User talk:Stephan Schulz/Archive 5

Recognition at last

[1]. I assume you don't take offence but if you do let me know. --BozMo talk 18:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I take offence. It's got to be nano-Dr.Schulz! Don't cut corners when it comes to WP:CIV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeking another view

I have suggested another user's comment may indicate anti-Semitism, and am now being accused of libel for it. I often respect your way of handling conflicts, and wonder if you'd provide an independent view here but also go to talk: Christ myth theory and just use your "find" function for "holocaust" and see how often it comes up, and how. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away most of the weekend and only looked into it tonight. I decided to sleep over it, and now the thread has been closed. My opinion is that the comparison of Holocaust denial and CMT is inane - one is a politically/hatred driven denial of firmly established reality, the other is one end of a continuous spectrum not too far from the current mainstream (Jesus as a person probably existed, but had little to do with the myth build around him later). The permanent hawking of that comparison is very counterproductive. This is a clear example of Godwin's law in action. I'm quite sure that Eugene does not think it's anti-semitic, in the same way as someone can think "I've got nothing against negroes, they are so great at music" is not racist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally though I do think SLR's comments were rather inappropriate. In some circumstances I might have given a warning for them. However ridiculous people are being I don't think a leading accusation of AS is going to help matters, and failing to treat the Holocaust with sufficient reverence as an analogy (which was the provocation to SLR here I think) is as likely due to ignorance as AS. Meanwhile HerrDrS, old and set in his ways that he is (well, only slightly younger than me), needs to move on from Albert Schweitzer to Hans Frei and understand the distinction between myth and narrative. --BozMo talk 13:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I agree that the accusation is not exactly in line with Wikipedia policies (except for WP:IAR). On the other hand, it may shock Eugene sufficiently to reflect on his behavior, and why it may at least be interpreted as anti-Semitic, while less radical approaches possibly would have failed. As for the last sentence, have you missed your Hot Dog last Friday? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"getting a cheap thrill by using this page to vent a little of your anti-Semitism" would be a PA even without the AS reference. But I will remember the IAR argument for shocking someone to reflect on his behaviour... Ian Paisley's white knuckle sermons on hell might be just the thing for someone who thinks hotdogs acceptable just because hamburgers are their compatriots. --BozMo talk 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ian Who? And of course Hot Dogs are absolutely not acceptable, which is why you are required to have one. Don't you follow the illuminating links? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Noun<<>>adjective might get you downgraded to 0.3 BozMo. And while we are on grammar, absolutely not acceptable meaning fine in dilution?..:) --BozMo talk 18:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please revert yourself, you are in violation of the policy quoted to support the action.

I herewith declare this Bazaar closed. There is no substantial argument that the emails are in the public domain. The rest is bickering. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you wish to rely upon policy to censor - do not choose only the bits that you need to manipulate the discussion to form a directed conclusion. First: the policy that was mis-quoted applied to Harrassment[2]: “ " Private correspondence There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki" and in a second principle that "Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee." See related rejected proposals Wikipedia:Private correspondence, Wikipedia:Correspondence off-wiki and Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. ” It required an un-involved administrator to invoke. You are clearly not. Second: the community explicitly rejected[3] censorship of records in the public domain. There was no consensus found to censor such knowledge from our encyclopedia readers. "No consensus found" = rejected idea. Third: The correspondence is unequivocally, irrevocably and famously in the public domain and is clearly allowed by the arbcom editing principle referred to above. In short, the policy quoted does not apply - as one can clearly see from the distinctions made regarding on-wiki harassment and the rejected proposal, and secondly as an involved editor in the subject ... it is not your place.99.141.241.135 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Go read WP:COPYVIO, which is what I base my deletion on. Your claim that these emails are "in the public domain" is unsupported nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Third party readers should note that this IP, which has been previously warned for engaging against in inapropriate ways against identifiable living persons is editing his statement after it was responded to - [4]. There is no reasonable argument being made that random stolen emails have lapsed into the public domain. Saying it dosen't make it true. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Don't be an ass. It was a clear edit conflict. And where have I a BLP violation?99.141.241.135 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Are you denying you are the user referred to in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I'm denying BLP violations.99.141.241.135 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Are you denying you are the user referred to in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal? Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I'm denying BLP violations. (undent) Are you the user mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive211#BLP.2C_SPAs.2C_a_proposal? Please review WP:SOCK. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) You've stated that I am. I have not denied it. Anyone reading the edits of the closely related ip addresses would come to no other conclusion but that the distinctive writing style was from only one possible unique individual. As there is no possible room for doubt - what possible reason do you have for such an obnoxious police-state interrogation? Your continued multi-page assaults are clearly intended to derail legitimate discussion of issues and to harass editors that you oppose. Lack of intellectual substance is often followed by violence. This is just the online manifestation of the phenomenon.13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434 William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) If you again attempt to avoid scrutiny when directly questioned as to your previous IP addresses, I will seek to have you prevented from further dissembling. I stated that you were warned for your conduct with respect to identifiable living persons, and you denied that you were. When I linked to the section where you were warned for your conduct with respect to identifiable living persons, you yet again denied that you were warned for your conduct. This dishonesty must cease. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Involved?

I may have lost the plot here. But TPH is quoting a very restrictive defn of "uninvolved" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lar and I'm sure you've been zapped in situations where that defn would leave you uninvolved William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No you've lost the plot. Lar is right as you know :) Polargeo (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers

They were interesting answers indeed. But I was referring to the question that starts out "Ah. Thanks for clarifying. I think I see the source of the confusion... " ++Lar: t/c 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. Answered now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't

Don't respond to bad stats anymore. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be wiser. But I cannot stand bad science or bad math - that's what got me into the climate change arena in the first place. I'll try to restrain myself... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it had been proven that 83.12943% of all stats were inaccurate anyway? --BozMo talk 19:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong - challenge bad stats in article and article talk pages, but at this point it's just not worth it - though I do admit that the 2 cabals per cell math (flawed as it is) is pretty funny. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not per cell - it's per molecule ;-). Our cells are hopelessly overwhelmed by cabals! But yes, it's probably time to call this off. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well there's a thought

We have more reliable sources on the recent NAS member open letter than on this blog. Does anybody think we should have an article on the letter?

Maybe we should William M. Connolley (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"Welcome to the Cabal"

That link you just posted on another editor's talk page purports to "out" them. So, posting that link in Wikipedia probably isn't a very good idea. You might need to request Oversight to correct that edit. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... it's still in the history so Oversight is needed, IMO --Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've requested it via email. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove your comment from uninvolved

Stephan, please remove your comment from the uninvolved section of the WMC RFE. There is absolutely no argument to be made that you are uninvolved with respect to CC, and especially not regarding WMC. I intend to take this to arbcom if you do not self-revert, as your comment is inappropriate in that section. ATren (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No. It's been there before, with predictable apathy. I'm uninvolved per the definition, and I'm certainly more uninvolved that Lar. Your comment, on the other hand, is completely inappropriate in that section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fred Singer

Although I tend to sympathize and agree with you and WMC more often than not, SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one. It would be helpful if you could help resolve the problem and work with WMC to bring this to a conclusion. I know that WMC has been harassed for years, but when he's had this much mud flung at him for so long, some is bound to stick. WMC and others need to take a step back and look at the situation with fresh eyes. I'm hopeful that you and others will be able to end this. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This stuff has been going on for years albeit at a lower level. I'm afraid it won't end until all scientifically literate editors have been driven off the climate change articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

All true, but nothing is preventing any editors from admitting their mistakes, learning from them, and moving on. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. That's a point I've been trying to make to the Science Cabal (as Lar calls us). Keep your own conduct above reproach; don't sink to the other fellow's level. It's not just the right thing to do, but also throws the misconduct of the WR/contrarian axis into sharper focus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SBHB, was it necessary to take shots at Lar and Wikipedia Review in your response here? Not that it should matter here, but most of the participants at Wikipedia Review support the IPCC's stance on human-caused climate change. Their criticisms of WMC are for different reasons, the Singer behavior in question being one of them. If you'd like to come to WR and discuss with the participants there, I think they would be receptive to your input. Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I shall decline your offer. Also, if Lar has not in fact referred to the "science cabal" I will gladly withdraw my statement with apologies, but to the best of my recollection he has done so on numerous occasions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe there is any truth to a statement that there is a "science cabal" involved with the AGW articles? Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Define "cabal." By commonly accepted definitions of the term, such as given here, absolutely not. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a productive line of inquiry. Science is the dominant POV for this encyclopedia, whether some will choose to admit it or not, and I realize that many will not. Claiming that there is a "cabal" of scientists or science-minded editors is like saying there is a cabal of air-breathing, water-drinking primates. Unfortunately, most people don't understand science, and more importantly, its methodology, and if the science "cabal" is guilty of anything, it is ignoring this fact and becoming impatient with the plebs. So, if you aren't here to learn, you have a responsibility to teach, so what happens when the plebs refuse to learn? Here we are. Patience needs to come first, and many simply don't have that capacity or have grown tired of answering the same questions over and over again. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one. - I don't quite think so. Yes, behavior on either side has not been perfect in the past. Of course, the slate on the so-called skeptics side gets wiped clean over and over again when socks are discarded, while mud on the side of consistent editors keeps accumulating. But there is nothing in the current behavior that would justify a sanction (unless you take a strong position on spurious enforcement requests ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, surely you understand, that even if WMC sprouts wings and a halo, and starts playing a beautiful melody on the harp, he's still going to be the target of an anti-Angel campaign to rid Wikipedia of that pernicious Angel-bias? WMC should probably not be engaging in any controversial or contentious edits for this reason. Ok, so he enjoys the drama, but seriously, what's the shelf life of drama-loving editors? Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with that, too. William is not always particularly wise in either his choice of fights or his methods. But as much as I regret that (and that's not always very - at least he helps to establish the positions of participants), that's a different topic. He is grown up, and he does (slowly ;-) respond to occasional prods by Boris and me. But again, there is no merit in the current enforcement request. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, what is your view of WMC's "Martian" reverts? Do you believe they were good faith edits? And if so, please explain your reasoning. ATren (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinions are sometimes available to pushy questioners at my normal consulting rate, EUR 300 per hour, 30 minutes minimum. Ask for a quote to get an idea on the research cost. Or stick to one place, where I already discuss your (quite off-topic for this enforcement request) distraction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not off topic, and I see no comment in that other discussion on the merits of WMC's Martian push -- in fact, you evaded the question. So I take it that this is a refusal to answer? ATren (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a troll. Why not go somewhere else? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the CC articles are apparently where the trolls hang out. :-) ATren (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

For those who need it: I herewith officially declare this a non-CC article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one - baffling. So, V: which of my recents edits do you regard as problematic, and which serious enough to trigger the probation request? Do you regard it as unreasonable to describe Singer as a "retired physicst"? Do you think it unreaonable to say that he is a GW skeptic? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you file an RFC on the talk page? Requesting a wide range of opinions could help your case. Do you understand that even though I don't personally agree with SV or ATren, they are using DR effectively and you are not? SV's enforcement request could be completely wrong, but it could also be a convincing case. You forget that whenever a single editor goes up against BLP, the policy is weighted towards the subject, not the editor. Perhaps this is an oversight on your part? Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that WMC's edit which was a basic interpretation of the sources is backed up by [5] over 400 google books hits. BLP!!!!!!!!!!!! should never be used to disguise the facts. Polargeo (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the first sentence on a BLP should reflect the thing for which they have most coverage is a false one, especially if it is a characterisation by third parties versus qualifications etc as in this case. Go and look at, as I have already said, at Bob Geldof (famous for LiveAid, Gene Robinson (famous for being a gay bishop) etc and we do not put a characterisation for which they are famous ahead of significant factual biographical details. No big deal, IMHO WMC is wrong as we are all wrong sometimes. --BozMo talk 10:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I apologize if that's what you took away from my comments. In order to understand something, you need to be able to argue both sides. If you can't do that, then you don't really understand the topic. Now, SV and ATren have made a convincing argument on the enforcement page. I'm not saying it is right and I'm not saying it is wrong, but let's look at what WMC is arguing in his defense: "Topic ban SV". So, we've got "BLP violation" vs. "Ban SV". Which of these arguments do you think is going to play in Peoria? I'm naturally biased towards WMC, but I'm generally in agreement with SV on this one. What does that say about WMC's argument? Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the procedure, but the facts (alas not a very popular attitude on wiki now, BURO etc). But I still find your SV and ATren have the facts on their side on this one baffling. If you meant, "have the politics on their side" then I'd understand you. By "facts" I thought you meant reality. Can you clarify what that phrase means to you? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on the ideal struucture of an article is fine. This is sorted out through normal editing practices. BLP violation! Banned form editing BLP articles is another level and is ridiculous. Sanctions are NOT there to sort out the fine structure of an article. If I wished to write a balanced article for Fred Singer the prominant aspect of his life would indeed be his skepticism based on RS anyway. Polargeo (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas. This has become a witch hunt against WMC and I am not about to enforce anything. Polargeo (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary to everyone: Choose your battles. (Notwithstanding the fact that someone, possibly ATren or Cla68, may quote this diff out of context to spin it I'm promoting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Rice

You forgot the tildes [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the tildes, thanks. But I don't get the reference to Oryza sativa. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops: I meant tilda... see, it works: Tilda William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. When I was in the UK, I only ate rice from Indian and Chinese restaurants, so I don't know the brands. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Re [7]: thanks. I must have been newted at the time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you making up weird words on the go to confuse me? Anyways, you're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. Newted William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Always glad to expand my vocabulary (not to mention to learn how to spell it)! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't

Stephan, please don't do things like this.[8][9] You're only giving Lar more ammunition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I'm only following his suggestions! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's rather a novel interpretation. Stop playing games. Place, or move back, a comment of yours in the uninvolved admin section, or move one of mine out, and there will be consequences. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SBHB, but with respect to consequences, I'm not fully clear as to why Lar can rule Stephan Schulz is involved, but Stephan Schulz cannot rule Lar is involved? Could someone explain that to me? It seems to me that both of them are right - neither Stephan Schulz nor Lar has the appearance of neutrality required to remain Uninvolved. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But Lar has The Truth while I only have a 6.5 years of constructive Wikipedia contributions, several awards for patience and calmness, and a reasonable scientific education. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't edit in the topic area. And my constructive Wikipedia contributions are somewhat shorter at only 5 or so years. But other than that we're the same, yes. However, editing in the topic area is what matters. Stephan Schulz does edit there, I do not. Further, the other uninvolved admins find me uninvolved. They do not find Stephan Schulz uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, your statement above is a statement of fact. I'm not looking for you to justify your involvement or lack of involvement, or Stephan Schulz involvement or lack of involvement, I'm looking for you to explain how you are permitted to rule that Stephan Schulz is involved and how he is not permitted to rule that you are involved. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. He's not. The determination of this has been made, so far, by the uninvolved admins. Perhaps that will change. I suppose I could ask ArbCom for a ruling on it. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you should do that - it appears that you have ruled he's involved and he has ruled that you are involved. While my stance is that he is obviously involved and you are probably involved, I don't see how one can argue that your ruling is valid and his is not. Absent a ruling from someone with the authority to state that one of you is right/wrong, it would appear that you are both DQed. Alternatively, you could all stop mucking around with your stupid magic discussion section and instead try to resolve the problem - but that's not the goal here, is it? Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been mine all along. Some don't like that. Hence their machinations. I'd say it looks like one team trying to remove a ref they don't like because he's too impartial for their taste. ++Lar: t/c 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if you're right that you are impartial. If you are wrong, it's a biased ref trying to call games for their team. You'll need to find a way to resolve that dispute, instead of just running into a brick wall over and over. You suggested ArbCom. That would work. You and Stephen could also agree to one arbitor of fact, submit all the evidence to them, and agree with whatever their ruling was about involvement - both, one, or neither of you being unequivocally ruled involved. To just keep reverting away at eachother is disruptive - in fact, given this section, if either of you posts in the "uninvolved admin" section again, I'll go to arbcom. There - problem solved. Hipocrite (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Get your request ready, then. The other uninvolved admins find me uninvolved and have said so repeatedly. That should do for you. I have no plans to stop participating as an uninvolved admin. You can't take me out of the game with this ploy. ++Lar: t/c 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not trying to "take you out of the game," or whatever WP:BATTLE terminology you latch on to next, I'm try to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. You are not helping. Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood me. I'm uninvolved. The other uninvolved admins agree. You need to get over it. Don't interfere with the working of the board, because THAT is disruption. But this probably belongs on my talk, as I came here to warn Stephan, not debate you. ++Lar: t/c 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stephan_Schulz.E2.80.8E_.26_Lar

I have filed this case to get clarity on the involved/not involved status of both of you. You may respond there. Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Involved, yes, but...

... generally one of the more considered voices. FWIW. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Partly, at least ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar RfC

[10] You accidentally erased SarekofVulan's view when you added yours. Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. Fixed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at RFAR

I've mentioned your behavior somewhat indirectly but by name in my comments at the Arbcom requests page, here [11] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So (joke)

You obviously like programming in Piston :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You noted that the list of involved persons is still very incomplete at the above request - what were the usernames you had in mind? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly user:Thegoodlocust, probabl and possibly even user: GoRight (although he is currently banned). There may be more - I just checked for some obvious names missing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Any others you can see that have been missed? (ignoring any banned users and users who have not contributed in the last month, except if they are on some stated very-temporary wikibreak). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

Beacuase you have been involved in the recent SPI I am informaing you of the arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Why ANI?

Might I ask why you initiated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive sock or pointy simulator? You appear to have bypassed SPI, and not noted any potential sockmaster, but have managed to have the vandal (yes, it was deliberately disruptive) indef blocked as a sock without recourse to warnings, etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was an obvious case, impersonating another user, and AN/I has the quickest response times for obvious admin tasks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not 4im and AIV? Thing is, there is now a blocked vandal with no sockmaster noted. What with the recent debate regarding sock tagging, might this action be unfortunately misrepresented as a way of bypassing the need to determine whose sock it is before the banhammer is swung? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What is "4im"? I don't think I've ever used AIV. It was clear disruption, using a name that suggest being a sock of WMC, using some WMCisms. You can still run an SPI if you want - we've had Scibabys checkusered after the block, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-vandal4im}} is the first and only vandal warning; another dubious edit and... ZAP!! - well, a report to AIV anyway. AIV is easier to use than CC Enforcement requests, and a damn sight faster, too. The other point being, well, if it is likely Scibaby why not add it to the Enforcement page listing...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no good evidence that he is Scibaby, although that's an interesting possibility. But that would be a new MOO for him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See [12]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My talk

You were mentioned on same, toward the bottom. Seems to be regarding this diff: [13]. I just got up after a very late flight and an unplanned 2.5 hour drive home and am not sure what it's all about. Just thought you might want to know. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. It may be that TFD saw my comments and was inspired by them. Google finds 320000 hits for "quote marks", including in grammar guides and our own Quotation mark, so that seems to be a fairly common idiom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And the total time differential between the oposts allowed him to copy the exact sentence? Remarkable coincidence at that point, especially considering [14] and the fact that the sentence as such finds zero Google hits. Zero. None. Nil. Truly remarkable that this sentence never used before on the Internet gets used twice in a matter of a very few minutes. Collect (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Collect's evidence as an accusation directed Stephan, but rather a point about the unreliability of behavioral evidence. ATren (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Has Stephan seen this from a person he "knows" is a sock, it would be given as conclusive proof, I fear. Collect (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Show one single instance where I did that, please. Either of you. Back to the original point: As I wrote above, a plausible explanation is that TFD wrote his original comment, went to Collect's user page, saw the discussion, thought "yeah, that bugs me, too" and used the modern wonder of copy and paste to insert it into his comment. I don't know if that's the case, but it is dangerous to assume coincidence when there might be a causal pattern. The other problem is, of course, only looking for abnormalities. Going over all the texts written by involved editors, there will be certain overlaps by random chance. If you dig for them, of course you will find some. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you saw the same 10 word sentence written by a person you "knew" to be a sock - would you have used it as evidence? Consider the proximity of these edits, and the fact that nowhere else on the Internet has that precise wording been used - seems a bit strong as evidence to you, I suspect! Two editors posting to the same person using the same words within a matter of minutes. Collect (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you go and find out if I did? My edits are here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

New user with "disruptive edits" as proof that it is a sock at [15]. "The usual" is "accepted" per [16]. Your use of "the usual" at [17] "and one more" (no evidence) at [18] "Another one" given as evidence at [19] "no deviation" given as evidence at [20] "the third is different but the same" which is rather an unusual type of evidence at [21] "typical MoO" at [22] "Here we go again" at [23] Not to mention all the ones you added without any comment other than the edit summary of "Next". Want more? And you did use "the usual" contrary to your denaial <g>. Not to mention listing folks with only "Next" as evidence (and that only in the edit summary). Collect (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So in no case you found did I use a similarity of phrasing as evidence. And I'm not aware that I ever denied using "the usual" as evidence in general - in fact, I have explicitly defended it as adequate for opening an SPI case in cases where the sock is well-known and obvious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And your standard allows for 85% acuracy as sufficient to meet "obvious"? Seems you would have hanged van der Sloot faster than Nancy Grace! My standard of "obvious" is a tad more rigourous than yours, it would appear. Collect (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First, have you computed my quota? But secondly, yes, sure I consider a likelihood of 85% sufficient for starting an investigation. Wouldn't you expect police to open a murder investigation if they are 85% certain? In particular, if they have two indepdendent suspects which are equally compromised, does that mean they should do nothing? After all, the chance that any one of the suspects did it is at most 50%. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Standards for an indictment are, in fact, higher than 85%. And police investigate the murder - they are not supposed to investigate a single person with the goal of convicting that single person of "something". And definitely not using as evidence "the usual". Collect (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the principle that you or "the usual" would've convicted a skeptical editor based on similar evidence. The nice thing about having collected so many Scibaby convictions is that the IP ranges from ISP's of the falsely convicted will be tagged as "Scibaby" which makes it easier and easier to ban new editors you don't feel should be editing. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume you talk to Lar? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but why do you ask? Has he articulated thoughts similar to the ones you just responded to? Or is this simply a diversionary tactic on your part? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being imprecise. I assume your comment was addressed to Lar, since it's indented accordingly, and, assuming its addressed to me, it's a completely nonsensical failure of WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then you should've asked who the post was addressed to not "who I talk to" since I talk to a great number of people. I admit that the indent was imprecise, but I thought it was pretty clear that I was addressing you and didn't think anyone would really notice the indent since the original post was up there quite a ways. Also, I don't know why you think that's an assumption of bad faith rather than an observation of how the whole "Scibaby crisis" hasn't "gone to waste." TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure badgering Stephan is a good approach. A sockpuppet investigation is not like a murder investigation, and the standards of evidence are much lower. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just not sure :) no condemantaion of your travelling support network then. ;) Polargeo (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me see. ATren, The Good Locust and Collect all turn up and Lar paternally says I'm not sure about this badgering. Tell it like it is Lar, you are intelligent you know the score, these folks are way over the top but they stick by you unquestioningly where on the other hand you condem a load of editors who are willing to oppose each other when they disagree, who is the real cabal, clique, claque??? Polargeo (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting claim -- but since I disagree with Lar over 30% of the time, and overlap on a grand total of two articles, any claim about being part of his group becomes a bit ludicrous! Unless Lego counts as a major controversial topic? (My big edit there was to not the "American Bricks" patents!) The impetus here was my reseipt of two basically identical posts from two editors in a matter of ten minutes. Did you note that part? Collect (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The usual Collect self selected nonsense statistics. I hope you realise this is the sort of crap that really annoys people about your editing. Polargeo (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, that appears to be a personal attack. What "people" are you referring to? Cla68 (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this a poll of editors annoyed by Collect's editing style? If so, please include me on the list as one of the "people". --Buster7 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. And Stephan Schulz is not Ikip either. I suggest you read the discussions about socks at RFAR currently. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am refering to Collect and his usual statistical nonsense. PA is not designed to be applied at this level and I rather hope that you realise this and don't try to wikilawyer with me. Polargeo (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, I'm not sure you're being very helpful here either. It may be a better approach to try being a bit less blustery. Better, could we all just take the point that small sample phrase correlation isn't always accurate and drop this? ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on Lar you cannot be truly impressed by the statistical nonsense Collect keeps coming up with. Please just tell him to stop this.Polargeo (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless I am much mistaken, I'm not sure you're at all clear on what point Collect is actually trying to make here. It has little or nothing to do with statistics, and your repeated reference to stats suggests you've failed to grasp that. But as I said, I think the point has already been made, more than adequately, and at this point nothing useful is being added. At least not directly useful anyway, although lots of interesting diffs are being generated. So I suggest it be dropped and everyone move on. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes another mildly hidden Lar threat against me. Statistics, well Collect said 30%. Presenting his usual statistics, you cannot really pick me up on pointing to the obvious. Polargeo (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

socks

I cannot see a decent list of banned socks which have played on CC articles to help with Check Users. Can you add to: User:TDC User:Scibaby User:Nothughthomas User:Rameses User:Ratel... --BozMo talk 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not kept track very much. Of course, to each of these you need to add their socks (e.g. Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby...). ("e.g." added after TGL's comment). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Add each of them to "suspected sockpuppets of Scibaby?" I really think you are going out of your way to prove my earlier point about the "Scibaby menace" - the bigger the better. Otherwise, I don't see any logical justification for adding some of those to such a category, especially Ratel, except for inflating the number of communists Scibaby socks. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, clarified by adding "e.g." above. Your parser seems to be broken on both the grammatical and the common sense level, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I blame it on the drugs. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

None of these are Scibaby socks as far as I know (except Scibaby of course). But there are another dozen or so sockmasters who have turned up at GW to run CUs against when cheesy feet show up. Short of going through the entire list of socks and finding familiar names I am not sure how to list them. Was just trying to work out which joker this was. --BozMo talk 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a pretty good idea who the "joker" is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar. I suggest this investigation immediately begin with those who've consistently demonstrated a flagrant disregard for wikipedia's rules and policies (e.g. deleting other's comments, commenting in admin only sections, commenting in other's sections at RfC or ArbCom, civility, WP:Verify, etc, etc ad infinitum) since such disregard for rules would be consistent with sockpuppetry. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this Boris. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more about the common pattern of people who think they are much funnier than they actually are and have a tendency to irony and sarcasm ... --BozMo talk 06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't be too funny on wikipedia - I'd have been banned long ago if that was the case due to the over-reactionary tendencies and bad faith assumptions (tell a kid not to do something...) around here. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure?

Re [24], are you sure? As I said [25]. If you look in the history, the banned tag is added by an anon [26] with the comment "redundant, and more or less community banned" William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a serial sockpuppeteer for whom the banning policy (revert all edits on sight) has been applied for years, as well as someone who will not be unblocked by any administrator without a community discussion first. I think it's safe to call it a de facto ban. NW (Talk) 16:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really care about the details, and this may be angels dancing on pinheads, but "This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts." seems quite adequate, and also accurate. The banned template is ambiguous and has no clear source other than an anon edit (though now it is Stephan's, so it does have a clear source, so that is good). But the trouble is the template produces "This user is Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users from editing Wikipedia" and Scibaby isn't on that list, which is confusing William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your concern. I'd say he's pretty well community-banned, per the old "blocked forever" policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this diff, could you please provide me with a link to the WP:AN/I or WP:CSN discussion where Scibaby was banned by the community? I have been unable to locate any such discussion. Without that, he may be blocked, but he isn't banned. It's an important distinction and may be crucial to extricating Wikipedia from this long-term mess. *** Crotalus *** 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just propose whatever you're going to propose and see if anyone bites. Rules are not legalistic formulations - obviously, you're going to propose an unblock for Scibaby, so just do it and be done. His status as blocked where no one will unblock or banned is irrelevent. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

By long convention, indefinite block + no admin willing to unblock + some amount of time elapsed = banned. By that metric, Scibaby is clearly banned. But in general I agree with Hipocrite, in that it's not really worth arguing about - legalistic discussions about block vs. ban usually don't go anywhere meaningful. And I'm completely unable to see how a legalistic resolution of that distinction will "extricate Wikipedia" from dealing with Scibaby. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-issues question

It shouldn't be too difficult, so can you please reword your question to fit the "one-sentence" part of the request? Thank you.

Suggestion

Stephan, this[27] is not helpful. Please follow your own wise advice[28] and consider self-reverting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

But man, it's hard! Seriously, I cannot make out half of what he says. Is it me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, and honest assessment with this may help you [29] to better comprehend. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That [30] is truly beautiful. The question is do we define that it is WP:Civility that the Earth's future rests on? Please do not dump you toxic waste in my Garden sir. I thank you for not doing so. Dumping your toxic waste in my garden is not conducive to a productive relationship between us. A civil relationship which will ultimately be of benefit to all concerned. It does not matter if we are right or wrong about the toxic waste those who are most civil will create a better world for our children and our children's children and will ultimately rule the world. Unfortunately scratch below the surface veneer of civility and all too often you find no true civility and indeed a complete lack of principles and respect for their fellows. Polargeo (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you want a quick response ...

... then explain your edit on my talk page quickly, because I need to go offline very soon and I'll be away for hours. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling my name seems to be a running joke on Wikipedia... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. Explanation on my talk page. Correction made at AN/I. Gotta go. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, should have added a ;-) there. I don't mind terribly much. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more!

[31] But then again we all have to follow the rules even when they are inconvenient. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. See Nuremberg trials. It all depends on "the rules". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think limiting oneself to single sentence questions is comparable to exterminating a race, but I suppose I get your point. I'm more of an inclusionist myself and think you should be able to write it however you want and if they don't want to read it then that's fine. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

TGL that is so bang out of order it stuns me, redact it now and you had better fucking mean it when you apologise, jesus christ man, what the hell is wrong with you? mark nutley (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, if you are joking, add a ;-). If not, I don't think TGL said what you think he did - I certainly don't feel attacked by this comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he thought I was making a jab at your initials, but I could be wrong. Additionally, I tend to use "strong" words/phrases like "exterminate" which sometimes draw forth emotional reactions even when used innocently (part of why I was banned!). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful there. Is it really wise for a locust to use words like "exterminate"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, is it really wise for a Doctor to use words like "exterminate"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I'm totally lost. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You must read the edit summaries! And move to a civilised country, of course ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You misspelled "civilized." HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ouh my....this is gounna be a loung jouurney... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A brilliant idea for you, if I do say so myself

And I do. You should create a "Stephan Schulz" spelling template and then template the editors who get your name wrong. You might combine this with a StephanSchulzSpellingBot to automatically search for misspellings of "Stephan Schulz". I think this would save much time and effort and contribute to a more efficient encyclopedia. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice idea. But at the moment I'm still planning the great climate science analysis bot (nicknamed "JWBDeathTrap"). And before I even start that, there is the CADE ATP System Competition deadline... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Too late: JWBDeathTrap -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence?

Do you really think there's any point in submitting evidence? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think submitting small amounts of well-ordered evidence cannot hurt. Unfortunately, I have a real deadline next week (see above). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't submit evidence, then you've given people a quick way to discount any concerns you might have about the eventual outcome. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of thing. (Realizing that "damned" is a blatant WP:PA, so I've hung myself before I even started.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How interesting that we now find out that the other skeptic friendly administrator also had a secret opinion on the content all along. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You weren't surprised at this, surely? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By an administrator advancing a content position through the use of tools? No, not at all. Isn't that why people become administrators? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did it for the groupies. It's been a bit disappointing so far. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

To whom are you referring, Hipicrite? Who has a "secret opinion"? ATren (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales, obviously. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? Based on what? Maybe we should question these skeptic admins and threaten to blacklist ban them, in the hopes they'll name others. ATren (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

XKCD has tooltips

Stable link to comic page, hover for bonus funnies. Also, kudos for using the one true and correct shortcut to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Giving "equal validity". - 2/0 (cont.) 14:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Witch hunt?

Stephan, please re-read my questions on Hipocrite's page, and explain to me how it's a witch hunt. Those questions were polite and reasonable; in fact, much more reasonable than Hipocrite's own questioning of others on sock puppetry. He has admitted having socks and having disclosed them, so my request for clarification was completely within bounds. Please retract. ATren (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Especially because he has admitted to previous socking, it's none of your business. Unless you have evidence of current abuse, assume good faith. Now that you have the information, what will you do with it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is my business, because he has said he disclosed them but I found no disclosure. I am doing research for the current CC case, and the knowledge of an involved editor's disclosed socks is relevant to that. It was a simple question that he responded to with hostility, and you and Guettarda piled on with baseless accusations. Ironically, this kind of hostility and piling on is the root problem in this topic area, and is the kind of thing that will be central to my evidence. ATren (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you alledging that you did work to find disclosure? What did you do, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I searched your user page, your talk page, and your recent history. I didn't find anything, so I asked. ATren (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"and the knowledge of an involved editor's disclosed socks is relevant to that" - how? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So that I can research the contribution histories of those socks to see if there is anything related to my evidence. Remind me again, why was this inapproprate? He admitted using socks and disclosure of those socks, I just asked for his disclosure. There is nothing wrong with that. ATren (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Gallery fix

Thanks for fixing that and for your opinion on WP:SHIPS. I really should have hit the preview before hitting submit (I forgot that galleries by default use a 250 pixel image for a thumbnail). Vedant (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I think my last opinion on WP:SHIPS was a while ago, though - or do you mean talk: Frigate? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought you posted on WP:SHIPS and not the frigate article. Vedant (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion #2

How about a finding that "too many findings of evidence are suggested with no evidence; nor is any forthcoming when asked for"? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It has a nice meta-ring to to, so it appeals. But I don't see what difference it would make if accepted, so it's probably not worth it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Your most recent responce to lar is not helpful. Please consider revising it such that it dosen't make clear what is clear. Hipocrite (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Err, mine or Stephan's? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably Stephan's, and I agree that it wasn't a helpful comment. MastCell ^Talk 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It may not have been friendly, but I think it was necessary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Stephan, but I disagree. Explaining that the so-called "analysis" represented several common statistical and logical fallacies rolled into one would have been useful. But challenging the person's math skills was not necessary and shifted the focus from the obvious inanity of the "analysis" to your own choice of words. When facts and logic are on your side you don't need to take swipes at the other fellow -- doing so only works against you. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think so?

[32] Well there is no name to the byline, which an article in a newspaper usually has, op-ed or editorials not so much. Do you not think you should have gone to talk before reverting btw? mark nutley (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary. Editorials usually do have named authors, news articles do not. Neither is a hard and fast rule, though. Editorials contain opinions and commentary, not reporting. And editorials are not, usually, posted under "Home > Features > Science > Article". No, since it's a clear case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Generally speaking, The Age is a reliable source. AFAIK, they have a staff of professional journalists and editorial oversight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, thanks. As you know i have to be extra careful with regards to blp`s mark nutley (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have to be extra careful with evaluating sources... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually i have to be extra careful about everything :) Cheers mark nutley (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you can safely go to the pub and have a pint there. I'll be in Edinburgh from July 13th to 20th. I'll be fairly busy, but if you are close enough, we can have one on me in The Peach (if I'll find it) or some other pub... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That`s a real nice offer, and if it were not for the 5 hour drive i`d take you up on it, but driving that far for one pint would be a killer :) mark nutley (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd make it two pints, but I get your point. Perhaps some other time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If ever your near Aldbourne give me a shout :) I`ll buy a guinness from the pub on the green mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please respond to this

Hi, you would be able to respond to this much better than I would. At the AFD talked about I did suggest looking at WMC's article history and talk page but I guess that wasn't enough. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a short comment, but I'm not sure it is worth it. The nonsense of Solomon's claim us clear to anyone who care to check the articles with an open mind. I don't know if we can reach the rest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Spoofed user agent strings

Re [33]: I didn't think to ask. I figured the open proxy evidence would be enough. I'll direct Brandon's attention to this section though, and ask if he can take another look. NW (Talk) 22:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The UAs appear to be legit. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So either WP:BEANS applied, or we have another sock master. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —mono(how's my driving?) 01:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented. But I go to sleep now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

hello?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wether

??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, must have unintentionally hit the wrong button. I certainly did not want to undo that change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

must be the weather ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It was only 43°C today, and we have air conditioning for printer and server rooms - humans are less relevant, apparently ;-) . But it looks like a really good thunderstorm is brewing up... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you mean well

But please don't do this kind of thing again [34] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Really, what's the purpose? It's not less incivil if he undoes it. What we both want is that he understands his limitations and stays within them. But I don't see how this can be achieved by trying to make him jump through hoops. This only leads to further alienation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It would nto have been retracted as it is not an attack, it is a request that WMC stop spamming the fact that i am sanctioned all over the shop when there is no need. Do i mention his sanctions at every given chance? Also my daughter was bitten by a dog today, i figured i could use WP to get my mind off of it, fat chance of a bit of peace here though mark nutley (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here for you to blow off steam. If you can't be civil, walk away from the keyboard William M. Connolley (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry to hear about your daughter. I hope she gets well soon. But Wikipedia is not therapy. You are, honestly, not able to evaluate sources. That's not a character flaw, but it is a fact, and one recognized formally during the CC probation. You have not only violated the letter of the restriction, you continually violate the spirit by aggressively pushing your preferred sources (most of which are bad). What do you expect? That William or I argue each case de novo? Sorry, but my time is limited. I expect William's is, too. I bet that if you stop pushing bad sources, he will stop pointing out your sanction. But you still seem to think that your sources and what you learned from them are good, and that all you need to do is get Wikipedia to accept that. However, your sources are bad and as a consequence your understanding of the domain is somewhat limited and quite wrong. Mine is limited as well, in particular in comparison to WMC and Boris, but at least I'm aware of my limitations. As a rule, I am quite willing to be civil and friendly and explain things (within my time budget). However, I have no tolerance for misrepresentations and bad science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC: MN said he wanted to "get my mind off of it", not "blow off steam". Please don't misrepresent what MN said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WMC i said as was pointed out i wanted to do something to keep my mind off of the fact that a dog was chewing my 2 year old daughters face, your reply shows the sort of person you are. I will not interact with you again, ever. mark nutley (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Go to the hospital, now. Take the dog - it will likley need to be put down. Contrary to public opinion in the UK, there is rabies there. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Stephan, what did you mean by "Is English your native language? You seem to fill in a lot of things not said with your assumptions." on my talk? ATren (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

ATren, Having been and looked there is a bit of a non sequitor I think. WMC reverting someone whom he noted was "burying the embarrassing bits" does not amount to WMC being motivated to embarrass. e.g. I have removed "embarrassing bits" about the alleged paternity of Prince Harry from his article and people have occasionally put them back, recognising that they were embarrassing but motivated by the feeling they were sufficiently notable. Noting the embarrassing nature of something does not mean declaring it a consideration in its inclusion. Stephan is not a native English speaker but I suspect in this case his syntax may be adequate. --BozMo talk 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And this is not the only case where you (ATren) seem to fill in gaps in what was written with your own internal assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've laid out my case in detail below, in response to BozMo, in case you'd like to respond. ATren (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BozMo, nobody in that debate had ever used the word "embarrassing", or anything like it. WMC introduced that term, so it's a bit of a stretch for him to say someone else was moving it for that reason.

Furthermore, what was WMC's reason for including that in the lede? He's never told us that. His assertion is that he listed "embarrassment" as not a reason to remove it, but if that's the case, he should be able to tell us what his reasons were for including it, right? If not embarrassment, then why? WMC has never answered this, and still refuses to.

Obviously, his reasons must be strongly rooted, because he reverted at least three times, twice reverting a sitting arbitrator, so why does he refuse to detail them?

There is also other evidence as well. As someone noted on the talk page at the time, there was other context to the Martian claim that was not included, context which qualified the claim and would have softened the "embarrassment" significantly. If the intent was not to embarrass, then why were the qualifications not included? Perhaps WMC can answer this as well, but he's never discussed his motivations for any of this.

But let's play devil's advocate and assume he was acting in good faith here: does it make any difference? Do we all agree that inserting an obscure, non-notable, 40-year-old out-of-context factoid into the lede of a BLP is a singularly bad thing to do? And then, to forcefully keep it there even though multiple people (including an arb) are strongly against keeping it there, isn't this the definition of tendentious editing behavior?

Regardless of his motivation, this was very poor editing, and it indicates that this editor either (a) is motivated to embarrass or otherwise demean his opponents (bad faith) or (b) is fundamentally incapable of properly evaluating the appropriateness of including such claims (good faith). Either way, it's evidence that this editor should not be editing these topics.

But even given all this, perhaps if WMC would explain the edit, acknowledge the inappropriateness of it, or even apologize for inserting it, we might be able to put this aside. But he steadfastly refuses to speak about it other than to deny his intent was to embarrass. Telling us what it wasn't is not enough, he needs to tell us what it was, and then we can evaluate from there. ATren (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity is compelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is about what I expected -- you provide no explanation but shoot down others' explanations. Since you apparently have a better imagination than I, why don't you enlighten me as to his motivations?

Or, another question: ignoring good/bad faith assumptions, do you think the edits were at all defensible? ATren (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know his motivation, but I have several possible good faith explanation. As for the second question, BLP policy has evolved significantly over the last 18 months or so, and I don't think it's useful to now harp over ancient edits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, BLP was firmly established at the time those edits were made, and besides, they were bad edits even without citing BLP -- at the very least, weight, notability and POV (the latter for pulling the claim out of context). And, please share your good faith explanations if you have them. Why are you being evasive? Maybe I'll even agree with you -- even if I can't "imagine" it myself, I might agree with it. ;-) ATren (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the edits were bad, but then I said at the time I did not think they should be in the article so that's not surprising. There is a problem with the nature of human judgement which means it is very difficult to call bad faith on subjective judgement. I think Kim and WMC quite often make calls which I can completely understand but disagree with based on the fact they see patterns based on their field of view which run against my field of view. They obviously feel that we should give the WP audience a reasonable representation of what an individual is really like on a broad reading of notable sources. I generally feel that selection based on the stuff they see talked about is a real distortion risk. But they both listen to arguments and so do I. It is a bit like Iran. I regard Iran as a perfectly decent country with nice people who suffered greatly under an abusive US puppet government in the past and were a bit dramatic in breaking away from US control than some of our colonies were. People who live in New York and read the US newspapers often actually end up with the feeling that Iran is more evil than the US and argue stuff like the prime minister of Iran is globally most famous for winding up the Israelis (that's a prime minister, someone with some sort of notability inherently)! It is completely absurd, but perfectly reasonable US citizens honestly believe it and we have to deal with them. Perfectly decent people like Kim and WMC really think Martian stuff is representative of Singer. Being cross with them is not the answer. --BozMo talk 14:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But BozMo, this is the whole reason "perfectly decent people" like Kim and WMC, are topic banned -- because they are too close to recognize their own biases. That's what we're supposed to do. When a Republican edits toward his own POV a Democrat's BLP, we warn him off, because he cannot be impartial. To continue the Iran anaology, if those "perfectly decent US citizens" come here and edit Iran to reflect their POV, do we allow them to? ^{Disclaimer: this is not a comment specifically on the Iran situation, about which I know too little to properly comment; I was just continuing the analogy}

The issue here is that the system is broken for these few editors. They have edited so long and have so many defenders that even when there is obvious evidence of either bad judgement (AGF) or bad intentions (ABF), they are still allowed to edit these articles. Now perhaps I have given the impression that I think they are "evil" for editing this way; if I did, then I did not intend to. It's not good versus evil, it's POV vs NPOV, and these editors (by virtue of their editing history alone) have too much of a POV to properly edit these BLPs, regardless of their intentions. Perhaps I've focused too much on the "intentions" part, and that's muddied the underlying POV issue. I may alter my arguments to emphasize that I'm not trying to prove intent, only show the intrusion of their POV into their editing. ATren (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting a bit ahead of yourself here - aren't you? When have i ever been topic-banned, banned or anything of the like? Do please tell. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, BozMo listed you and WMC in his comment, and I responded clumsily. I've struck it. But I still stand by the points I made. ATren (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you on topic bans. Self=awareness of POV is important not having none (no-one has none). Outside BLPs I don't see much of an issue in CC. Within BLPs there are cases where this happens but I think re-education is better than banning. --BozMo talk 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd be open to "re-education" -- but doesn't that start with the editor acknowledging there's an issue? Look at the rest of the discussion in this thread and tell me: is WMC even aware that the edit was bad, or why it was bad? I honestly can't tell, and despite repeatedly asking that simple question, I can't get a straignt answer from them. ATren (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am done here. I don't see why WMC should be held to a much higher standard than we hold others to. --BozMo talk 22:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. All I asked was for him to explain his edit, and I'm holding him to a higher standard. This entire conversation has been surreal. ATren (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice how ATren has elided different issues here. obvious evidence of either bad judgement (AGF) or bad intentions (ABF) - well, I disagree, but lets assume for the sake of argument these are true. That *still* doesn't lead on to 'it's POV vs NPOV - this is a simple logica failure William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is because you reject the premise that this was a bad edit. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. ATren (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was talking in general, rather than about any specific edit. If you're still stuck on the Martians stuff: yes you're correct: the substance is true. All you're arguing about is whether it belonged in the lede or not William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You well know that truth can be framed in such a way as to be misleading, and that's exactly what happened here when the context of the claim was left out. Do you disagree with that? And furthermore, misleading or not, do you still believe it belonged in the lede? ATren (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But in any case, now that you've found this discussion, tell us: do you still believe that was a good edit? If so, why? And if not, then why did you believe so at the time? ATren (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gosh you are intrusive aren't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just answer, WMC? ATren (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

'WMC has never answered this, and still refuses to. - ATren is lying shamelessly William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then point me to your answer. ATren (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Even you can see the logical difference between not responding yet, and refusing. Once you've done that, and relaised that you were wrong above, you can strike your error William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you intend to respond, or do refuse to respond? ATren (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As a computer person you should understand that this question can be truthfully answered "yes" or "no", wether he does answer or not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I really have to draw a Venn Diagram to interpret these responses? Why not just a straightforward answer to my straightforward questions? ATren (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I too would be interested in reading WMC's rationale for edit warring to keep that information in the lede for the Singer article. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As would I. This entire conversation is an excellent illustration of the many problems with this faction. When one person is asked to explain or answer, others join in and evade, then take umbrage on being called on that. Simple questions, put directly, are answered with evasion over and over, and attacks on the questioner thrown in for good measure. StS, you say you have several alternate explanations. Put some forward then. WMC, why are you unwilling to answer the questions asked you directly? Do you think no one notices your tactics? ++Lar: t/c 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in in reading WMC's rationale, why do you ask me? The last time I did that, you weaseled around with unspecific generalities, and then vanished when called on it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well earlier in this thread you wrote "I don't know his motivation, but I have several possible good faith explanation", so you could share them. ATren (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to ask *me* a question, you know where my talk page is William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, and if you guys have trouble locating it, here are some links to help: [35][36][37][38][39].  :-/ ATren (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

discussion

Your editing is being discussed at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). See the sockpueppets section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.147.166 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

One would not know

You misspell like a native - and you catch the references, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading much fiction in English ever since the later Gor novels were only available in bowdlerised versions in German (or not at all). And I was teenager enough at the time to fail to notice how much bowdlerising improved them ;-). I also spend about a year in English-speaking countries, either teaching or doing science, and I've been online since 1986 or so. Some of that has left its mark. I recently found myself misspelling phonetically, something that for a long time I did not do. I don't know if that's a sign of increasing familiarity or early dementia, though... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your colloquial English is very good (and it appears to be Brit-Eng rather than US-Eng, too), which requires the ability to think within the language and tends me toward a "familiarity" diagnosis - as does the ability to promptly recognise humour. Of course, not being a doctor and not even interested in selling snake oil on the internet means I am not an expert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, whenever I feel that my level of English is dropping, I'm re-reading one of Dorothy L. Sayer's Lord Peter Wimsey novels, which combine some of the most elegant English ever written on the meta-level with some interesting colloquialisms for direct speech. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

LHVU

Re your defence of LHVU: so you think his agreement with a 3 month ban for H makes sense? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake, but it's an honest mistake. I tolerate a wide range of opinions, as long as it's clear that they are opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty

You can go fuck yourself.Yoganate79 (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's anatomically implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can you translate this review for The Hockey Stick Illusion please [40] )It`s dutch but i think that is similer to german?) mark nutley (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Sorry. Dutch is about as similar to German as it is to the Anglo-Saxon part of English - in other words, not very. Grammar and roots are related, which makes it not to hard to learn, but apart from that it's completely incomprehensible. Dutch split from what would become current German before William the Bastard imported Norman French to Britain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind mate Andrew posted a translation on his Blog, can you tell me if the magazine coupled with the translation on BH qualify as reliable? mark nutley (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the Dutch press very well, but would assume that the magazine qualifies. Montford's translation not, however. What do you want to use it for? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s a review of the book. The magazine is a science magazine. mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

So what do you want to use it for? And it's at best a popular science magazine (like e.g. Scientific American). Those vary from rather good (like SA) down to tabloid level (like de:P.M. Magazin). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i want to use it`s review in the HSI article mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you just want to use the review as is, the question is less one of reliability and more one of notability and weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s a pretty notable magazine, it is the one which first published McIntyre`s and MckItrick stuff. But what does weight have to do with a book review? mark nutley (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

O and this one from Quadrant magazine [41] mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the science seems to be completely wrong! Several magazines have articles that say the Hockey Stick Illusion has debunked the science. That does not prove science wrong, you need scientific literature to prove science wrong. Polargeo (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Mark. You need to present exactly what you wish to use the source for (the text) so that we can confirm it meets requirements. Polargeo (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Erwin van den Brink writing in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek has said "The book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, reveals a staggering picture of how those involved in climate science are dealing with criticism. The subtitle, “ClimateGate And The Corruption of Science”, was added at the last possible moment, as this final chapter is about "ClimateGate", the leaking of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia".

John Dawson writing in Quadrant Magazine has said, "The Hockey Stick Illusion is the shocking story of a graph called the Hockey Stick. It is also a textbook of tree ring analysis, a code-breaking adventure, an intriguing detective story, an exposé of a scientific and political travesty, and the tale of a herculean struggle between a self-funded sceptic and a publicly funded hydra, all presented in the measured style of an analytical treatise.".

The dutch translation is a bit rough, some guesswork in there i`m afraid mark nutley (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If I read NWT site correctly it isn't published in the magazine. The 'review' is actually located in the bookshop of NWT Online and so I wouldn't categorize it as a review, but as a blurb or sale pitch. NWT isn't unbiased in making the book look good. Now it could be that NWT's shop is still unbiased, but it would seem to me that this needs to be proven first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.2.57 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And a better translation would be:

"The book The Hockey Stick Illusion by the British sciencejournalist Andrew Montford, reveals a staggering picture of how those involved in climate science are dealing with criticism. The subtitle, ClimateGate And The Corruption of Science, might have been added at the last possible moment and the same for a final chapter about "ClimateGate", the leaking of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia"

With possibly moving the second sentence apart, as the first sentence is the ending of a paragraph and the second one a start of a new paragraph. Also I am unsure if sciencejournalist is a real word, but the word "wetenschapjournalist" means a journalist who only reports on science (hence my use of sciencejournalist).83.86.2.57 (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the pale

Accusing me of being in a faction with "Scibaby"? That needs redaction, soonest. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to buy a sense of humour. I think it sells for US$ 3.88/bushel at Wallmart. And you need to stop making powerful but unsubstantiated pronouncements. Oh, and when I say "faction", I mean a mere "confluence of editors". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to include a smiley or some other marker. Given that you don't seem to have any ability for accepting humor, that's the least that can be expected. I nevertheless expect a redaction, or at least clarifying remark, at my talk. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, "you need to stop making powerful but unsubstantiated pronouncements". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary CC article restriction

Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have (considered). Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

trademarks

Just find it funny that the circle-R is found on every single Wikipedia page (other than editing page for some reason). Years ago I got a letter insisting that the AMPAS needed the mark. Collect (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on trademark law, so I defer to the MOS. Note, however, that there are also plenty of instances of "Wikipedia" without a trademark sign, and they are on each page. IP owners are, in general, known for rather expansive interpretations of their rights... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a course on patent and trademark law as applied to entrepreneurs, and the message given was that courts will only protect those who are zealous in protecting their intellectual property rights. Wikipedia is zealous by having the message on every content page. The requirement is only that each page have the note, not that every instance therein be also marked. Blame my background at CompuServe which was rigorous in requiring that forums avoid any legal hassles <g>. Collect (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

...while here we gladly take on the FBI, and rejoice at the thought of being confused with Wikileaks and hence a target of every US spy agency ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, zealously enforcing your trademark is usually wise because worst case scenario you trademark can become a Genericised trademark meaning you lose trademark protections. That article has a few examples, a modern one is how Google discourages people from using the word 'googling'. Patents however are a different matter. There is no real need for zealous enforcement AFAIK, hence patent ambush and patent troll strategies can work. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence_Solomon

I am not exact sure what you are referring to in this edit summary: [42], but he is identified as an environmentalist in the info box as well. Active Banana (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong stance on the environmentalist or not issue (meaning, I don't think he is one in the prevalent sense of the word, but there are few good sources either way). I've reverted the edit in question because I believe Catch21 is a sock of long-term disruptive and banned Scibaby. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

reverted

Why did u revert my comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Dan56 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment at you page. Clumsy fingers... ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats cool. Dan56 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Question that maybe you know the answer to...

Hi, do you know of any easy way to check to see who assessed what articles for GA, FA and so on? I'd appreciate some guidance on this if you can. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a better way than going to the article talk page and follow the links. GAR is usually done by one editor, but FAR is much more comprehensive, and a consensus process. That does not mean that you cannot slip a FAR for an obscure target in under the RADAR, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I found what I'm looking for. I don't know too much about this except what I've learned a bit about from Sandy Georgia who I think is one of the best in the field, at least that I'm aware of. Thanks for your help since I may have to go that route if I don't find what I'm looking for the way I'm doing it. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention and participation

As you might know, The Signpost has been reporting on the Climate change case for the past several weeks. One of the drafting arbitrators is clearly unhappy with my reporting, and a couple of other users share a similar view. However, some users disagree (and on at least one occasion, one case participant disagreed with the objection raised (see this). Each user is obviously going to have their own opinion, but irrespective of the outcome, I think actual participants in the case (who are involved in the dispute or may be affected) should add their input. Therefore, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In case...

...you haven't realized why the first revert didn't seem to work; you were seeing the cached version from the doc page. You had it right, it just needed a null edit. –xeno^talk 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was guessing there was some weird interaction with the caching system, but was not to certain. Thanks for confirming... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It struck me as an odd photo for a CfD. –xeno^talk 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I wasn't very happy with [43] myself but it was sourced to something explicitly linking it to Dr. Laura so chickened out in removing it Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we ec'ed - I was going to remove the sentence you took out, as well. I don't see what this adds to the topic, and it does cast a negative light on the otherwise non-notable son. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Halle Berry

Hi Stephan, your last edit to Talk:Halle Berry seems to have made a bit of a mess around line 325. I can't see what you were trying to do, so perhaps you can have a look and try to sort it out. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's this edit and I fixed it. This seems a copypasta mistake of some sort; the text I cut is present elsewhere. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No idea what happened there. But thanks for fixing it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Proportion

This is a bit of a stretch. Do you think you might strike it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more than a stretch; it's shameful to compare a Wikipedia editor to a woman who risked her life to oppose segregation in the deep south. ATren (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by the comment, if not by ATren's interpretation. I've clarified it, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"I'll be on the road in California, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada"

Five most entrancing things I saw in my road trips to Utah and (northern) Arizona (never been to California or Nevada, but it's high on the list); you may well have seen these already, most people could probably come up with a similar list:

1. Grand Canyon helicopter ride (only about 20 minutes, but No. 1 on the list; also: Grand Canyon at dawn, Grand Canyon at sunset; going up to the edge of one of the rocks; catching a glance of a mountain goat; making a mental list of all the languages I heard at the canyon (seven or eight); rolling down the windows in the drive just to the south of the canyon to catch the scent of the pines; the tarantula I saw for the first time; souvenir paperweights of scorpions and tarantulas under glass that my nephew and cousins kept for years after I gave the things to them as gifts; hell, every damn thing about the canyon);
2. Bingham Canyon Mine -- surprisingly affecting; it is one enormous piece of geography made by man. May be farther to the north than you're going (just south of Salt Lake City). You stand next to a truck the size of a small house. You look down into the pit at trucks the same size that look like the tiniest insects. That hole is one of the biggest things ever made by human beings that you can see at once -- kind of like Manhattan, but all made by one organization.
3. Monument Valley. Like the Grand Canyon, no pictures can quite prepare you for the feeling of being so small in that huge landscape. Krazy Kat comes close. The artist had his ashes scattered over Monument Valley after his death.
4. Southeast Utah. The closest thing to the planet Mars on Earth. Red rock. Sky. Nothing else. Nothing. (Actually, Spaceman Spiff, by design, and inspired by Krazy Kat.)
5. This [44]
6. Bonus: This enormous piece of geography created by a meteor. Iron filings on the ground, from the meteor.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. We are somewhat limited because we have 3 set times and places to be (friends, and a pre-booked Hotel in Vegas), but I'll keep this in mind. In particular Meteor Crater! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

I inadvertently missed you out earlier and have had to carry this out now. I've put this on editors' talk pages where they have been !voting - feel free to reword if you think what I've done isn't quite right. "Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. If you need to respond, please respond on my talk page. Thanks." On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand the request. I think the proposal in question is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected. I stated one reason why. If you object to the !vote form, feel free to strike the vote part and leave just the argument. But I see no point it providing alternate wordings for a proposal that is simply broken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions

If you are able to do so, a response to these questions would be appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered there, hopefully in a useful manner. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Kohnen Station

Hi. I just imported Kohnen Station from de, but (ahem) left some of it in Foreign due to my abysmal German. You couldn't give it a quick polish could you? Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I may have garbled a bit: I thought it was just the logistic base, but it looks like they drilled a core too... I'll try to fix it up William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any foreign in it. I'll go over it when I'm back in Germany (albeit I've been hoodwinked into giving a presentation at a meeting that starts on jet-lag Monday - I come back on Saturday, and going East is always hard for me...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it vs. the es one. Awickert (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever get to see

Meteor Crater? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, nor even the Grand Canyon or Monument Valley. I did get to climb Angels Landing, though, and hike Navajo Loop in Bryce Canyon. We had such a good time that we will probably go back next year - the main question is if we do the South-West again, to check the missing attractions, or wether we go for Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw Angels Landing from below and stopped at Bryce briefly, but since I wasn't hiking or camping, I don't think I got the real value of those visits. Bryce is nice, but the WP article doesn't have a picture that really captures the forest-of-chimneys rocks I saw. Yellowstone has a new visitor center. [45] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I could do without the camping in most parks, but we did camp in Lassen Volcanic, Yosemite, Bryce, Arches (well, Moab, Arches was fully booked) and Canyonland. We booked anything from boutique hotels to Motel 6 at the other places. But if you don't hike, you really miss some of the best parts. The view from Angels Landing or the rim of Upheaval Dome is unimaginable. And it's so amazingly quite - coming back into a city with all the traffic was quite a shock. I'll check through my images if there is anything good from Bryce I can upload. But have you checked commons:Category:Bryce Canyon National Park? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at File:BryceCanyonOverview.jpg or File:HoodoosBryceCanyoon.jpg. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those do it. I like this one with the frosting (but I was there about this time of year and never saw it that way). File:Bryce Canyon21.jpg Yes, I remember the quiet in the daytime (were there crickets at night?). I've got I-95 to listen to here (I guess electric cars and trucks will eventually make it quieter). Around here, being outdoors means you have to take precautions against West Nile Virus and ticks with Lyme disease, and it lowers my enthusiasm for hiking. I hear people still get bubonic plague in the Four Corners area, apparently because rats and the like get among the garbage. Here we had a coyote in the back yard yesterday near the garbage bin. Why go out to see nature when eventually nature just comes to us? ... Well, maybe for the quiet. And the views. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget to pack the zucchini. [46] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment on enforcement page

Stephan, your comment here is a blatant personal attack on another editor, with no justification provided. I am sorry to escalate, but I do not believe Wikipedia can tolerate such comments. If you wish to reconsider I would gladly withdraw my request. Thank you, Mackan79 (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It's an observation. It's not a nice observation, but then it's neither a nice situation nor nice behavior. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't seem to see the need for a boundary in what we say about each other. I suspect if everyone were permitted to do this, eventually you might see the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see boundaries. But they cannot be allowed to become impediments to communication. See WP:SPADE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, while your observation is correct saying such things can and will be used against you. Honesty is not the best policy on Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, found a whopping list of diffs against me. I should have listened to you, R. Polargeo (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

While you are certainly right, don't forget the latest Cabal newsletter, where the change of roles was announced. Dr. Bill will become the patient, wise, silent guy, you take over his role as the valiant and compassionate defender of the big climate lie, and I get to stay the uncontrollable monkey clown nobody but Cla68 takes serious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it went into my spam folder. Carry on... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question

I'm just tying up loose ends here but, but could you please clarify whether you see yourself as an involved admin for on-going CC enforcement purposes or not? The reason I'm asking is that I was sure I'd seen a posting from you on just this point but can't find it anywhere.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might have seen my reply here that is now archived away. In short, I don't think you are heading towards a good definition of "involved" if you rely on content contributions as the only or primary factor, and I also don't think involvement in one part of the climate change topic necessarily implies involvement in other parts. I'm uninvolved per the definition used in the CC probation, but I don't claim I'm totally uninvolved, and I have not acted as an uninvolved admin in the last several weeks. However, unless the committee explicitly decides otherwise, I will continue to perform routine admin actions as I have in the past. I'm not aware that any of those has raised any criticism except for one opinion months after the fact that I have explicitly invited and invite the committee to investigate and rule on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff and the clarification. I'm not really talking about routine admin actions: I was specifically asking about enforcement of discretionary sanctions. I hope this helps ...  Roger Davies ^talk 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama - Anon ip issue on Sanctions page

Hello Stephan Schulz, I am writing to direct your attention to an issue here. At the very least, this edit contains legal threats. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't think I can usefully reply, but if you bring it to WP:AN/I attention, I expect someone to take care of this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

bloody fantastic

wow Olap the Ogre (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your email

Thanks Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Either the Intertubes are jammed, or you wrote to me under an unexpected pseudonym on an unexpected topic, or you forgot to press "send". About when should I have received something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever Doug tells you, do not send him a cashier's check. No matter how much of Saddam's gold he promises you. MastCell ^Talk 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ever since I got that US$150 million in diamonds from South Africa I've refrained from taking up lesser offers, no matter how much I would like to help widows, orphans, deposed ministers, and bank employees to secure their hard-stolen funds from the rightful owners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean you've never replied to the Nigerian finance minister? He tells me that he has a very special offer for you... Awickert (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong Stephan. My bad. Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. Some people got some amusement out of it, at least. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [47]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [48]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sunrise Hunter (talk · contribs)

Howdy, I went ahead and moved Sunrise Hunter to a indef block as a VOA. One pro forma comment, one about how Wikipedia has failed, and then a rapidfire sequence of vandalism does not seem to be an asset to the project. Feel free to change if you disagree, but it seems like a straightforward VOA situation to me. --TeaDrinker (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm fine. I just saw them on the rampage so slapped on a block to stop them now without wasting much time to evaluate overall behaviour. See my block comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

She Had to Say Yes

I have copy-edited the plot section per your request at DYK? It now no longer looks like a three year old wrote it. I think it could easily pass for an twelve year old's writing at this point. Quadzilla99 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I went over it, too, so now it's probably at the level of an 11 year old foreigner. Can you verify that I picked the right proposer for the last sentence? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice you had even edited it. You got it right, it really is a crazy movie; one minute he's trying to rape her, then he apologizes and she accepts his marriage proposal. Also, the Tommy character becomes convinced she's prostituting herself and he barges into her home and yells at her "My money's just as good as theirs. Just close your eyes and pretend I'm one of them!" I added some info to clarify the plot and who the characters are a little. Not sure about the hook, will think of a different one later if this one doesn't work. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I put an alternate one in there, but I'm not gonna lie, its not great. I'll see if I can think of another one tomorrow. Quadzilla99 (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, and found it, to be honest, a bit boring. But maybe others like it better. If I have time, I might think of one myself. Unfortunately, we have no secondary source for the plot - you could make something very hooky from those relationships. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh there's this:[49] and I used it when writing the plot section to help myself remember all the details, I just didn't link it there because usually plot sections don't have citations. I tried two more hooks, but they're bland as well. No worries if it gets bypassed. Quadzilla99 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Automated reasoning

Hi Stephan, I am new on Wikipedia and this is my first article editing. Please give me more suggestions and ideas how to make it better. Thank you. --Sanchitw (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are doing well. Make sure you add enough sources, and just keep adding content. Sometimes the Wikimagic works and massages what you provide until it is even better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

conceded

I cannot match this [50] as a comment... --BozMo talk 07:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I admit it was a low blow... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

talking of which I have to see my German cousins again soon so you could help me prepare. How many decades is it since the last significant German mathematician died? --BozMo talk 13:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Germany shipped off nearly all working brains in the 30s and 40s, and recovery has been slow. Do you count the exported ones? Hilbert died in 1943. Zermelo ten years later. Löwenheim died 1957, and Ackerman puts us into 1962. Zorn is one that left during the Nazi regime, he died in 1993. Konrad Zuse (d. 1995) was more of an engineer. Nobody later comes to my mind right now - but I'm a computer scientist. Few of us have had the time to die yet ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Keith Briffa

Dear Dr Schulz, could you please immediately stop vandalizing the article about Keith Briffa? Thank you very much. Are you a sockpuppet of William Connolley? --Lumidek (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it!

They're not even trying very hard any more. We used to get a better class of trolls than this... Matt Deres (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See the quote on my main page... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Emacs

Okay, I'm downloading Emacs 23.2 for Windows. Maybe that will be better. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous post before I started the download

I think I've found the file that you mentioned over at the computing reference desk. It wasn't a .emacs file, but a .emacs-singular-cust file. Whatever one of those is. Anyway, here's the contents: (custom-set-variables '(Info-button1-follows-hyperlink t) '(complex-buffers-menu-p t) '(font-lock-maximum-decoration t) '(kill-whole-line t) '(line-number-mode t) '(mouse-yank-at-point t) '(next-line-add-newlines nil) '(paren-mode (quote paren) nil (paren)) '(require-final-newline nil) '(show-paren-mode t nil (paren)) '(singular-cursor-key-model (quote terminal)) '(singular-help-same-window t) '(singular-section-face-alist (quote ((input . singular-section-input-face) (output)))) '(transient-mark-mode t) '(truncate-lines t) '(uniquify-buffer-name-style (quote post-forward-angle-brackets))) (custom-set-faces '(font-lock-comment-face ((t (:bold nil :foreground "Red")))) '(font-lock-doc-string-face ((((class color) (background light)) (:foreground "green4")))) '(font-lock-function-name-face ((t (:bold t :foreground "blue3")))) '(font-lock-keyword-face ((t (:bold t :foreground "violet")))) '(font-lock-string-face ((((class color) (background light)) (:foreground "green4")))) '(font-lock-type-face ((t (:bold t :foreground "violet")))) '(font-lock-variable-name-face ((t (:foreground "black")))) '(info-node ((t (:foreground "blue" :bold t :italic t)))) '(info-xref ((t (:foreground "blue" :bold t)))) '(paren-match ((t (:foreground "Red"))) t) '(show-paren-match-face ((((class color)) (:foreground "Red")))) '(singular-section-input-face ((t (:bold t)))) '(singular-section-output-face ((t (:bold nil))))) I tried to use your code, but I couldn't. Can you suggest some changes to make the Emacs readable? — Fly by Night (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The British Alpine Hannibal Expedition

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for being so patient and inversting so much time while trying to help me resolve my Emacs and SINGULAR problems. Your kind acts do not go unnoticed and are very much apprciated. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll put it onto the front lawn with the others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at Rogers Talk Page

"I can't help the feeling that this debate is not concerned with precedence and fairness, but with justifying a predetermined result and getting it over with as quickly as possible."

Exactly. And in the haste to reach a pre-determined result, they are creating dangerous precedents.

• "Is it OK to block someone for violating a topic ban even if they didn't violate the ban? Sure, why not, they did it to WMC, so it must be OK."
• "Is it OK to redefine a well-know term to mean something else so you can impose a block? Sure, why not, they did it to WMC, so it must be OK." --SPhilbrickT 13:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Power grabbing without community approval, very dangerous and very silly. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power. Or, in this case, "Do not prefer temporary convenience to painful consensus". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Man

I see you and R.A. crossed out some alleged sock entries. Trouble is, those editors are not currently blocked for sockpuppetry. Although you might be privy to inside info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/We233ws. If they aren't blocked yet, they should be soon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Aha, a sock farm. Which still leaves open the question of where SAT came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the sockmaster's comment on the 28th, "... if I had a wife, I wouldn't want her looking at it either...", which says more about the editor than he might have intended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised that Ben Dawid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wasn't on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm 9

but I aint taking no shit from you. You think you're all that cos of ur admin powerz? You can't stop me you little bitch! I'm gonna mash you to a pulp... 79.67.137.68 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What are the chances that this character (now blocked) is the guy in that Sun piece? His typing is about as bad, but that's the internet for ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: [[51]]

It's the irony,I think. Some countries have special relationships (for example,80% of our exports go to the USA) and just as with personal relationships, the connections are usually quite complex and hard to fathom by others. In this case its somewhat like a married couple where one spouse just doesn't appear to see what others might see in the other spouse...but really he or she sees it very clearly....BUT also is committed to the relationship and makes a conscious choice to assume the best motives on the part of the spouse and...now get this...knows that the spouse is capable of good behaviour when he/she wants to be and sometimes refuses to clean up the mess made by the spose's bad behaviour but insists that he/she clean it up mostly by themselves. A case could be made that the other western countries who came rushing in to get their citizens out were acting in a co-dependent manner, in effect, taking the problem off of the Pentagon's hands, whereas Canada maybe took the position: "Ok, you say this person is a terrorist and a threat and a murderer, you locked him up as a child and took away his civil rights, we're assuming you've got really good evidence for doing this to one of our citizens so we want and expect to see you follow through with a trial and evidence to justify what you have done." I realize this is not a soundbite but seldom are important events adequately addressed with soundbites. I can assure you, Canadians are the least naive people on the planetn with the possible exception of the Russians, but we have become blood allies with the American people because of WW1,WW2,Korean War and Aghanistan War + extreme cross-border breeding, physically and commercially, which means we expect America to treat our citizens with respect and justice and, usually, what one expects is what one gets; the other thing to remember about Omar Khadr is this. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your reference desk contribution

Hi Stephan! I issued a general thanks to everyone who replied to my question about LaTex at the reference desk, but I want to acknowledge your answer, especially. I probably would have given up on the idea of learning to use it if you hadn't stepped in with your comments. Thanks so much for giving me the benefit of your lights, there. I appreciate it. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It took a while for me to get into LaTeX, but I find it excellent for many applications, especially now combined with PDF generating drawing tools. Last year, I prepared slides for a new course, and I found Keynote and LaTeX to be both somewhat painful, but for different reasons. Keynote was great for images and funky effects, LaTeX (with the Beamer class) was much better for anything mathematical, surprisingly better for some simple but useful funky effects, and much better at helping me produce content. In the end, I had 6 lectures in Keynote with embedded LaTeX formulae, and 8 in LaTeX with embedded images generated in Keynote. Of course, the students only saw PDF. Also of course, slides are really not where LaTeX main strengths lies, though once they have acquired the basic toolset, people use it for both slides and even posters. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

LaTeX is a very steep learning curve, and once you get past it, it can make your life easier from producing everyday nice-looking documents to submitting academic papers to even making websites. Plus, lots of other software uses LaTeX and/or TeX interpreters. So I'm glad you're not giving up! Awickert (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Stephan, for this additional info, and you too, Awickert, for your encouragement.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Erdös number

Hmmm, looking into the Erdös number question leaves me unhappy(not with you). I'll recite the facts that led me to post it, but I'll have to remove it.

In 1998, John Burtkett, Steve MacIntyre and Rob Painter were collegues of mine. The four of us co-authored a pair of papers, with the involvement of our boss, Steve Sonlin. Those papers were submitted, accepted and published. Then, John Burkett and I worked on consolidating the two papers into a single paper for submission. We ended up abandoning that effort. All of us worked on both papers. When it came time to submit, my recollection was that we put Rob and Tom's name on one, with myself and John on the other. I just checked, and my recollection is flawed, as I was paired with Rob Painter (item 3 on the list) while Tom was paired with John. I had totally forgotten that Steve was named. I guess I "remembered" being paired with John because we were working on the rewrite together and he reported to me.

While working on the rewrite, and putting together author CV, John mentioned he had co-authored a paper as part of his thesis work with his thesis advisor at school, and by the way, his thesis advisor had once co-written a paper with Paul Erdös. I was gobsmacked, as my co-authorship with John gave me an attractive number. However, as we did not complete the rewrite article, I technically cannot claim the credit. I thought I remembered thinking that abandoning the rewrite didn't cost me the number, because I had the original paper with John, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Too bad, as the original assignment of authors could have been just about any combination, but it is what it is, so I'll remove it. The irony is that when I saw the template, it meant someone here cares about it, and I had hoped someone would ask. What unfortunate timing.--SPhilbrickT 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just tried to make a joke - I didn't want to burst your number. I always use this for computing Erdös numbers, but it probably does not know about actuarial papers. The only Philbricks that come up in their data base are Douglas and C. Russel (jr.). Burkett indeed has an Erdös number of 2 (via Arun Kumar Varma). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for simply striking and not making a bigger deal. Actually, I'm quite mortified, as I always thought there was some question about my claim (because I assumed the Journal in which I am published would not be on the list), but I honestly thought I had co-authored with John. I was once the North American editor of ASTIN and we had a multi-year battle to get listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index. I resigned my position before it got resolved, and it looks like it hasn't yet succeeded. That Journal was more oriented to academics than the Casualty Actuarial Society publications, so I have no doubt the places I've published don't make the usual lists.--SPhilbrickT 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[52]. You made a similar statement to SBHB. If you have anything to add, please let me know.

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See [53] - does that clarify things? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Question (man)

Hi, you were active over at the Man article I think. I'm not sure exactly if you were active prior to the AN/i discussion or not but anyways I have a question that I can't seem to find an answer to. At the top of the talk page of Man there is a censor template that looks like it's out of place and only there to make a point. Should the template be up there? The editors who keep returning it there say it's to let any editor who comes to complain about the nude picture. I don't see how this would be a warning to anyone nor do I see it as a good faith move. What do you think? There is a discussion here about the template plus more over at this users talk page. I am being asked to send out a message to get editors to return now that the article is no longer protected and talk page is pretty quiet. I am not going to be involved after I send out the notices and that depends on what kind of notices are being requested because I will not breach canvassing. I could use another opinion on things here and I trust your judgement. So if you have time would you give your opinion about things. It's not a long read to catch up. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't remember when exactly I joined the discussion at talk: Man, but it certainly was in connection with the image discussion. I find it honestly weird that there are people who don't expect to find a picture of a man (and nothing else) at Man. I think the WP:NOTCENSORED template has been created for exactly such situations. If not there, where would it be used? Unfortunately, I'm fairly busy right now, and will be away with at best sporadic net access over the weekend, so I cannot promise anything. But thanks for the compliment! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey no problem being busy. As for the template I don't know when it would be used but maybe I should go there and start a discussion to delete it since to me it seems to be used to make a point and also as an attempt to maybe stop discussions. Then again maybe I'm being too sensitive about it. :) That's why I need a sanity check from someone I know and trust. :) I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. Don't worry about the article. It will be there with the image somewhere I'm sure. Take care and thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving -> wrong continent. But I was invited to a Real American Turkey Dinner (tm) when I taught at U. Miami in 2002. I'll have to say that the appeal of Pecan Pie, Turkey breast, and gravy is less strong when the AirCon is struggling to keep the temperature below 30 degrees centigrade ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting this is not a universal holiday which is a shame since it consist of good food and usually good company, at least it is for me.  :) Are you saying you taught at the University of Miami? Like in FL? Or is this somewhere else? I have a reason for asking, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I taught CSC322 and CSC519 at the University of Miami in 2002. The University of Miami is not, strictly, in Miami, but it is in Florida. Miami University, on the other hand, is neither in Miami, nor in Florida... ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rouge admin

I have read the page and simply don't understand what a rouge administrator is? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to get the secret decoder ring from the WP:CABAL and set it to rouge to decode that page! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is going to be a problem for me since I don't believe in CABALs. And if I don't believe in them, they may not believe in me. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:AtlanticPuffin 4677.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AtlanticPuffin 4677.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted the original creator, who has send an email for permissions-en. However, why the word of a random guy with an email account is OK, while the word of a random guy on Wikipedia (who also has an email account!) about the release is not OK seems to be weird, and incompatible with WP:BURO. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Vandalism arrived in good shape and is settling in nicely. thank you! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a pleasure! Meow! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AWWWW I was playing with the newbie vandal fighter. Polargeo (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

AWWWW the newbie vandal fighter was watching recent changes. -.- — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a much better signature :) Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are doing a good job. No hard feelings I hope. Polargeo (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		thank you, that gave me a much needed laugh. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes laughing is the only plausible reaction to the state of the world. Thanks for the star! I'll put it onto the front porch with the rest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Current events

In a democratic society, good decisions can only be expected from an informed population. Oppose censorship, both online and offline.

Democratic society is a myth. Join the Cabal instead... leave the five orange pips on the sundial --BozMo talk 22:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but one must uphold the appearance! We have always been at war with Arbcomm EastAsia Sadam Hussein the Taliban South Korea North Korea! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not from around these parts. Is my Cabal signature good enough? NW (Talk) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! But more help is needed...

I enjoyed your comment on the ANI thread about the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, but I was wondering if you can help defuse the situation at the article talk page.

Currently, Elonka's comment as an "uninvolved administrator" urges people to remove sections of text sourced to a Wikileaks cable, a well-known and apparently undisputed source which might be primary in nature (though that too can be argued).^[54] OhConfucius took up the cause. Editors of the article strongly protested this move, and reverted, leading to an edit war, and she said that she has "cautioned" them against reverting further such deletions.^[55] The stage is still set for a confrontation in which editors choose between following administrator advice or following WP:Primary. (I'm currently arguing about that policy with her on my own talk page)

If you could, I wish that you could tell people at the CFDI talk page to disregard her suggestion to remove the Wikileaks source and everything based on it, and just go back to ordinary editing. Otherwise this is all going to blow up again. Wnt (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot tell people what to do (well, I probably can, but I have no particular right to expect them to follow, and I usually avoid it on principle). What I can do (and have done, I hope) is telling them that admins have no special power and that someone who relies on his or her admin status in a content conflict is wrong and should not be given any special weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed

Your {{adminnote}} on an {{adminnote}} on ANI. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your guidance

Hi Stephan. As an experienced editor (not as an admin) who knows all policies by heart, I would like to request some orientation about wiki policies regarding a proposal to do a batch or mass article merger involving more than 30 articles here. I really appreciate if you can drop by and provide some guidance about the proper way to proceed (not on the merit of the merger).-Mariordo (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever give up? You reported this at the WP:ANI and the administrator already gave you an answer. That does not mean you have harass another user just because you do not like the response that was given. I will be nominating a bunch of articles separately very soon, so be prepared. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merger (I sold my last car 13 years ago, so I'm not an expert ;-). I certainly don't know all policies by heart, or even at all. However, I agree that having a centralized merge discussion with links from all affected articles makes sense. There is no need for a foolish consistency, so if the centralized discussion supports merging of some articles, but has no consensus on others, just apply uncommon sense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion on this matter.--Mariordo (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stephan

As an experienced admin could you please wave your admin tools in an uncontroversial way. I have settled down at User:Polargeo 3 and would like to get all of my talkpage archives together. Could you possibly undelete User talk:Polargeo/Archive 1, User talk:Polargeo/Archive 2, User talk:Polargeo/Archive 3, User talk:Polargeo/Archive 4, User talk:Polargeo/Archive 5, User talk:Polargeo/Archive 6 and User talk:Polargeo/Archive 7. Also if you think I am not a risk to the pedia could you add my permissions rollback and autopatrolled which I had as Polargeo 2. Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't know that you are not a risk to the 'pedia ;-), but I'm certain that you are not a risk to the content. Expect delivery over the next few minutes as I figure things out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I've granted the rights, but I cannot find any deleted archives. In fact, I cannot find any edit you made to an archive page under User talk: Polargeo. Are you sure these archives exist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Whoops, fixed redlinks now. Polargeo (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Be happy! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy. Thanks. I've been called an asshole twice today on wikipedia so I must be doing something right :) Polargeo (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Antient history

Funnily enough, I read Imperium (novel) a month or so ago. A good read but (as my uncle the historian pointed out) they all think / speak modern-day-y William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I read it some time last year, I think, and yes, it displays a rather anachronistic world view. As a product of the Academia Cantabrigiensis, I assume you can just go off and read Cicero in the original, or course ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good heavens, you insult me sir! I am of course a product of Universitas Oxoniensis William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that. But if you are from the Art School by the Thames, I at least expect you can read not only Cicero, but also Thucydides in the original. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Lockitch article

I don't know if you remember me, since it has been some time since I actively edited the Global Warming article, but I question your decision to remove this reference [56]. First I must say I was impressed by your vigilance - you seem to be right on top of things. But the question I have is that I was unsure of how to attribute the source, as it was written by (and linked from) the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Being as this section of the Global Warming article is about the stances of libertarian think tanks and free enterprise institutes, I thought a source from the ARC would be considered accurate for describing the viewpoint of such an organization. I can see changing the attribution directly to ARC, but would you please elaborate on your conclusion - why is this an unreliable source for this organization's stance on the issue? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have multiple concerns. First, just because a think tank links to an article that does not mean they fully endorse its position. Secondly, that article is not about global warming to begin with, but rather about some purported economical effects. And thirdly, as far as I can tell this article is written by a theoretical astrophysicist, who is neither a notable nor a competent commentator on this issue or on global warming in general. Why would you add this particular position, and attribute it to unspecified others? It might find a home in global warming controversy, but even then I'm sceptical about using such bad sources, if only for the precedent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I can understand your first concern - Dr. Lockitch is a fellow at the ARC, but is not listed directly in their Staff or Directors pages. Still, Dr. Lockitch associates himself with the ARC on page two of the source I provided. In so doing, he says he is speaking for this institution. Lockitch has written over a hundred and fifty articles which have been hosted by the ARC, including approximately half of the articles listed on the ARC's home page for Science & Environmentalism linked above. I'm unsure what the criteria would be for a writer to be considered a qualified representative of an organization, but subjectively, Dr. Lockitch would seem to fit the bill. Addressing your second point, I chose that part of the Global Warming article specifically because the sentence immediately before it was talking about projections of the economic cost of stricter controls - a subject the Lockitch article addresses directly. In my opinion, it fits in the context of the rest. Thirdly, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose position is described in the sentence before the one I added, is not host to "environmental experts," but its stance was still considered notable enough to mention in our article. The only difference I can see between the sources used for that sentence and the sentence I proposed to add is that those sources actively disparaged the organizations in question as promoting "denialism," while mine was written by one of them. And finally, I'll admit my draft wording for the sentence was a bit wonky. As I said, I was unsure of who to credit the article to due to its being hosted off-site. I am still of the opinion that the ARC would not be misrepresented by this attribution, and I can easily reference material hosted on-site which is in line with this same position. I think it's a reliable statement of a noteworthy organization's stance on the issue, and I think it would not be inappropriate to include in the article.

As a final note, I'm unfamiliar with E&E. Just for future reference, was there some specific past incident which discredits its journalistic credibility that I should be aware of? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out page on Energy and Environment. It pretends to be a peer-reviewed journal, but rather than controlling quality, the review process ensures the proper bias. This may or may not be due to its social science (as opposed to natural science) background. As for the rest, I suggest to move this discussion to talk: global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference Desk Removal

user:Baseball Bugs has decided to remove a question, including your response, on the reference desk [57]. You may comment on the Reference Desk Talk page. Buddy431 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that removal was not the best of ideas, but it was as good faith as our answers, so it's no big deal to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation in edit summary

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including the reference desk.[58] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What Stephan said is unflattering, but it is (a) true, (b) verifiable, and (c) made about a public official whose privacy is not at issue. No BLP violation here. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Raul, you are joking, right? Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

About Stephan calling Bush a torturer? Absolutely not. Bush admitted it. Hell, he's proud of it. Not a BLP violation - not even close. And I'm getting very tired of seeing the BLP policy stretched like taffy to cover things it was never intended to cover, in order to stifle discussion. Raul654 (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Stifling discussion"? The thread was about how nutrition in American prisons allowed prisoners to bodybuild, and Stephan's comment had nothing to do with that conversation. Instead, he was enlightening everyone on his negative opinion of Bush. He said, "I spit on Bush the torturer" in the edit summary. Also, Bush did not say in your link, "I am a torturer", so you are not accurately representing what it said, instead putting your own, subjective interpretation on it. Bush said, "I ordered waterboarding." Not the same thing. So, it is a BLP violation as well as an inappropriate comment. Cla68 (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If person A orders person B to torture person C, both persons A and B are guilty (morally and legally) of torture and thus are torturers. But don't take my word for it - there are literally tens of thousands of sources out there calling Bush a torturer. The very, very specific search query "Torturer in chief"+Bush gets over 25,000 hits on Google, including links to the LA Times and The Nation on the first page. "Bush the torturer" gets another 10,000, including Salon and the Daily Mail on the first page. So definitely true, definitely verifiable, and definitely not a BLP violation.

As for its relevance, if Stephan's comment was irrelevant to the reference desk discussion, then that is what A Quest For Knowledge should have said here. He made no mention of it (which undercuts your claims). Instead, AQFK used twisted the BLP policy. And Stephan's comment's alleged irrelevance to the reference desk discussion has no bearing at all on whether or not it was a BLP violation. Raul654 (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've not much to add to what Raoul said. However, I did not write "I spit on Bush the torturer" - I wrote "Spit on Bush the torturer". I should probably have added an exclamation mark. It's not a simple statement of fact, it's a suggestion. Publicly showing our disgust for torture and torturers is something we all should do for the health of society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoop! Whoop! WP:WASTEOFTIME alert William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So the British editors are up and probably at work? Goddamn, I should get to bed soon. NW (Talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do you call British? Next you'll claim I graduated from Oxbridge or something.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Limeys, Krauts, Frogs... its all just Yorp to the colonials William M. Connolley (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Did Bush ever say "I am a torturer"? If so, then I agree, it's fine. If not, then continue below.

If Bush admitted "I am a waterboarder", and you assert "Waterboard is torture", then the assertion "Bush (is a) torturer", or the even stronger "Bush admits to torture", is your opinion, and it doesn't belong here. It's both a BLP violation (by virtue of stating it unqualified) and soapboxing.

I should say that I basically agree with Stephan's opinion on this being torture, but I am shocked that some very experienced Wikipedians above still don't get the distinction between "admits waterboarding" and "admits torture". And this ongoing problem of established editors conflating their own opinions with actual fact is a huge problem here. And even arbcom seems reluctant to deal with it. This kind of stuff is why I find myself so often in disagreement with people with whom I otherwise share a world view. ATren (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I just disagree. Fact and opinion are not diametrically opposed. And it is a fact that waterboarding is torture as much as its a fact that the Earth is roughly spherical. For both opinions you find fringers that oppose it. That does not change their status as fact. Heck, even Bush weaseled out of answering the question if waterboarding would be torture if applied to US prisoners by others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You really believe that "earth is round" is as unambiguously factual as "waterboarding is torture"? Really Stephan? Do you not see how absurd that assertion is? ATren (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you put it that way, no. That the Earth is round is a scientific claim about out reality, and thus, in principle, refutable. That waterboarding is torture is an ontological fact about language and concepts, and correct by definition. So no, the claim that waterboarding is torture is (very slightly) more factual than the fact that the Earth is round. However, the difference is negligible in practice - the approximate shape of the Earth is established fact by any useful definition of (scientific) fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I also agree that waterboarding is torture. You can't on Wikipedia, however, call a living person "a torturer" as it is a violation of our BLP rules. It's also, as well, inappropriate to bring it up out of the blue in a reference desk dicussion in order to publicize our political views to other Wikipedians. It's an example of boorish behavior alienating other editors who might otherwise respect the editor in question's opinions on a wide variety of topics. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sing hey the mystic sailor that you are. Much though it is good to have a go at bashing tGS about waterboarding I don't agree that it is possible to determine completely whether either of these statements are "true" (at least in the sense of "could converge to being arbitrarily true with a series of provisos") without first deciding who your "observer"/mind is. You cannot relate words to the real world without some sort of mind to do it and commonality between minds is fortunate and prevalent but not assumable. Sure I regard both as facts but that does not mean I can assume another rational being will in either case unless I define rational as always agreeing with me (which isn't a bad definition). I kind of badly explained this here but I don't recommend my own skills as a communicator. --BozMo talk 13:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz: You know very well that this person never tortured anyone. Nor has there ever been any conviction by a single court of law. You're supposed to be an admin. Act like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bush didn't torture people? I suppose superficially, that is true. However, it is a well-established principle in law that whoever orders something be done is ultimately responsible for the effects of their orders—see Nuremberg Trials. Perhaps you should consult The Guardian, Edinburgh University Press, The New York Daily News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Christopher Hitchens or John McCain to see if they consider the Bush Administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" to not be torture.

Was Stephan's edit summary well-advised or necessary? Probably not. Was it unfactual? No. Did it have a place in the discussion? Yes. More to the point, why the hell are you hounding him over it? NW (Talk) 06:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You, like Stephan and Raul, seem not to understand the difference between measurable scientific fact and ontological assertion. That's a real problem around here. ATren (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh my... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you have a heretic in your midst! Call in the high priests to banish me for daring to challenge your dogma! :-) ATren (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now. Can you please point out which of your statements are intentional nonsense (let's call it "Monty Python mode"), and which ones you think should be taken seriously? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't tell the difference? Oh my. :-) ATren (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That you would attempt to lecture anyone on scientific facts is laughable, given your editing history here. Raul654 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to cite specifics? I challenge you to find diffs where I have been in opposition to scientific facts. I only oppose the religion of scientism that is so active around here, not science itself. ATren (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making my case for me. Raul654 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about the collapse!

My collapse of part of the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Is_there_such_a_laptop_with_a_22_inch_screen.3F was not intended to include your reply, but as it turned out, it does not seem to matter too much. Sorry! ;-) --46.15.71.199 (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No hard feelings... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That collapse caused me to develop Repetitive strain injury. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Hello, Stephan Schulz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thomas Jefferson

Hello, Stephan Schulz! I recently made this change to the article to improve the POV, but was reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I have some concern about your POV there. Jefferson was a great thinker, and I quite admire many of his thoughts. But that does not mean we should white-wash his actions to fit modern sentiments. As far as I can tell, Jefferson's opinions on the Indians were very much practical and ruthless, and applying 20/20 hindsight to find excuses for some of his actions is not a very enlightened process (as I'm sure Jefferson would agree, at least in the abstract ;-). Of course, my knowledge about Mr. J. comes mostly from The Thomas Jefferson Hour, tainted with only some reading (Hitchens's biography was disappointedly thin on both wit and depth - I somewhat expected the latter, but not the former). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny this. I just wanted to inform readers why he was so ruthless (rapid U.S. population growth etc.). Some WP editors judge him by today's standards and depict him as a cruel heartless monster, taking statements and events out of context. Tobby72 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Heat Pumps

There seems to be quite a lot of rubbish both in public domain and in the Wikipedia article on Heat pumps, particularly in the context of domestic heating. Aside stating up front that "efficiency" is unhelpful as a word before misusing it frequently in our article, things like claiming that heat pumps COP approaches 1.0 when the outside temperature falls to 0 °F due to "Carnot efficiency limits" (as opposed to the real reasons) looks like utter tump. Meanwhile I am trying to find any kind of diagram of how the heat exchange within a Ground Source Heat pump occurs. Any ideas who actually knows about these things? They have existed in your neck of the woods for ages. --BozMo talk 11:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the COP approaches 1.0 when the lower temperature reservoir reaches 0 K, so it's not all wrong ;-). I looked at de:Wärmepumpe, and found no obvious deficits. But I'm really not an expert - I remember running a Stirling Engine backwards to freeze water in university, but it's been a while. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tools

Stephan, I'm not asking you to undo your protection of Activist, but in future you really mustn't use the tools in relation to anything your wikfriends are involved in (I'm thinking of Boris, WTC etc). There are plenty of uninvolved admins around who can deal with these things. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm plenty uninvolved in this particular spat of the woods. I don't really want to get into a discussion, but I think you are employing very different standards of "uninvolved" for yourself and others - probably because you have a better insight into your own motivations. However, I'd really prefer if you grant that same leeway to me. I've looked at the ACTIVIST trainwreck for months, and I really don't want editors to grind themselves up there for little gain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not about internal mental states, and that you protected the "wrong" version shows you meant well, and I accept that. The point is that over the last couple of years the community has developed a more extensive definition of "involved." Anyone wanting that page to be protected could have gone to RfPP and made a request there of one of the admins who patrol the board. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It was brought up on a neutral admin venue, and WP:BURO applies. And, as already pointed out once, I disagree with your interpretation of the community's interpretation of "involved". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You've only protected around 23 articles in your entire time here, almost all pages you or your friends were editing. So adding this one to the mix doesn't look good, that's all I'm saying. It's up to you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I rarely use my tools at all (something I already stated at my RfA), and I only act in situations I understand fairly well. Those typically are pages I have on my watchlist, and pages get onto my watchlist nearly exclusively by me editing them. No surprise there. I find that more useful than the helicopter boss approach. YMMV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for what you wrote on that other page about the email. Much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. We often disagree, but I cannot stand either bad arguments or personal attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephan

Do you think you could take a look at my report at WP:AIV and strengthen the blocks on my school IPs. Also do you think it would be feasible to apply 3 month semi-protection on Ten Commandments given the recent vandalism the article has been subject to. Cheers, —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:00am • 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Our limit for protection is typically several instances of disruption per day. I don't see that at Ten Commandments at the moment. I'm not a checkuser, so I cannot determine IP addresses used by the user in question. You might want to file a Sockpuppet investigation report to get someone with the proper rights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Righto, cheers Stephan :) —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:20am • 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Stephan Schulz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Proposed deletion of Now (book)

The article Now (book) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of how this might meet WP:NBOOKS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Hi Stephan, thanks for your note on my Talk page - I hadn't seen what you had deleted and did at first misunderstand your comment. Have added more to mine. It's frustrating to have people trying to impose their ideas on that article just because they don't like the facts. Hard to engage all the time, but I try to keep track.Parkwells (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the clarification. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts to keep the article on track.Parkwells (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote needed

Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought you'd like that

It is a neat tool isn't it? Great for making comparisons like these. I figure folks will get good mileage out of that tool in other articles. I'll bet you've been playing with it some since you saw it. I have. :)

Fwiw, I don't think he was canvassing since he notified editors in a neutral fashion...those who had edited the article at some point including those he knew might take a stance against him.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he violated WP:CANVAS, and his selection of addressees may not be all one-sided, but that's not evidence that it is not seriously lop-sided. Yes, thee tool is cool. Is there some description about what the text corpuses actually are? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you choose the corpus in the drop-down box. Here are the descriptions. How did he violate WP:CANVAS? I thought the wording was neutral.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know I can chose the corpus. But what is the corpus? All books known to Google Books? All books know to the LOC? All books ever printed? All books where Google has an agreement with the publisher?

WP:CANVAS describes notification as inappropriate if it is a mass posting (it indubitably is) or if the message is biased (it isn't) or if the audience is partisan (I think it is) or if the canvassing is secret (it isn't). So by my count he violates two of the four conditions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

All books known to Google at this point...about 5.2 million which is only about 4% of all books published 1. I don't know much about it beyond that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Arctic Convoys

Many thanks for your thoughtful comments at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Continuation of Arctic Convoys when alternatives existed. I've left a further comment with a few additional thoughts of my own. If I get time, I may try to expand the relevant articles with the additional references that came up during the discussion. I've certainly learned a few things! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. As a general rule, ships haul incredible amounts of stuff very cheaply (both in economic and in logistic terms). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard Jefferson & Hemings

Pardon my edit, but I must inform you that I had to refer an editor to the noticeboard for his fringe theories (not you). Your conduct is fine, but since you were involved in the dispute, I cited your discussion & warnings to him on this matter as well as those of other editors. You can see it here, and if I misquoted/inaccurately posted something involving you, then please say so: [59] Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to comment on that page, just to make known any errors I might have made involving your words/edits; I don't want this misconstrued into WP:CANVAS, which it is not. Ebanony (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In his edit yesterday I understand he refers to you and Schulz as the 2 other editors who said "no one knows the nature of the Hemings relationship" when he cited this: [60]. Well, we don't know all the details, but I'd say he's taking it too far, and stretching your comments into support for his denials/speculation that Hemings may have begun the relationship. To his claim [61], I responded [62]. I regret it has come to this, but must inform you of it.Ebanony (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Input please

Hi Stephan, You commented on the link I originally posted on this talk page, as someone who seems to be familiar with the article and it's history, I was wondering if you would mind looking through the BRD discussion and correcting me if I have misread the situation and the archives please? Regards ^Khukri 08:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Progress in Mid-March

Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Paper - What does CO2 really contribute to Global Warming?

Stephan,

I was going to add a note to the discussion on this paper that there had been a few weeks ago, but partly because it was closed, but mainly because as I read it again, some of the comments were frankly moronic, I thought I'd approach you directly rather than risk another bun fight over a banana. The answer to a question you wrote is that it is not just a poster, it is a full blown paper, but unfortunately only in German (although there is a translation). As I said in the comments, this appears to be a very strong paper making use of the latest HITRAN data and for some reason has come to a very different result from previous estimates. That is why I'm posting this. Obviously that may be because this author has got something wrong and/or it may be because he is using updated spectral information which is fundamentally changing the estimate of warming. Either way I would like to know.

But, I've been struggling to find any details about the previous calculations in the public domain. So, do you have any links to papers and or information on the previous estimates?

And please don't try to interpret this as petty wikipolitics - this is a genuine request for information to try understand how this new calculation can be so different. 85.211.195.24 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is a full-blown paper, do you have bibliographic details and possibly a link to it? I'd be very interested in reading it (and I read German fairly well). As Boris pointed out, the paper seems to make a fairly basic but not uncommon error, which would explain its deviating results. And Boris is an expert with a peer-reviewed scientific output that leaves me envious and somewhat speechless. Scientific publications are not usually in the public domain in the legal sense, but they are often freely available, and always obtainable via any good library for very modest fees. The keyword you are looking for is "climate sensitivity", and our article is a good start with several pointers into the literature. Also check Google Scholar (and try it for more recent papers).

Unlike Boris, I'm no expert. But as far as I can tell, the use of "the latest HITRAN data" is not very relevant. It may slightly improve the modeling of the absorption and transmission of infrared light, but we have had good enough data for that for a long time, and it's hence unlikely to have a major influence on the result. If you measure the distance between New York and Washington, it's not very relevant if your calipers are graduated to millimeters or micrometers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the full paper, besides a note saying that it will be read at the EGU General Assembly 2011 in Vienna. Linking to the PDF seems to be failing for me, so here's a link to the Google search to the abstract (that link may or may not work): http://tinyurl.com/4kcqq8cM/. See also [63] for some discussion on the paper. NW (Talk) 14:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the two page abstract, but not any "full paper". The TinyURL link fails - was that supposed to lead to the full paper? Rabett's comment points out the same problem as Boris does - you cannot model the atmosphere as a single layer. If you do that, you will of course get saturation effects once nearly all infrared light is absorbed. But in reality, each successive layer of the atmosphere can reabsorb and re-emit infrared, thus keeping heat in the lower atmosphere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Early Human Migration in Wikipedia

G'day Stephen, You have rubbished my adition to this page, for no good reason. The atricle from which I quote is already shown as a reference (Reference #12). All I have done is precis this information, provide support for that information by quoting the existence of hard evidence (pygmies, Tasmanian Aborigines and current Aborigines) that there are three totally different types of settlers into Australia (or Sahul) as it was then). The article refers to a valid paper presented by Tindale and Birkett. As I already hold tertiary qualification, though no in this area, I feel that I am capable of assessing evidence and deciding whether it is valid or not. I look forward to hearing more from you. Arthur Harris (Rferau) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rferau (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss article-specific issues on the article talk page. I'll move this discussion there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

Would appreciate your expertise regarding this: "The ozone layer experiences the highest level of depletion on record as a result of cold temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere last winter." which currently appears in the "in the news section" of the main page and strikes me as misleading. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. And the sources agree (although a cursory reading of the first article of the NatGeo article could mislead). The stratosphere was unusually cold, which may (or may not, but it's a prediction that has been verified before) be due to the increased greenhouse effect. It's certainly not the effect of "unusual cold in Northern Hemisphere". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll stop panicking - it's been fixed.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification of RFAR on behalf of filing party

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#David Irving and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Posted on behalf of User:Tholzel (filing party) --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

He indicated that you were one of the two parties. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okido. I was a bit worried about you doing his legwork, but if he requests it, I'm fine with it. I don't really think it needs a statement just now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Climategate lede -- your reversion

Hi Stephan:

I respectfully request that you self-revert this -- I don't think you're fully aware of the recent activity here, and I'm just attempting to restore some balance to the lede after Viriditas has "run wild" with it. Not at all tendentious editing, imho, and if you read through the recent talk, you'll see all of these changes do have consensus support, while V. has, well, himself.

But do stick around. The article is an embarrassment at present, and desperately needs attention. We may disagree on emphasis, but you are a careful and experienced editor who can help with this, if you are so inclined. Best regards, and thanks in advance, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Bump. Can you please indicate what part(s) of my revision you object to -- preferably at the article talk page? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't find extensive participation on that talk page good for my schedule or sanity at the moment. There is too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going around. Your edit removed the mainstream evaluation of the the event, and gave undue weight to the FOIA issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you do return to help fix the thing -- and certainly understand any disinclination to refight the last war, which is what seems to be in progress now. Sigh. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Randy2063

Hi, i saw your were dealing with inappropriate edit summaries of this user. User_talk:Randy2063#BLP_violation Here is another one that seems to be problematic in my view. What do you think? I think he should not express his obvious hatred against this person in his edit summaries. This is after all a BLP. Regards. IQinn (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't find that edit summary very helpful, but at least he names no names and makes no direct allegations. So it may be another sign of his world view, but I don't think its actionable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Just letting you know that results from a PhD thesis unpublished elsewhere are never considered seriously in the area of science I am working (and nobody even knows about these results). This is basically a private communication, which does not mean it is necessarily wrong and can not be used for sourcing. Good luck with your administrative duties! Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this at WP:RSN already. Your opinion is noted, but it is in conflict with our current policy and with the practice in the humanities and most of the sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To be more precise, when one prepares an article for publishing in a scientific journal, he can occasionally refer to his own "unpublished data", to a "private communication" from Dr. X, or to a PhD thesis of student Y. However, if these references are essential to justify main conclusions of the publication, the manuscript can be rejected by reviewers. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No. For all serious universities, a PhD-thesis has to be published as part of the process - traditionally, by providing sufficient copies to the university library, but more frequently by contracting a publisher (who will publish and keep available the thesis either for a flat fee, or when the author agrees to buy a decent number of copies, or in very rare cases, on the publishers own risk), or, in recent times, by depositing it in a reliable electronic repository - most often again with the university library. You cite the thesis, not "unpublished data" or "private communication", both of which is indeed bad practice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of the process. It looks very much like self-publishing by the student and his scientific advisor who makes every effort to publish all important results elsewhere, because he wants these results to be read by other people. I hardly ever used or made a references to any PhD thesis in my papers, except one or two theses about development of software (which still was described in other publications anyway). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed warning at WP:AE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see TFD's arbitration enforcement appeal, where you commented previously. Fred Bauder has offered the text of a warning that would be logged in the case. See if you agree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Answered there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't like Fred's version. Do you want to propose a revised warning? That case seems likely to sit at AE forever unless it is somehow expedited. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm in a bid of a bind here. I can come up with a general common-sense warning ("Try to amiably resolve problems, don't push every discourse into AE, be particularly careful about racial and ethnic sensibilities"). But, as I wrote, I don't think DIGWUREN stretches this far (although the personality conflict may well have stared in DIGWUREN territory), so I don't know under what authority we should threaten a topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is one thing I cannot understand here. What "disrupting editing" can we speak in this concrete case, if no editing took place? What TFD have done was (I am writing based on the diffs provided by FB):

1. Started the talk page thread Here. In this thread he presented a new source in addition to very few sources available about Lia Looveer.
2. Provided another source: here
3. When to the WP:RSN, because some users expressed a concern about reliability of the sources he used here.

I would like to get an explanation which of those steps constituted disruptive editing. These step were quite understandable, taking into account that all major databases, gscholar[64], Thompson ISI [65], jstor [66], google [67], Scopus [68] contain almost nothing about Lia Looveer. Why cannot we assume that this user simply found something new, and decided to share with others. I agree, in a situation when, e.g. 100+ reliable sources were available about Looveer, to come up with 101th source that connected Looveer with Nazi supporters would be a sign of cherry-picking. However, the situation is quite different: we have just few reliable sources, and, in a situation when the notability of the article's subject seems to be disputable, any new source should be treated seriously, and by no means to present a new source is disruptive.

Regarding the wording used by TFD, if I am not wrong, he simply reproduced verbatim what books.google.com snippet view says about Looveer. In that situation, it was quite natural to comment that in two lines of the text (the only available text) Lia's name has been associated with Nazi supporters. Again, a snippet view provides just a couple of lines of the text, so TFD was physically unable to cherry-pick something.

In addition, if we look at the present article's text we will se the following fragment:

"She was acknowledged in the Legislative Council of New South Wales by the David Clarke. She was also secretary of the United Council of Migrants from Communist Dominated Europe in Australia which included Australian state politicians Douglas Darby and Eileen Furley, and Federal politician William Wentworth."

We can see that the information about two politicians (one of them is a red link) has been added to the description of some political organisation Looveer was a member of (taking into account that this organisation has no WP article, it is hardly notable) to explain what this organisation was. In connection to that, the quote TFD presented of the talk page (" This included Lia Looveer, Laszlo Megay and Romanian Constantin Untaru. Megay and Untaru were also prominent members of the international Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which ASIO considered pro-Nazi and of the extreme right in a 1955 report to Menzies and the Cabinet.") was quite in accordance with this style: by reading information about Looveer's colleagues a reader would get an addition information about the organisation she was a member of. If we add the statement that some of Looveer's colleagues were influential Australian politicians, why should we remove the information about her other colleagues who were Nazi collaborators?

I myself is not interested to work on this article, and I do not care if the text about Looveer's ex-Nazi colleagues will be added to the article. However, it is quite clear for me that we have a normal content dispute here: if a considerable part of the sources (two or three out of 5-6 sources available about her) mention her name in connection with Nazism (although indirectly), to discuss a possibility to reflect that in the article is quite natural. It is also clear for me that to go to RSN was also absolutely natural step. And, unfortunately it is also clear for me that this user has been sanctioned for providing a wrong, (although reliable) source, which is tantamount to the introduction of censorship in Wikipedia.

BTW, I do not think TFD's behaviour is totally correct. For instance, I think he should be warned not to misuse the AE tool. And, finally, I agree that the situation when every dispute between Easter European users falls under the DIGWUREN case is somewhat odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for posting it here, but the AE thread is so complicated that my post could simply be lost there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, I must say I am absolutely gobsmacked that you see no connection between Lia Looveer and Eastern Europe, given that it is an article about an Eastern European emigre who devoted her life to defending the independence of an Eastern European country.

TFD purposely trolled the talk page of Lia Looveer to slur this person through association with alleged war criminals to apparently invoke a reaction, thus reporting that person to AE seeking an indefinite block. While these specific sources mention Looveer in regard to her capacity as secretary (and thus sometimes referencing her minutes) of various ethnic councils and committees within the Liberal Party of Australia, and as such in her role as secretary she came in contact with a wide variety of people, none of these sources explicitly claim any complicity or support by Looveer of those individuals exposed as alleged war criminals nor sympathy for Nazism. Yet these sources were used to imply, insinuate and synthesise such support or sympathy existed[69].

Now taken together with past tendentious misrepresentation of sources such as:

• adding material claiming Looveer supported alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich.[70], stating on talk "The article should mention that the subject was on the executive of the Liberal Ethnic Council and supported the president Lyenko Urbanchich when the Liberal Party tried to suspend him." even though there is nothing published that she had done so.
• claiming that Looveer "defected" to Nazi Germany[71], claiming on talk "Looveer gave up her allegiance to the USSR when she went to work for the Third Reich.", "In other words, she "defected"." without any source to back that politically loaded term.

As uninvolved User:Tijfo098 states:

I think the topic ban is justified for dubious use of sources, which even his friend Paul Siebert admits, and for repeatedly soapboxing on the talk page for nearly two years. Simon Wiesenthal only called Urbanchich a "Nazi collaborator" in that source (Hancock), which is a bit short of "war criminal". [72] Urbanchich was revealed to have been an anti-Semitic propagandist for a Nazi radio station during the war. Not even Mark Aarons calls Urbanchich directly a war criminal, but only uses the convoluted sentence "He was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals." As the latest example of TFD's soapboxing, [73] the so-called "new evidence" is nothing more than a 2001 book by (same old) Mark Aarons, whose 2006 newspaper article was already (improperly) cited in the Wikipedia article. In that diff TFD launches at the bait-takers: "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references." But at the time when he wrote that, the article had the (improperly sourced) phrase "Lyenko Urbanchich (a right-wing politician who was later exposed as a Nazi war criminal)." in it! The incorrect information had been added by TFD, and had been continuously in the article for about two years [74]. That summarizes TFD's contributions to the article. By the way, I have tagged the article Lyenko Urbanchich for massive copyright violation, but that's my level of involvement here. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}}

Another uninvolved user User:Jd2718 states:

However, with this edit on the Lia Looveer talk page, TFD trolled Estonian-sympathetic editors. He was not proposing an edit. He was not proposing a deletion. He seems to have been trying to get a rise out of nationalist edit-warriors. "Today," this edit says to me "would be a good day for a fight..." And Vecrumba sank to the challenge. TFD tries to guilt Lia Looveer by association, and Vecrumba responds to the trolling by accusing TFD of smearing all Estonians.

At issue here is a long term pattern of trolling on Lia Looveer, implying she had Nazi sympathies when none of the sources actually state this, which in turn encouraged others to engage in similar behaviour[75], turning the article talk page into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This fits remedy 8 of DIGWUREN[76]: All editors are warned that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations (inferred by the talk page trolling) that persons (Lia Looveer) of a particular national or ethnic group (Estonian) harbor Nazi sympathies and such behaviour will be met with a summary ban. --Martin (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what I see here is a double standard. TFD seems to fairly represent the sources. You use one standard to analyse the sources ("none of the sources actually state [that Lia Looveer had Nazi sympathies]), and another to judge his edits ("[TFD is] implying she had Nazi sympathies"). I think there is some bad-faith interpretation going on here. As others have pointed out, Eastern Europe is not one of TFDs regular interests. So I don't see the evidence for his edits being driven by any Eastern European sentiments. I'm very reluctant to overstretch DIGWUREN in that way. Is Ayn Rand an "Eastern Europe related article"? Isaac Asimov? Marie Curie? Where does it end? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think adding to the article that Lia Looveer "supported" the alleged Nazi war criminal Lyenko Urbanchich, when the cited source does not in fact say that is a fair representation of the sources?

TFD's predominant interest is in the articles Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism, both articles which TFD explicitly asked the ArbCom to rule as "Eastern European" here. TFD also asked in that request if Lia Looveer was covered in the scope of "Eastern Europe". The ArbCom agreed with Arb Steve Smith's view "It is my view that a wide construction of the ban's scope, as prescribed in the remedies, would include all of the articles mentioned". This clarification was used as the basis of putting Mass killings under Communist regimes under a WP:DIGWUREN sanction. So there is no question that Lia Looveer also falls within the same scope.

The evidence of his sentiment was his statement: "The political implications in Eastern Europe have been to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, villianize the Jews whom they connect with Communism and encourage discrimination against Russians living in their countries." I don't think I need to point out the odiousness of leveling this kind of sentiment towards Wikipedia editors who are representing mainstream sources in good faith. Evidently TFD's statement "Seems funny to create an article about someone who is interesting because of her connection with colorful characters, then remove all the references" (which never happened) in Talk:Lia Looveer fits with his sentiment against "rehabilitating Nazi collaborators". The other manifestation of this sentiment, in this case of his opposition against "encouraging discrimination against Russians living in their countries" is TFD's recent accusation against myself (and subsequently a mainstream professor of Estonian ethnicity) of right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV because I quoted the esteemed professor's book[77], [78]. TFD would have received a three month topic ban, when EdJohnston asked TFD to avoid implied slurs against others on contentious talk pages in the future and said: "It is not clear to me whether TFD will refrain from harsh criticism of perceived opponents in the future, but the data which has been gathered could serve as background for future sanctions if the problem continues". This history shows an evident pattern of tendentious battleground behaviour born out of a misguided view of the politics of his perceived opponents. --Martin (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Government

I started WP:Government yesterday. This is intended to break long standing deadlocks on Wikipedia, if the community feels that the status quo is not good but they are divided on precisely how to move forward. Here, you can think of certain policy pages, or the creation of new policies that the community thinks are necessary, but which then never get started because of a lack of consensus for any particular proposal. The community can then elect a committee to move forward. If you are interested, you can expand/improve the proposed policy. Count Iblis (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

your personal opinions

I struck your attacking personal opinions about living people and you replaced them - I have struck them again - please don't revert - you should know better as an administrator - your personal attacking opinions about living people are not required here, you are also increasing disruption rather then decreasing it. - please stop. If you have issues go to the guideline policy page rather than push the limit like a newbie. Take it as a warning - its a personal attack on a living person - if you replace it I will report you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Your mixing up BLP (which is about misleading reporting on living people) and NPA (which is about civility between Wikipedia editors). You also need to read WP:TPG about editing other peoples talk contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia defends Robert Mugabe" would make a nice headline to feed to Seth Finkelstein, don't you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Such is the falsehood that is reported by users that want to attack the project. I protect any living person whether considered good or bad by anyone else. - feed Finkelstein that. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify what "such" is supposed to refer to in your preceding comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not here to discuss with you but to restrict your violations. Such is the false presentation that Wikipedia somehow especially protects Mugabe when actually they attempt to protect all subjects. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're not here to discuss, then please leave. If you have something to say, please have the courtesy of writing comprehensible messages. Otherwise you just waste everybody's time. I have no particular interest in Mugabe. However, I do have a strong interest in keeping the interpretations of our policies on this side of reasonable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. I think a proper WP:RFC would have been better than individual solicitation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Climate change RFAR and LaRouche

I see you're a veteran of the Climate Change arbitration, so I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on a related matter. This regards Lyndon LaRouche. By one account this movement's publications are "at the forefront of denying the reality of global warming". The articles featured in their two main magazines illustrate the movement's devotion to that topic. Executive Intelligence Review and 21st Century Science and Technology Some of their prominent views are covered at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Environment and energy. Apparently, their facts or theories have been repeated by more mainstream commentators like Rush Limbaugh. My question is whether you think the LaRouche bio and related articles would be covered by the Arbitration topic ban on "articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages" and "biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed"? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Scope of topic bans   Will Beback  talk  06:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

For a little more background, Stephan, you might check out this discussion, in which Will brings up the forbidden topic even though it doesn't have anything to do with that particular, ongoing discussion on the lede. Will, do you have a particular reason for asking this question of this editor? Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a reason for asking this question of Stephan Schulz. I'd like to get his answer. Yours too.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find it absurd to have a large and largely unrelated topic fall under the climate change regime just because some aspects of the topic fall under it. In such cases, I would only apply the ruling (e.g. topic bans) to the aspects that directly deal with climate change. However, I've seen editors take a different stance (one did e.g. argue that all climate articles fall under the "climate change, broadly defined" umbrella). I think how the ArbCom decision is interpreted in individual cases is unpredictable, and likely depends on whether the people dealing with the situation have a prejudiced opinion of the editors involved, and if the editors involved show other signs of competence and independent thought an unpopular or informed POV undesirable behavior. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'm not sure I get the full reply though. Clearly, the LaRouche movement is an energetic proponent of the contrarian climate change view. It's not unrelated at all. Do you deny that involvement of the LaRouche movement in the climate change controversy??   Will Beback  talk  11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. But the LaRouche movement also does many things not related to climate change at all - consider e.g. their peculiar stance on classical and modern music. I don't think an editor barred from discussing climate change should be barred from the discussion of other aspects of LaRouche. However, I also note that this position is not universally shared (and indeed, I see the slippery slope - Fred Singer nowadays is mostly known as a climate change contrarian - does that bar people from discussing his stance on tobacco? In this case, I can see why that is desirable - his tobacco denial is mostly pointed out to discredit his opinions in general - but it's not a simple black-and-white decision). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, raising in issue on a talk page where the issue is of de minimis significance to the article with any aim of removing an editor who is estopped from discussing that topic may not be viewed with favour by admins. The purpose of the CC result was not intended for such a usage. Where the topic is of significance in some meaningful manner, then the CC result applies for sure. Is "climate change" of substantial weight in the lede of the LaRouche article? Is it rather in the nature of an aside given the vast range in the article? At this point, I see no (as in "zero") reference to "climate" in the LaRouche article. Thus on its face the article Lyndon LaRouche (BLP) is totally unrelated to Climate Change howsoever broadly construed. Not even a close call for that one. As to the "views" article - it is a melange of any possible topic found on Wikipedia - so I rather think no reasonable person would attack much significance to that laundry list. And an editor who specifically has added all the material connecting the "views" with climate change would not be in a strong position to argue that everyone barred from essentially any topic at all on Wikipedia is therefore barred from working on that sorry excuse of an article. In short, Will -- I think your ownership of the views article is evident (sigh). Collect (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is of minimal importance to an article, or what the CC ArbCom result was intended for (if anything) are points that can be legitimately discussed. From a pragmatic point, I would suggest that editors banned from a topic should avoid it anywhere, but need not avoid all pages where it occurs. In this particular case, and in my opinion, Cla68 should refrain from participating in the discussion on how to reflect climate change in the the LaRouche articles (including the discussion if it should be in the lede or not), but should feel free to deal with other parts of the topic. However, as said above, I'm not under the delusion that my opinion is universally shared. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Gwillickers disruptive behavior.

I'm preparing a user conduct RfC on Gwillickers for disruptive behavior, canvassing and making legal threats. If you're interested in participating I was hoping that you might be able to add your experiences from Thomas Jefferson. I'm asking you because you seem to have been one of the most involved editors there. I've read through some of the controversy which appears to have taken up three archived talk pages at present. Since I was not involved in that discussion I feel that you have the most perspective related to that. I have a draft page of the RfC in my user space. Feel free to edit in that space or bring up questions on the talk page there. This RfC was triggered by Gwillickers behavior at Talk:Abraham Lincoln and I'm finding out now that this behavior has been going on for quite some time. Brad (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad! I need to think about this a bit - I'm fairly busy right now, and will also be traveling a lot over the next few weeks, so I'm not very keen to become involved in a formal WP:DR process. Gwillickers primary problem is a strong and persistent adherence to his own POV, with complete resistance to consider dissenting high-quality mainstream sources in a substantial manner. It is hard to point to individual acts of disruption that are easy to evaluate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. A discussion is going on there about that editor. Coemgenus 15:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Commented there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate is not apprehend

...but rather something completely different.

See Humanities#Utilitarian_view_on_torture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs)

The correct reference is Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2011_June_13#Utilitarian_view_on_torture. Duh. What can I say....total brain failure on my part. English is my second language, but I am, in theory, very much aware of the difference. It's fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)