User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 2

Oriented Matroid
Just an FYI. I made several changes to the Oriented Matroid article. Considering your numerous edits on that article, I thought you might want to know. Best Wishes,  Jwesley 78 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your efforts and display of sound judgment! In particular, I am very happy that you provided an axiomatization. (After some real examples are included, it may be best to move the examples above the axioms.) Thanks again! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'hypotheses'
This is widespread throughout and seems unhelpful. As I'm sure you're aware, one need not start from point hypotheses in order to build up inference, and in particular inference about real-valued parameters confuses people in this way. Saying we start from 'assumptions' avoids this —Preceding unsigned comment added by McPastry (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to use "hypothesis" for a (preferably falsifiable) proposition from which potentially falsifiable consequences are to be derived: The word "Proposition" emphasizes either true or false, which seems fundamental to statistical science. I don't remember discussing point-hypotheses as a foundation for inference, and would appreciate a pointer to this error. I agree that point hypotheses are useful for extensional logic but need not be sufficient for all intensional purposes. (Pointless theories are interesting! I will refrain from mentioning specific works of Peirce!)
 * (BTW, Students and the public may be confused by my using "hypothesis" in the usual sense (above) the same day that they come across "hypothesis"-testing: Therefore, I try to substitute "assumption" for "hypothesis" especially on exam papers.)


 * However, I distrust your more widespread substitution of "assumption" rather than "hypothesis", since "assumption" diminishes the importance of falsifiability or credibility --- where you (and perhaps Melcombe) have very relaxed standards for "statistical inference", imho, at least in the first round of edits this week. (I acknowledged some efforts toward consensus earlier.)
 * Perhaps you are happily working (like James Lindsey or Cox, one assumes) in applications where experimenters have a lot of knowledge and control and where model-based approaches result in consistent estimates---unlike most applications in the social sciences and epidemiology. Spend a day with a mid-level journal in economics or epidemiology (if you dare!) and maybe you would have greater sympathy for the skepticism towards "models" and observational studies, which are stated in our professional guidelines and leading textbooks, and which I try to introduce into Wikipedia articles.
 * I am sorry for expressing irritation in editing comments. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance
A tag has been placed on F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance
A tag has been placed on F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning (which was my first in creating an article). I have improved the content so that it is now a stub, with reliable references. It is notable, for reasons explained on the talk page. As suggested, I added a "hang-on" tag to the article's TALK page. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs to be separate if it is to be included in the category of obsolete statistical procedures. (I did improve the main article, F-test, so that the relevant section can be referred to). Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article lives
The speedy-delete notice was removed. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Category on Obsolete statistical procedures
Melcombe, you purged the category of procedures whose text already named them as obsolete. I don't understand your comment that categories shouldn't have just one item, given your purging behavior of Box-Pierce (whose text described it as obsolete) and the F-test. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Categories for discussion under "speedy deletion". See also subpages of that page, containing discussion of particular categories, where a common reason is "too small". I find no actual definition of "too small", and it is somewhat context-dependent, but cats have been deleted which formerly contained 5 or 6 articles. There is also the point that you are trying to impose a POV categorisation. Melcombe (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please elaborate on my imposing a point of view categorization? The Box Pierce test was described as "obsolete" in the text written by another editor. Your article quoted Pedersen as saying that fiducial inference was essentially dead. I haven't added a reference from Moore-McCabe, etc., but do you have any doubt that the F-test of equal variances has been superceded? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor characterized the Box-Peirce test as being "obsolete" in the article on Portmanteau tests, to which I should have referred (rather than to the Box Peirce test). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is a terrible idea to promote a non-robust test, but an excellent idea to document that a test is non-robust and should never be used. I think the article has a lot of value to ward off the periodic rearing of its ugly head, and in fact, I would suggest ADDING a few stronger sentences about never using the procedure is warranted. IMHO, the section title should be changed form "Obsolete" to "Dangerous", and I imagine that in time it would contain a repertoire larger than the toolkit statisticians keep close at hand.Edstat (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All tests can be misapplied and inductive inference always carries risks of failure, so I don't think that "dangerous" is an improvement, at least in a WP article, although it may be better in the class-room. I discuss the choice of the word "obsolete" on the talk page of that category. Briefly, "obsolete" was chosen for consistency with the super-category of "obsolete scientific theories", but even here another editor (Melcombe, I believe) objected to subjectivity and pov (for the statistics subcategory, but not apparently for the scientific super-category, I note with curiousity). I am unaware of any responses to that discussion, so your comments or suggestions would be most valuable there: It would be useful to collect other "obsolete" statistical procedures for this category: Given your comments about deprecated statistical methods, I would guess that you could contribute many. Thanks again for another of a series of productive and increasingly pleasant notes. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Areopagitica
responded on my talk page. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo Sawilowsky‎
Could you take a look at this article please? Somebody posted at WP:COIN with concerns about it, I started to tidy it up and then an IP seems to have become offended at me questioning the notability of the subject and hacked the article to pieces. I'm not going to start edit warring with them but it would be useful if you could take a look, particularly at Talk:Shlomo Sawilowsky‎. Thanks a lot Smartse (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't have the energy to deal with the emotional editing discussions on that page. Therefore, I am glad that others have tried to help wikify the article. I'll try to look at in a few days. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you discovered the real reason things settled down over there... thank you for your edits and for withstanding the COI trolling.
 * Thank you! Having looked in the mirror once in a while, I expect a bit of obsessiveness, righteous indignation, zealotry, and (on talk pages) silliness --- mostly from myself but even from others! ;) Such editing disputes have always worked out before. The Sawilowsky page is the first time I've ever seen Wikipedia trolls, and such repeated & vicious personal attacks. From now on, I'll view sock-puppets and even Kukla, Fran and Ollie with a shudder, the same way I have come to view clowns after reading Steven King's It! Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WOW! I am honored! I am especially happy that my first "award" comes from you, given your work on this page and your having withstood various personal attacks. Let us hope that a few weeks of reflection and quiet will do that page and the overly emotional editor some good! (BTW, I added a sentence citing Hettmansperger and McKean to provide some non-coi and non-pov support for the good works of Professor Sawilowski.) Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! There is no greater enemy to Wikipedia than self-promotion.  You deserve the Barnstar. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First: I'm glad to see that you got a barnstar for helping to clean up that article. Second (and off-topic):, I had hoped the drama was all over. I don't think I'm going to even look at his contributions until this weekend to see what problems there may be, maybe someone else will lend a hand before then. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Imre Ruzsa and Imre Z. Ruzsa
Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,

Thank You for Your message. I have made the following change, please tell me if it is not approriate. The article now looks like this: User:Physis/Imre Ruzsa.

The cause why I stuck in failing to accomplish the article can be read here.

Thank You very much for Your help and attention,

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your good work. I am sorry that I was tired and failed to make the disambiguation (and also that I mispelled the name). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo Sawilowsky page
Some of the allegations and comments you made (and most made by Smartse and Lulus) were incorrect or apparently deliberately taken out of context. I chose not to defend myself, because it is petty. The fact that an Admin can be persuaded to block without checking is just another nail in the coffin of what Wikipedia describes itself as: nonprofessional.

As for your editing on Shlomo Sawilowksy, almost all of it was well done. Your comments on the discussion page, however, were frequently, imho, inflamatory and biased (regarding applied statistics v. math, not anti-Semitism). Many of your remarks on the disucssion page were statistically ignorant, but you have a rarely found ability to educate yourself and change your point of view. I wish others in math had your ability.

As for my editing of Enflo, please see the Shlomo Sawilowsky discussion page, where I outlined what I did and why. There is nothing new there - I previously explained what I did on the Enflo discussion page as I did it, as well as the Edit summary page, so it isn't like you have no idea why I made edits that improved the entry - you seem to want to just OWN. Instead, I suggest you assume good faith on edits.Edstat (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, it has been decided there that doctoral students must have their own articles to be included in the info box. Although I would not insult Enflo's or Kempthorne doctoral students as you have repeatedly and viciously attacked and denigrated Shlomo Sawilowsky's doctoral students, apparently the jury is not still out on this and Enflo's students should remain out of the infobox.Edstat (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I responded on the Sawilowsky page. ("mediocre" is not an insult. Most people are mediocre.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edstat, you were blocked for flagrant disregard of WP policy. There was no "persuasion."  If WP is so nonprofessional, why do you spend so much effort promoting Shlomo?  Kiefer is an experienced, quality, unbiased editor who made good comments on the talk page.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Trolling and Wikihounding
Edstat's behavior seems like prototypical trolling. The recent editing is bizarre: Edstat spends hours on articles associated with me, then reverses everything the next day, without explanation. I leave it to others to infer what the obvious motivation is. Edstat's behavior seems to violate the guideline Harrassment, particularly "Wikihounding" and (Wikipedia but not "real world") "Threats". Complaints about trolling behavior may be made pursuant to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: Edstat's declaration of intention essentially is a Game of Chicken strategy of intimidating the editors of the Shlomo Sawilowsky page either to agree to his demands in one week, or witness his destructive editing in a wide range of articles, which begin with the articles on which I've worked. I would welcome another editor to consider whether Edstat's behavior warrants a complaint.

Edstat has twice suggested that other editors are motivated by anti-semitism, without any evidence, and without any apology; to me, this is itself grounds for sanction, perhaps informally by the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my recent replies to Edstat, and of course I would welcome the community's sanction(s) on me. But please stop Edstat's harrassment. Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. His obvious COI promotional intent motivates every edit.  Besides violating harassment guidelines, he has violated numerous WP policies.  He will be reported again if it continues.  As for informal sanction to start with, we could ignore him, as recommended by the What is a Troll essay, reverting edits. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,

Thank You very much for Your kind reassuring words and good wishes. I have read Your first answer too, just I had to attend a series of job interviews meanwhile, that's why I had to wait with my answer till today.

I like the contrast between natural sciences versus the belief systems of pre-agriculture folks, I like both fields, together with both the contrasts and the analogies. My PTSD seems to step back year by year. (Maybe Bruno Bettelheim was right, and pre-tribal cultures indeed had some efficient techniques to treat PTSD.) I wish much success to Your friend too.

Nowadays I contribute less on Wikipedia, because mathematics turned out to be larger, deeper, and more sophisticated than I thought previously (balance and context is more important in writing articles than I thought before). Thus I try to learn more, and delay writing for future.

Best wishes, and much luck also to Your friend living with PTSD,

Physis (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On reverting edits to Enflo and Kempthorne
These comments are at your request from another page: I have been told not to respond to inflammatory remarks, and indeed, inflammatory remarks by others and my responses have been edited out. (I characterize it this way because almost always the material that was edited out started with another’s comment, followed by my response). I apologize in advance for being long winded – but here is my final attempt at asking for civility in editing.

You are entitled to an explanation as to why I reverted the Per Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne pages back to how you had them originally. I clearly stated my reasons for editing them when I did so, and summarized the reasons as well on the respective talk pages. I rely on any interested editor reading this to read what I wrote instead of how you have characterized what I wrote. Hence, I won’t repeat any of that here or respond to it further.

However, a senior editor said he/she didn’t think I was trying to disrupt, but it may have appeared that way to others. I truly intend on editing consistently on any article I choose to edit based on your comments, and comments of others, from the Shlomo Sawilowsky page. It is my learning laboratory. However, it was suggested that I first experiment and ask for comments (despite, a very irritated editor on that talk page who insisted wiki is not for talk pages but for editing, and another stating he/she would WP:Boldly edit. Apparently, those rules don’t apply always or to everyone.)

I took that senior editor’s concern seriously, and thus, I reverted all my edits back to the way you had those two articles completely. Although I knew you had a made a few minor changes based on my comments, you indicated on those talk pages you did so, generally, argumentatively, so I was trying to take the page back to the point where you wouldn’t have to compromise. I got hammered again – let no good deed go unpunished! I’m impressed that you proceeded to put a few (albeit minor) edits that I had called for back in, and I do apologize that it required extra effort on your part – but honestly you would be in the best position to do so because they were your edits.

As to some of your other questions, you are correct that I wasn’t clear by lumping together the three editors who spent a lot of time hammering the Shlomo Sawilowsky page. I mentioned a number of issues lumped together and then referred them in toto to the three of you. The other two (one apparently who was warned rather ominously) were primarily personal attacks; in your case it was primarily, in my view, inconsistency in applying how you interpret wiki policies on the Shlomo Sawilowsky page and the Per Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne page and, imo, your bias favoring mathematicians/mathematics.
 * I agree that some primary sources were used for Enflo, but that was because whatever I wrote was well-known to anybody who'd read even a popular book discussing Banach spaces. It was easy for me to find secondary sources, but this just increases the length of the article on Enflo, and I have avoided quoting the praise usually given to his accomplishments. As far as I can see, you (and other editors) have not found any independent statements stating that Shlomo Sawilowsky has accomplished much, although I agree that it is warranted for reasonable people to celebrate Sawilowsky---alas, WP policy prevents us from writing OR.
 * About data analysis: Enflo thought about data on Neanderthals and modern humans and proposed a theory that leading scientists are trying to evaluate. Isn't that what statistical science should do? (Certainly following Peirce.) What has Sawilowsky or students done that has had a similar impact?

I have given laundry lists detailing those inconsistencies, but to what purpose? In my opinion, there is an endless debate with you because you insist on judging the Shlomo Sawilowsky page on mathematics criteria when neither he nor the article states he is a mathematician, and you constantly denigrate any other related field, such as applied statistics (not mathematical statistics), data analysis, quantitative methods, evaluation and research; as well as their faculty and doctoral students; and their journals.
 * These people are publishing. What has the "bulk" of publication accomplished? What has changed? (I ask the same question of at least half the theses in mathematical statistics, etc.)

It is a LOT of hate – how could they all be “weak”, etc., and is there any field that is not superior to it in your view? You have even cited an, imho, minor mathematician
 * Before dismissing Peirce, consider the judgement of Hintikka and Putnam on his logic, and e.g. Stephen Stigler, Kempthorne, Hacking, Ramsey on his statistics.

to bring the father of statistics
 * I am unaware of any conceptual advances that Pearson had over Peirce.

(who was actually a biologist and is on record as agreeing with Fisher that he was ignorant of modern mathematics
 * Agreeing with Fisher might have been a tactic to avoid another temper tantrum. Pearson obviously had a good training in the techniques and sitzfleisch of the British tradition in applied mathematics. His system of curves shows some ability and understanding of classical analytic/algebriac geometry. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

– but just spend a little time reading Biometrika from 1901 – 1936 and we will talk again!) to task because of what he wrote in a book to the layman!
 * We should be honest with hourselves and others, and little of Pearson's book could survive the scrutiny needed before offering it to the public. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You refuse to take the gentle hint, or the bombast, that this is biased, so I give up. When was the last time you got a call from a cancer patient participating in a clinical trial with a question on C* algebras or your beloved Banach spaces?
 * April-May 2002. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I have a first edition Banach in my collection, and I consider it top shelf material, along with my first editions of Leibniz, Bernoulli, Eulor, Lagrange, and almost complete set of Liouville’s journal. But on top of the shelves I keep the best stuff (i.e., first edition Wilcoxon, etc.)

This is especially troubling in applied statistics/data analysis. Almost all that was thought to be true from mathematicians, mathematical statisticians, and their mathematics about small samples properties of statistics (e.g., Type I errors, Type II errors, comparative power) – real data analysis - was completely wrong.
 * Sorry to disagree, but much of applied statistics uses results on monotone likelihood results, particularly for exponential families, and these results have been known because of Samuel Karlin and Herman Rubin. I am unaware of whatever revolution you think has occured in "real data" analysis. What is non-real data? ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Almost all that is known to be correct today is based on methods that you have denigrated on more than once occasion. We get it – you tolerate simulation methods only if buttressed by squiggles, and even then only under protest. But that was yesteryear when older mathematicians were unsure of resampling methods. Review the past quarter century of JASA (my collection goes to the 1920s) - there has clearly been a shift by younger folks to put the simulations up front and relegate the (typically incomplete) proofs to the appendices.

Your bias on another talk page about the best this and the best that (including superiority of someone’s coffee table to, in my words, the work of people at 75 Carnegie Research I Doctoral Extensive institutions in the US and similar across the globe) is rubbish to the real world of real data analysis. Hence, your bias comes out frequently, and it leads to many inconsistencies. Do you really want to count how many AuMS B and C rated journals are indexed by MathSciNet?~
 * If I faced a serious problem, I would rather consult with David Cox or John Tukey (RIP) or David Freedman (RIP) then the combined forces of all the statisticians in some states of the USA. We disagree, apparently.

So, to conclude, I get it – no one is notable or has done anything notable other than those whose articles you primarily edit. ~
 * Sigh. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we have an article (Shlomo Sawilowsky) on someone who has authored over 100 articles in top social and behavioral sciences journals (based on Google Scholar), and is cited by at least 50 current textbooks in use around the world in a dozen languages (based on Google books), and the sum total that is worthy of detail is “Many of his publications are related to rank-based nonparametric statistics.” Let someone even try to put in secondary sources describing his work and lets see what you do.
 * That sentence is not a fair synopsis of my judgement, which was recorded on the talk page. I am aware of no statement in the literature stating anything about Sawilowski's contribution, howwever, so I cannot add OR/POV to his article: More precisely, when I wrote a fair assessment, it was rightly removed as OR. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is only one solution. Lets both stick to independent, secondary, and reliable sources, and let the editing chips fall where they may. That is what I intend on continuing to do when I return to editing that and other pages.

And that is all I have to say about that. I simply won't respond anymore to inflamatory remarks, deliberate misunderstandings, deliberate restatments out of contexts, etc., including to what you may respond to here. I will, however, respond to reason and civility. Now, lets get to work and improve all three of these pages, and those that follow, including the Math Genealogy and JMASM articles if you so desire.


 * This seems satisfactory, as does your tone here and more recently.

By the way, in glancing at your page just now, I happened to see the speedy deletion recommendation of the F test on variances. It has been known, via Monte Carlo studies, for over 40 years, and published in many social/behavioral science journals, that this test is terribly non-robust with respect to Type I errors for departures from population normality. I haven't read your wiki article, but I sure hope your aren't supporting its use!Edstat (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken a first course in statistics from a competent book and have even taught from Moore/McCabe. I tried to correct misunderstandings on the original ANOVA article and on the F-test. Thanks for writing: It's very late in Sweden, and I'm too tired to reply more. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whew! I just checked the article. I was puzzled because I can't imagine why anyone would waste space on making an article about a procedure that doesn't work! After reading the article I still don't know why. And by the way, check out, where the same ASA web page that discusses two of Sawilowsky's many awards also mentions Moore's distinguished fellowship award. Make of it what you will.Edstat (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another reason was to facilitate reference to a procedure that doesn't work. I created a category of "obsolete statistical procedures", as a subcategory of "obsolete scientific theories". You may wish to review the discussion on my talk page, or on that page and editor Melcombe's comments and comment if the spirit moves you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)