikipedia doing social justice and reconsidering what we think of as knowledge?!

I see that $250,000 of the technical grant has been given to KIWIX. What is KIWIX? "'Kiwix is a non-profit organization and a free and open-source software project dedicated to providing offline access to educational content, primarily focused on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.'"

It lists Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Switzerland as partners. I thought that we agreed not to do partnerships anymore, after the disasters of Wikipedia Zero and PediaPress. Or does that only pertain to exclusive partnerships? I don't know.

Do we really need so many WMF websites?!
 * https://wikimediafoundation.org
 * https://wikimediaendowment.org
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org
 * https://foundation.wikimedia.org this website
 * hittps://diff.wikimedia.org supposed to be for WMF to communicate to the community (I think) but it doesn't have much content
 * https://annual.wikimedia.org WMF annual report?
 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/financial-reports/ WMF financial reports and Form 990
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising/Reports/ Fundraising reports
 * and of course, THIS! https://enterprise.wikimedia.com although it doesn't appear to be tied to the endowment

That's all for now. I apologize if I accidentally pinged anyone.--FeralOink (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Final Endowment Fund note for Jimbo
25 November 2023


 * Jimmy, regarding the Sandizer inquiry, I note that the Investment Policy you linked us to mentions this:"'The Wikimedia Endowment was invested through the Tides Foundation, which is committed to achieving an impact-driven portfolio. The Wikimedia Endowment is invested only in funds that had been reviewed by Tides and meet its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors.'"Does that mean that the Wikimedia Endowment continues to invest ONLY in Tides-approved ESG investments? If so, why?! Wikimedia has its own unique objectives, specifically pertaining to the Open Knowledge movement. Although impact-driven investing generally results in lower returns and can have higher risks, it sounds like the WMF Endowment has already committed to that in its Investment Policy. Let's take that as a given; however, an impact-driven portfolio consistent with the goals of the Open Knowledge movement are different than those of Tides. Tides is a donor-fund aggregator whose mission aligns with its investment policy:"“Tides conduct its investment management process with the recognition that its responsibility includes not only the traditional goals of maximizing return and minimizing risk, but also a focus on utilizing its investment capital to achieve a world of shared prosperity and social justice, founded on equality and human rights, a sustainable environment, healthy individuals and communities, and quality education.”"WMF Endowment's impact-driven investing should NOT be exclusively determined by the goals and values of Tides as stated above. We are not a Tides subsidiary.
 * I see that the choice of investment holdings is based on Morningstar Sustainability Ratings per your linked description. Why are we using the identical percentage distribution as Tides. Was there a review conducted where that was determined to be best for our Foundation money?
 * I note that 10% of our Endowment will be invested in "funds rated a “three-E;” these funds have an ESG mandate and their lower rating may be due to companies in the fund not being covered by Morningstar analysts (especially in ex-US markets)". That doesn't sound good! Why would we want any of our money to be invested in overseas companies that Morningstar analysts don't even cover? Also, 10% of the Endowment will be invested in "funds that are not rated by Morningstar but have an ESG mandate". So, that means that as of the most current financial statement, approximately $10 million of Endowment funds will be holdings of ESG mutual funds that aren't even rated by Morningstar and another $10 million might be invested in overseas companies that Morningstar doesn't rate. An ESG mandate is not well-defined, i.e. social justice, sustainable environment, and quality education can mean one thing to Tides and something else entirely to others. It would be unfortunate if $20 million of WMF Endowment money were invested with so little control by the WMF.--FeralOink (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Sandizer. I don't think that the Endowment funds and Wikimedia Foundation funds are readily transferable, i.e. the Endowment isn't generally intended for supporting day-to-day operating costs of WMF. See Endowment FAQ item 2:"'During times of prosperity, the Wikimedia Endowment will serve as a springboard for growth and innovation. During tough economic times, the Endowment will help fund the most critical operations that keep the Wikimedia projects functioning."
 * Jimmy's reply to you is good, as it shows that he is cognizant of responsible corporate governance practices:"'I think that using the Endowment to cover shortfalls shouldn't be something that anyone gets comfortable with.'"
 * Your point is well-taken though. I too noticed that 2023 WMF salaries and benefits total over $100 million per year, a 20% year-on-year increase, whereas server costs are merely $3.1 million, up from $2.7 million last year.--FeralOink (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions thoughts
Sanctions against Russia after invading Ukraine in 2022 ***might*** have worked better than the sanctions imposed following the Crimean crisis in late 2014. Prior to discussing that, it is helpful to consider the following:

1. a brief description of **conditions for which sanctions work**; 2. detailed explanation of **why sanctions on Russia are less likely to be effective** in general.

Caveat: OP asked this question on 24 February 2022 so this answer has the benefit of hindsight. When possible, I'll try to explain why expectations of the effect of sanctions on Russia were different than the reality. Also note that sanctions refer to both imports and exports. The goal is economic isolation.

One ---

Sanctions can be highly effective on smaller countries, e.g. Cuba, North Korea, Poland in 1982 (when the Solidarity movement was being repressed). Even for mid-size countries with only one highly valuable resource, sanctions can cause real pain to the economy, banking and payments systems, manufacturing, and the food supply. One example is Iran, which has oil wealth and the means to extract it, but is externally dependent on semiconductor tech, advanced materials for manufactured goods, and pharmaceuticals. Sanctions have had a much greater impact on Venezuela due to the economy's prior and continuing over-reliance on oil exports.

Two ---

Let's move on to item 2. The Russian Federation is the largest country on earth. It is resource rich. The resources that it has are highly valued globally: crude oil, gold, natural gas, diamonds. It has a robust agriculture sector, which is productive beyond domestic needs. I am referring to fertilizer and grain, mostly wheat.

Russia has been getting technologically decrepit and suffering from brain drain since the late 1990s. The legacy of its past, such as its many highly skilled, well-educated citizens who remained and the effective public health campaign to reduce alcoholism (by Yeltsin mostly and maybe Putin?) makes it more resilient than at first glance. Also, Russia had no choice about retaining its manufacturing economy unlike many NATO nations (excluding Germany). This made Russia less vulnerable to sanctions than it would be otherwise.

The final factor in Russia's favor was its almost non-existent debt. As of February 2022, Russia's foreign debt was less than a billion dollars, about $400 million. That is remarkable compared to most developed AND developing nations. It meant that Russia could pull out all the stops to finance spending in war time using both fiscal and monetary policy. As a result, the ruble strengthened and the Russian economy has experienced fantastic growth compared to the rest of the world. Russia has long been ridiculed for having an economy the size of Florida or such, and expectations were that it would shrink into oblivion due to war expenditures, inflation, and societal collapse due to invading Ukraine. The first sign that that wasn't happening was when the IMF and the World Bank released their periodic estimates of economic growth by nation in late 2022. Russia had grown by 0.1% quarter on quarter. Initially, there were allegations, made by some prominent U.S. economists, that the IMF made a gross error or was a Russian asset like Donald Trump. No, this isn't sarcasm. Upon further analysis, the IMF was proven correct. Russia's economy has continued growing since then, at a rate equal to China's, the fastest growing economy in the world.

---

Now, let's tie all of this into the question directly. Could sanctions on Russia have been more effective in 2022 than they were in 2014?

If the disruption during that initial interval is sufficiently severe to the sanctioned regime (and/or business entity, or individuals known as Specially Designated Individuals in U.S. Office for Foreign Asset Controls and ITAR) then yes, national and supranational-imposed sanctions can force an end to behavior that is considered unacceptable given international norms.

To do this in the case of Russia, it would have been necessary to unleash a torrent of tightly-synchronized sanctions at the very start of the Special Military Operation. That isn't easy to do, even among the UK, U.S. and EU! Instead, sanctions were rolled out in stages. The U.S. was the quickest, e.g. reducing exports of refined and finished petroleum products to zero between the eve of the invasion and February 28, 2022. Some EU members were very dependent on Russian natural gas and continued to import it until January 2023. In the case of Germany, the danger of deindustrialization of its manufacturing economy is so great that they indirectly evaded fuel sanctions until caught in September 2023. The EU imposed its 15th round of sanctions just last week.

Effective sanctions would also require willing adoption and enforcement by the United States, EU, non-EU NATO members (UK, Turkey), and other important economies such as India, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and China.

Sadly, in the examples of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran, sanctions mostly punish the citizens not the rulers who are responsible for causing imposition of sanctions. Depending on the populace's alignment with the government, or non-alignment, sanctions exacerbate citizen dissatisfaction. In the case of Iran, the citizenry is better able to exert pressure for governmental change, although success (which isn't necessarily regime change, e.g. Russia) is elusive. Yet as one of the comments observed, what else are you going to do?

--

Draft notes for ADinning BLP
Anne Carolyn Dinning is an American hedge fund executive best known as quantitative finance  from 1992 through 2024.

Biography
Dinning was born and raised in Seattle, Washington. She attended, and earned her bachelor's degree in mathematics. She PhD program in  at.

In she published

Testing carriage returns in wikisyntax
If I create one line of quotes, everything is fine:

This shows up fine since it's one line.

If I create three lines of quotes, it's also fine: This is the first line.

This is the second line.

This is the third line.

However, if I attempt to have exactly two lines in the quote box, then it breaks and things merge together into a single line.

See this first line.

Will get merged into the second line.

Adding a  in the paragraph is surrounded by nowiki code, so it prints out as raw text.

This is a test line. This is a second test line.

Even if I go to manually edit the source and insert the  myself, the paragraphs still show up with different spacing than expected.

This is a test line. This is a second test line.

Compare with a three line quote: This is a test line.

This is a second test line.

This is a third test line.

Trying with two  s:

This is a test line. This is a second test line.