For reasons best known to itself (but no doubt excellent), Wikimedia Deutschland has seen it fit to give me a scholarship to attend Wikimania. I will be in Hong Kong from Tueday way to early to Sunday way too late (August 6th to 11th). If anybody reading this is there, I'd be happy to meet some of you in person. My preliminary plan is here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bono has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Thanks a lot! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reverted my edit, where I removed the template Mos-Tw. I'm convinced it doesn't belong and further, is a BLP violation in this case. Bradley Manning is a man, legally, verifiably and biologically, so having a template on this page stating "Because this article contains material about one or more trans women " is making an inaccurate statement supported by no verifiable references (and it could be construed as being a violation of BLP ). Since the template can't be changed (that brings it's own problems) better to remove it out of the talk page completely.

That being said IF Bradley Manning goes Christine Jorgenson and legally changes his gender and his name, then we can put the MOS-TW right back in , as it would be appropriate. So, what's your take ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that WP:MOSIDENTITY clearly implies that we assume the latest expressed gender self-identification of a person, regardless of where bits of the body are dangling (or standing - there's a happy thought ;-). So while Manning's biological sex might be male, her gender, as used on Wikipedia, is female, and she is a woman. Hence the template is not a BLP violation, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you loud and clear, this is :
Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article which implies that verifiable information needs to be used over what that person happens to prefer. I realize that when there's no disupte, per MOS:IDENTITY , the persons preferred name, title, etc... can be used, but , see , it's disupted, so V, NPOV and BLP take effect and per that, we refer to the person the way they're referred to in our reliable information. So, I respectfully submitt that calling Bradley Manning a trans-woman is a BLP violation. YOu follow ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read further. "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Manning's preference is verifiable, according to WP:V - see e.g. [1],[2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. You want Bradley Manning's article to comply with WP:V. No problem at all, you and I both agree that it should. Your first source identifies Manning as Bradley Manning and never uses a pronoun (neither male nor female).

The Guardian uses all female pronouns, however, the Guardian is a tabloid magazine and fails reliability.

That and MOS:Identity is disupted and therefore cannot be used a criteria. Still looks like he's verifiably a man, is being called Bradley Manning and is still legally, biologically and reliably male.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but The Guardian is not a "tabloid magazine", either in the literal sense (it's printed in Berliner) nor in the figurative sense. It's certainly a reliable source for Wikipedia, and has been accepted as such on many occasions. As you correctly point out, the WaPo article uses the name for identification, but does not take a side. Here is another WaPo article discussing that reliable sources are conflicted about the use of pronouns. And here it uses the female form itself. Another example (via the AP) is here. WP:MOSIDENTITY has been clear for a long time. And even the "disputed" tag makes it clear that "Until the dispute is resolved by consensus, it is recommended that the guideline remain in effect" - not only can it be used, it is even recommended to use it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^4, not 6, shurely? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abshoutely. But it's all in P for me, so it's hard to see a difference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tim Ball". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot�^{operator�/�talk} 01:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a professor posted this for us today to show how governments write school textbooks. Don't know if you're curious about this or if you could use it in an article, like social Darwinism or Nazism or such. Yopienso (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yopienso! Thanks. Per Francis Bacon, I'm interested in everything (see my user boxes ;-). Nazi propaganda is not one of my particular interests, but I'm always happy to have a look at quirky and weird things, if only for delectation! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea what happened in this edit? (I've since fixed it.) �Steve Summit (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. I've seen a few glitches with simultaneous editing, so it might be a software bug. Thanks for fixing it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Interested in the tires you mention at the ref desk, per my comments there. � kwami (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there, if possibly not vert helpful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stephan. Might you have a chance to take a look at my edit request at Talk:Berkeley Earth? I have a COI and don't want to do much with the article directly. Thanks for any help. Dragons flight (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in South Africa right now, so net access is irregular and the beach is calling (and my girl friend is making the call urgent ;-). But I'll take a look tonight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beach? ... 22 �F and 6+ inches of white fluffy stuff here ... envy. Anyway I've applied the suggested changes, tweak/redo as needed. Enjoy the beach ... Vsmith (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're in the wrong field. I'm up to speak at LPAR 19, and we came two weeks early. Our 22 is in Celsius, and in the shade - the sun is a different matter entirely! On the "if you have lemons" motto, I suggest you take up snowboarding. Anyways, I saw that you and Vsmith have done the updates, read over it, and it looks good. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stephan, this is Keeby. I just wanted to apologize for my rude and asinine behavior on a certain talk page a few months ago. I started an edit war and I didn't have any references or sources (at least not any good ones) to back up my claims. I hope you can forgive me on that regard. Keeby101 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

I also have changed my ways since then. Keeby101 (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. I'd already nearly forgotten the issue - I certainly don't hold a grudge! In my 10 years or so I have seen plenty worse ;-). Have fun editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a request for an uninvolved editor to close an RfC. But what happened was a person who self-describes as a Reformed Presbyterian (i.e. an admirer of Calvin) closed the discussion with no change to the article, which I had flagged as having a NPOV problem. The votes were 50/50 with all the people describing themselves on their talk pages as Calvinists (Reformed), voting for no change, and anyone not having a Calvinist background voting to change the section of the article to improve NPOV. I don't believe an editor who is a Calvinist (or an anti-Calvinist) should be deciding how to close a contentious POV discussion. Please advise me what the next step should be. I don't know how to request a review of this closure. Am I allowed to revert it? Talk:John_Calvin#Request_for_comment:_PoV_section The previous RfCs Talk:John_Calvin#NPOV_dispute_.22Securing_the_Reformation.22_section Markewilliams (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. I understand your concern, but I'm currently at a conference far far away, and about to get back on the plane to still far away (though closer ;-). Thus I have not and cannot spend enough time on Wikipedia to have an informed opinion and state it well enough to matter. If the situation is not resolved after Christmas, I will take a look. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case - an edit by EyeTruth[3] is used saying that " I do find it very odd that users who edited that page shortly after the edit by Mathilda37 actually let those edits stay or somehow didn't see them." As you were one of those who committed the sin of not noticing a bad edit, I'm letting you know although you aren't named in the case. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have checked the small print in your Wikicontract. Right under the generous remuneration it states that you personally are responsible for checking and correcting all edits for all articles you have read in the preceding 5 months. The only exception are cabal-approved edits, of which you should get a monthly list (or activate the hidden button "mark cabal-edits" in the Freemason tab of your preferences). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Stephan Schulz, Du warst letztes Jahr schon auf der Wikimania, und hattest hoffentlich positive Eindr�cke. Deshalb ein kurzer Hinweis: die Wikimania 2014 steht schon jetzt vor der T�r. Vielleicht hast Du ja wieder Lust hinzugehen, oder Dir f�llt jemand ein, der gerne hingehen w�rde; oder hier liest zuf�llig jemand mit, der schon immer zur Wikimania wollte. Auch dieses Jahr vergeben die deutschsprachigen Wikimedia-Vereine Stipendien zur Teilnahme. Anmeldeschluss ist der 17. Februar hier ist das Anmeldeformular und mehr Details gibt es auf de:Wikipedia:Wikimania 2014. -- Dirk Franke (WMDE) (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Dirk! Danke f�r den Hinweis - im Prinzip w�rde ich gerne kommen, aber ich habe immer um die Zeit private Termine, die ich auch gerne wahrnehme. Also vermutlich dieses Jahr nicht. London ist nat�rlich schon ein Kracher... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you letting people falsely claim inventions?

Garret Morgan had nothing to do with the invention of the gas mask or the traffic light, those inventions are extensively covered on this website along with their inventors.

So why are you letting dishonest, politically motivated people distort and manipulate history on the page in question?

What needs to "cool down" is Wikipedia admins letting obviously bias people distort objective history.

This isn't a matter of opinion, my opinion vs yours, it's a matter of truth vs fiction.

--Savakk (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of my pathetic low self esteem, and meant to "compensate for the lack of black inventions when compared to every other race" (sic). Or so I've been told. Or maybe it's because the claim has been well-sourced, while your denial of it seems to be based on your personal original research based on your reading of an unreliable source. Somewhat surprisingly, our article on gas mask also lists Morgan as the inventor of one early version of the gas mask, and seems to have done so for several years without any objections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan,

I made the changes, but just wanted to follow up on the note you left beside the deletion: "(Blog references, not reliably sourced, nor even notable.)" It's true that I did not correctly source it on Wiki (I kept trying, but I don't edit Wiki very often.. I have done some to Michael Huemer's page). It is not true, however, that they are not notable. Econlog was ranked 12th in most influential economics blog in July 2013. David Henderson (the author), also has a Wiki page. He is a Hoover Institution fellow at Stanford University. His co-blogger is Bryan Caplan who works closely with Tyler Cowen, who runs the Marginal Revolution blog. Secondly, David Friedman also has a Wiki page. He is the son of Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winning economist, and he is also an Economics professor at Santa Clara University. Finally, the third link that I tried to link was directly to the datafile itself so if there were any doubts on its validity, the reader could go straight to the source. The link is here. I may not have cited it correctly, but I think that it would warrant staying up. I would be more skeptical if there was no link to the data file itself, but I think that alone shows it is valid. Thanks. � Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.240.145 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not, as a rule, a deletionist, but I'll give this one a good hard think. I have a hard time believing that Wikipedia is able to write a decent article on this topic, because the people who could don't care (enough), and the people who care enough are not able to do a decent job, or even understand "what the problem is". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that there is a competence issue on the part of the original poster. If he or she had a clue and really thought that there was POV-pushing, he or she would have gone to Arbitration Enforcement rather than to a noticeboard. I haven't read the history. Were the original posters trying to claim that blacks were inherently inferior, based on the same biased sources as originally resulted in the edit wars that took the subject to arbitration? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a longish comment on the issue here. As far as I can tell, the user is more interested in claiming that there is no systemic bias against blacks in the US than in directly pushing a different agenda. But I didn't have the time to dig deep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you've seen the removal of material sourced to talk.origins, which I reverted on the basis of [[4]]. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen it, but I agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users are not allowed to edit. �Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots� 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you were reverting a lot more than just the banned used. And (but that's an aside), WP:DENY seems to be the wrong page to reference if that is your argument. Also note that edits by banned user can indeed be adopted by users in good standing, and then are allowed to stand (I agree that that can sometimes be problematic, but the opposite would be even worse - if a banned user adds a critical fact, we could never accept that). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have had this discussion many times. If you won't enforce the rule against banned editors editing, and if you continue to edit-war over it, you're just feeding the troll, who I'm sure is enjoying every moment of this. He's playing both sides of the game now, and even tricked StuRat into reverting the troll version back into place. �Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots� 21:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to climate change mitigation (",) 99.181.134.49 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan, If you can locate that thread I would be interested in seeing it. From my own research, I don't believe there is persuasive evidence to think either "climate change" or "global warming" are the common term. You may correctly remember the consensus, but of course, that can change. Can you find the thread? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. If I remember correctly, that was before User: Short Brigade Harvester Boris took on that user name - and that was somewhere in 2008, IIRC. I don't have the time to sift through 5 years of archives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I suspected it was ancient (outdated?) history. FYI, your comment at Talk:global warming that I vaguely referenced above was deleted, presumably accidentally, by another ed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think it fell victim to an edit conflict - the Wiki engine is not always 100% reliable, I fear. But I've already restored it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan,

I've been hard at work in my sandbox trying organize the chronological evolution of the scope of the GW article. It's been very time intensive, and some might think it's a wasted effort and that's ok. You're welcome to stop by, but that's not why I'm writing right now. I'll eventually post something at article talk when I'm done.

The reason I'm writing now, is to ask your assessment of an existing consensus (or lack of).

As a prelude, it is quite clear from my chronicle that there is a consensus to focus the article on the current episode of GW (whatever its called). People have sometimes come along wanting to say that any warming trend at any geologic time is "global warming", but there's a clear consensus to focus the article on the current one. I agree with that consensus, though I would like to explain the more limited meaning and then tell the reader the article is about the current one.

That gets me to shaky ground. Do you think there is a STRONG and INFORMED consensus that this article uses "global warming" pars pro toto for current climate change, or are there some eds who think this article is about that part of current climate change explicitly related to rising surface temperatures? As I read the comments, they seem to conflict with each other, and some comments even seem to be internally contradictory. What do you think? Have the GW editors really thought this question through fully?

Thanks for your thoughts as I prep my article talk page comments on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NAEG. Hmm. I think that there is a fairly strong and informed consensus among strongly informed editors. There are some editors who seem to be not clear on the idea, or don't like it, but. in my opinion, they lack some understanding of the topic in general, not just of this aspect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm laughing at my own ineptitude in asking, or I'm laughing at the irony. Let's try again. Obviously there is a strong consensus to just talk about the current episode of (whatever).

Question Is the rest of the consensus

(A) For GW to be the top (main) article about the entire subject of the current climate change?

(B) For GW to be about that part of the current climate change related to rising surface temps and exclude the rest?

(C) Something else?

It's hard to come up with knock 'em dead examples of what would be excluded under "B" (I haven't thought of any unambiguous ones) but it is pretty easy to imagine ongoing disputes whether this-or-that aspect is related to surface temp rise, e.g., thermohaline circ, SLR due to thermal expansion, species redistribution due to changing precip patterns....

I've been long interested in paring the article to make more effective use of sub articles and reduce redundancy with/among sub articles. Redoing the lead is part of that too. But before everyone gets hot under the collar to edit, I'd like to know whether we're operating under "A" or "B". (If it's "B" then we have the tweak the headnote.) What's your assessment of the current consensus on that point? Do we have one? Or do people just think we have a consensus but really have different ideas? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think A makes the most sense, and I think this view is shared by most others. However, online you will always find people clinging to etymological fallacies (present writer included ;-), and you will find everything-but-sceptics who will use any possible pretext to stop constructive dialogue. So if we have consensus depends a bit on the definition of the term. But I also think the way to decide this is via discussion, not meta-discussion ;-). If you challenge this, we can [[G�del, Escher, Bach|go up]] one more meta-level, but that means we have to eat more popcorn later.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we agree on what the article should cover. Whether anyone's guilty of an etymological fallacy rather depends on what the RSs say, and fact remains there are 3 different definitions in the RSs

A. Rising global surf temps at any time for any reason

B. The current and human caused rising global surf temps (eg AR4 WG3 glossary)

C. Frequent common speech interchangeability with current climate change

Seems to me the only way to claim existence of an etymological fallacy is to argue that two of those are 100% wrong, and the other is 100% right. Any other argument relies on editorial judgment, which is by definition something subjective.

There is a simple way out, and that is to acknowledge all three, and nonetheless agree that the topic for this article is (as the hatnote says) the current climate change. We get there by incorporating the sources that say common speech often uses the two terms interchangeably. Otherwise we need to re-insert one of the definitions about rising surf temps and then continue to field objections such as DHeyward is making.

Back in time there was a commotions about "global warming" being THE common name. That was wrong then and its wrong now. "Global warming" is merely ((((A)))) common name. Is your common name bigger than my common name? That would be an absurd way to frame the issue. And besides, THAT is where the false dichotomy Nigelj was talking about arises. We shouldn't be favoring "a" common name, we should be acknowledging "both" common names. The former is editor desire; the latter is true to sources. Or am I totally barking mad? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for investing energy and time contributing thoughts on efforts to draft a new first lead paragraph for Global warming. Please note I just posted ver 5 of my idea, and would welcome further pro/con criticism. I'm attempting to ping everyone who has taken time to speak up after past versions. If I overlooked anyone, please let me know. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently at the Vienna Summer of Logic, and have to deal primarily with my primary sort of science, so I may not comment much in the next week or so. But I'll keep an eye on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan, I'm trying to get that RSN thread closed. It is the 3rd forum we have on the subject at present. (Talk America (2014) & NPOVN as the other two.) Do you mind if I close it as unnecessary? Thanks. � S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I think there are different questions involved, and I certainly don't want to leave the impression that Breibart is reliable, but I don't see the need to discuss that now and in this context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not concerned with the RS aspects at present. The issues underdicsuccion involve opinion, not facts. But a third forum was too much. Thanks. � S. Rich (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stephan Schulz, just wanted to let you know, the article have been reviewed and minor problems have been addressed by the reviewer, we have 7 days to fix those problems, may I ask you to help me out since you contributed greatly to the article, thanks.(Monkelese (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monkelese! Thanks for the pointer. I'm currently moving and have to prepare a new set of lectures, so I'm not extremely active. Also, it seems as if you have already addressed all of Tony's points - or did I miss something? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yea, I have already addressed it all, so its on it's way to become a good article. (Monkelese (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re the prot - he now seems to be indeffed. Aside: calling oneself John Galt is never a good sign William M. Connolley (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give him some more rope, but PhilKnight decided he had had enough already - which I can fully understand. I'll unprotect. Yes, naming oneself Galt seems to suggest an objectively falsifiable world view and an extraordinary hubris even inside that world view. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? John Galt's novels show a dry sense of snark that even a stoat might appreciate, amusingly satirical if replete with Scotticisms. But perhaps the prof meant some poorly written fictional character, completely lacking in smeddum. . dave souza, talk 21:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I quite liked the book William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? I've always been deterred by the allegedly bad writing - I like my books beautifully written. If I want to read a juvenile fantasy with boring philosophical inserts, I can go for John Norman's Gor books. ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, its better than that. There are some genuinely interesting bits. You'll want to blip over the (increasingly large) inserts of objectivism, but the overall story is quite OK. If you really strongly disagree with her politics then you might not be able to stomach it, but... well, as I said in my blog posting William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Who is Howard Roark?" (ok, rhetorical question, different Rand novel. For novels written in the first person with protagonists who unselfconsciously reveal their political corruption, try Galt's The Provost and The Member. All very topical.) . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conference on Automated Deduction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lake Placid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well said. CIR applies? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably. It's a combination of unclear language, motivated reasoning, and the use of very "advanced" idea that I suspect are not fully grasped (not that I grasp the hole post-modernist myself, but at least I know some of my limitations). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its possible to grasp a hole :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been "hole post-moderniste", French for the place where post-modernists have a hole where we have uncommon sense ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed my edit to Einstein's page which remarked that his cause of death was suspected to be syphilis by his personal doctor. I understand it's considered a fringe theory by modern academia; however, with all due respect, I believe it is of no import. It's not a fringe theory that his doctor attributed his death to syphilis (technically, "a lues" in the language of the day), and I hope we can agree that the opinion of Einstein's personal doctor regarding Einstein's cause of death deserves a spot on his Wikipedia page.

Looking forward to your response!

I reversed your edit, maybe that was rude and I should have waited. Sorry, I'm new to this!

GarretKadeDupre (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GarretKadeDupre! I have no problem mentioning the incident. But mentioning it without context and balance suggest to the casual reader that the claim is true, or at least taken seriously (why else would we include the opinion of a largely unknown person?). And it's quite debatable if Plesch was indeed Einsteins "personal physician". He had treated Einstein in the 1920, but, as far as I can make out, not after his emigration to London and Einstein's emigration to the US - i.e. he had not been his physician for more than 20 years when Einstein died. In other words, the factoid itself may be correct, but the phrasing gives a very wrong impression on two key points. No, you should not have restored the edit - the suggestion is WP:BRD - discuss after the first revert. And a better place for the discussion might be talk: Albert Einstein, to get input from more users. But these are both neither universal laws nor major problems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! By the way, you're right, I did not realize the 'diagnosis' was made only after Plesch had not been Einstein's doctor for two decades.

GarretKadeDupre (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan,

In the interest of preventing future disruption I may decide to seek some form of sanction on another ed with whom we have both recently interacted. I am writing to ask if it is OK to refer to remarks you and the other ed exchanged, or any comments you have made about the other ed. Questions? Ask 'em! Advice or criticism? Fire away! Thanks for your time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NAEG! Thanks for asking. I try to avoid writing things I don't want to be read. Please don't quote me out of context, but feel free to otherwise use what I've stated. BTW, is there a better colloquial nickname for your user name? "Guy" is to ambiguous... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Re name, NAEG is most used by others (said "nag"). Guy and News also work. Whatever. Thanks for asking. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back then the Spanish inquisition was quicker. ;) Serten II (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - It's a bit of conundrum having both reservations about Serten's new article "IPCC consensus" as well as his behavior. If one takes action, is it "better" to seek AFD about the article first, or AE about the editor first, or do both at the same time? And if one is better than the other, why is it better? It's hard to argue with erring on the side of hope, or treating the situation as I'd want to be treated in his place. The answer I came up with in both respects was to AFD the article first (assuming I think it still merits AFD after more days of work), thus giving Serten an opportunity to rebut criticism within the bounds of our core principles, the WP:TPG, and WP:ARBCC. For an AFD, if still needed, it would be nice to get meaningful participation from editors with knowledge in the relevant areas. I'm not sure if that is easier during the holidays, or waiting until people return to wiki after the seasonal festive chaos. And as I said, maybe it will mature enough to avoid AFD in the meantime. Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the article is that Serten has a certain POV, and that his language skill is so bad that everything essentially needs to be rewritten from scratch. There may be some valid ideas in there, but at the moment it looks like half of a POV-fork and half of a discussion of a non-notable idea about "consensus" as a term, not the consensus itself. I'd go with AfD first - per WP:AGF I tend to think that his behaviour is mostly a problem of his limited skills in English - he expresses himself badly, and while he mostly does get the gist of the discussion, he does not get the nuances. It doesn't help that he jumps from topic to topic to topic as soon as discussion may lead to progress. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I rarely feel entirely understood to the last nuance in these pages, but I could have written that myself. Awesome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To spam you a bit, JzG has done the sensible thing. I'm beginning to appreciate that IPCC SPM'a need "the firm agreement of essentially all the world's leading climate scientists plus the consensus of all participating governments without exception",[5] so it's a consensus of governments as much as of scientists. Have to seek out more sources. "IPCC consensus" is also something of a contrarian theme, so care is needed with weight and source checking. . . dave souza, talk 15:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhh.... getting me back for all the pings I see!

Re SPMs see paragraph 4 and sources in the lead at International Panel on Climate Change. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since you made this deletion, you may be interested in this edit, and what will likely follow. [[User:Visite fortuitement prolong�e|Visite fortuitement prolong�e]] ([[User talk:Visite fortuitement prolong�e|talk]]) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm really quite busy at the moment. But I gave a comment at the talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary, if I understood it correctly, said the deleted material copied Gatestone ("copied from the unreliable Gatestone report"), but in fact they were published earlier. So I reverted. � Brianhe (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you. The Wikipedia text was (in all likelihood) copied from Kern's article at Gatestone here, which was published on January 20th. The first time that material came into our article was here, on February 1st, partially just copying stuff from Kern, and also adding him as a reference directly. So User: Korny O'Near definitely knew of the Gatestone article when (s)he added these sources, and I find it very implausible to assume that (s)he assembled, by accident, the same sources in nearly the same words by independent research. Indeed, (s)he at least seem to suggest that (s)he only looked at the original sources through Google Translate (or similar), if at all. What we have is Kern, an unreliable and biased source, assembling a set of unrelated articles into his narrative - clear OR. Of course Kern is allowed to do the OR for his "think tank" political rationalisation. But there is general consensus that Kern is unreliable (or at least nobody so far has argued otherwise). So the whole reason to consider these largely unrelated tales of different urban problem zones part of one narrative breaks away. Letting it standing is substituting Kern's OR with our own. I'll copy most of this over to the talk page, so if possible, please keep the discussion in one place over there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "Opponents of Creationism" be less accurate than "Scientific Community"? Every person and organization listed under "Creationist" is or was a member of the scientific community. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because a) they are not defined by their opposition and b) no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this list the only distinguishing characteristic between one group of scientists and another is their position on creation. Listed under the "Creationists" are geophysicists, paleontologist, biologists, zoologists, physicists, cosmologists, engineers, mathematicians, etc. Shouldn't these Scientists be classified as in the Scientific Community? --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very much no. A few of the creationists do have legitimate scientific credentials. Even less have them in the relevant field. They don't reflect the view of the scientific community, but stand in stark contrast to it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every Person Listed under the creationists have a MS, BS or Ph D. They are all well accredited scientists in their fields and their work in this field is widely accepted. They don't reflect the view held by some members of the scientific community of which they are also members. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what relevant degrees e.g. Kent Hovind or Ken Ham have? Or how George McCready Price and Frank Lewis Marsh are members of anything this side of the world? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should remove any persons on the list that would not qualify as a scientist. Is, or should be, every person on the side of Evolution considered a scientists? Surly there are some Evolutionists who do not apply scientific method to their belief in evolution. And Dr. Marsh got his Ph. D. in Botany From NU, Mr. Price perhaps not an S degree but he does have his Masters. Does a person need to have a degree to be a participating member of the scientific community? The Scientific Community includes anyone who uses scientific methodology. Not all scientists agree on every topic, though they are still scientists.--Kaptinavenger (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Evolutionists" is a word outside the Creationist camp. You miss my point with respect to Price and March. Price has been dead for over 50 years. March has been dead for over 20 (and has not published for nearly 40 years). They are historically interesting. They may or may not have been members of the scientific community in their time, but they are certainly not members now. All that said: We should probably move this discussion over to [[Talk:List of participants in the creation�evolution controversy]] - whatever we here do to agree or disagree has little staying power unless all interested parties have a chance to participate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well what ever is ultimately decided, 200+ Edits from ~50 Editors, 9 Years of work(though I am just getting into it), has been nominated for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_participants_in_the_creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy � Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinavenger (talk " contribs) 07:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.S, I am still curious to what percentage of the new professors at the recent reception in [[Baden W�rttemberg]] agree or side with Project Steve.
Also, the overwhelming consensus amongst "academia" is not new. Did you know, Martin Luther faced this type of opposition when making propositions that disrupted the status quo. And Jesus was crucified for it. The Young Earth Creation Scientist a.k.a. Fundamental Christian Scientists, see the overwhelming consensus as confirmation. If academia did not see Biblical based science as a viable threat to their existence i.e. if they thought there was no evidence to be found in the science produced from a Biblical World View, they (the Steve's) wouldn't care. The great deal of concern shows the doubt. The doubts should be tested, not silenced. Kalam --Kaptinavenger (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at Galileo Gambit. "They" also laughed at Bozo the clown. Creationist claims have been tested over and over and over again. As long as you stick with science, they have been falsified over and over and over again. You can, of course, move outside the realm of science and postulate an omnipotent creator who created the universe "as if" it were ~14 billion years old, complete with red-shifted star light in transit, buried dinosaur bones and a meticulous care about arranging different isotope ratios between different rock types. That has its own problems, both philosophically (omnipotency has build-in contradictions) and theologically (why would a god do that?). It also does not get you to anywhere close to the biblical story. But in particular, it is no longer science and should not claim to be science. Luther wasn't making scientific claims, but religious and political ones. We really know too little about the historical Jesus, but I doubt that he was preaching about the rate of sediment consolidation, or measurements of the hyperfine structure. Indeed, the standard Christian assumption is that Jesus was sacrificed by his older self to redeem the rest of humanity. As for new professors in Baden W�rttemberg: It's not even a topic. It's not part of the public discourse. Nobody of any standing claims that Biblical creationism has scientific merit - not even the pope. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While on a walk in Damascus today, I thought about an epistle I would write to a man on youtube. I thought of writing you one also, but decided to offer you a barnstar and share my epistle to James, with you. Keep in mind this is the end of a long conversation. "Yes James, now, practicing reason and logic are base principles or in the foundation of what I consider "My" religion, although my ability to follow logic and reason does have its limits. I am no great thinker, although I do think. I do rather like most Church Services. The Sing Songs, The Study, the Prayer. I like these things. I will admit its been a over a year since I've been to a Sunday Service. In my defense I gather with believers Regularly, like almost every Thursday (that's really good for me). That being said, the Topic of the Flick is "Why I Think Jesus Didn't Exist". And I will end my discussion on this page with: "Why I think Dr. Richard Carrier and Santa Clause Prove Jesus Created the Universe." No one in His story can make the claim that Everything, Dr.RC, Big Red, Easter Bunny, Dolly Lama, Hitler, Muhammad, Rocks, Sand, Water, I mean everything, our conversation right now, and cups, and the Big Bang, can, does, and is used to Point Towards them. Except Jesus. So I try to Love. Like Jesus Said." You can find the full conversation here. Thank you Dr. for your valuable time, particularly when helping me name my weak arguments. --Kaptinavenger (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've recently engaged in conversation with an IP, I'm providing an FYI that I have filed an SPI complaint. Please comment here, if you wish NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and FYI I am leaving a comment that I think this is canvassing by NewsAndEventsGuy in a continuing campaign of editor harassment here. Also-FYI in case I did not get a chance to say Thank-you, Stephan Schulz (and if I didn't it was because I was blocked for a bit)-for your valuable help in getting to the source of where the articles linked on Drudge that day were coming-from, and the reminder that opinion pieces are just that. Your comments directly let me know exactly why certain sources were being rejected and helped me to discern refs that should be avoided there.2601:C:67C0:F8:35B5:3331:DAB7:A60E (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Was reading an SPI earlier, and saw an intelligent post by you. That was a good judgement. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unreasonably busy at the moment. I think I addressed the salient point in the edit summary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you and the IP - note that IP is editing from the National Library of Korea and is clearly the banned racist Mikemikev (who even managed to get banned from Metapedia!). If you see an IP making similar remarks, or attacking Maunus, check the Global location, if it's Seoul it'll be Mikemev. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I was close to deleting it myself just on the content. Thanks for the info. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 � Berean Hunter (talk) has given you a bowl of yoghurt yogurt! Yogurt is delicious and promotes memory improvement, awareness and WikiLove. Hopefully, this treat has added some flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of yogurt by adding ((subst:Yogurt)) to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give yogurt out liberally to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

• I thought you would appreciate the humor in this and I appreciate your efforts.
   � Berean Hunter (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. By coincidence, I've just bought a kilogram of Turkish Gazi Jogurt , to make into Greek Tzatziki. After 3000 years of population mixing, I find the Turkish-Greek enmity nearly as surprising as the degree of animosity in the Rodham debate... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan, the image here, i thought to update it since it is on the Arctic sea ice decline page, with the April record. However, the file name is stating September, and not sure. What do you think, have two images or update more frequently? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Sea ice is on a yearly cycle. As far as I know, in the Arctic the yearly minimum is around September. The yearly maximum is around April, but is not usually considered as significant, as essentially the Arctic ocean is limited in size and always freezes over completely in winter, so the maximum extend varies relatively little. It's the opposite in the Antarctic, where the pole is on land - there, the minimum sea ice in summer is not very significant, as basically all sea ice except for the large shelves vanishes. On the other hand, in winter Antarctic ice can grow without obvious geographic limits. So in my opinion we should have September images for both Arctic and Antarctic (minimum for Arctic, Maximum for Antarctica), and update them yearly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article here is only about the Arctic and There are two months each year that are of particular interest: September, at the end of summer, when the sea ice reaches its annual minimum extent, and March, at the end of winter, when the ice is at its maximum extent.1 However, the April month set a new record, with second lowest in the sat record, 2007 was less. After some thought i think we should show Max and Min month on the page dedicated to the state of the ice record. I could make those changes later tonight. prokaryotes (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On February 25, 2015, Arctic sea ice extent appeared to have reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the sea ice melt season. This year�s maximum extent not only occurred early; it is also the lowest in the satellite record. 2 prokaryotes (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored your version for minimum extent, added image for maximum extent. prokaryotes (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked over the talk page, I've mentioned your comments in undoing an edit to a BLP. Any thoughts on the matter? Thanks, . dave souza, talk 22:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are different levels of wrong. Several of the original attempts were just plain wrong (probably because someone with little German and few scruples put it over the blogosphere). I still think it's undue in general, but if its in, it should be correct. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as of now it's been removed as undue, and we can return to the correctness if attempts are made to re-add coverage. Just something to monitor, much appreciated if you can keep it on your watchlist. . . dave souza, talk 07:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of legal cases... what about http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/05/19/ed-wegman-yasmin-said-milt-johns-sue-john-mashey-2-million William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cynic might notice that Virginia does not have any anti-SLAPP laws, while California, the right venue, does have one. But I think a withdrawn lawsuit only merits mentioning if there is significant reporting in the press. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stephan! So, I missed it � how exactly did you add those 'close' tags to the two RfC threads at WP:AN? They don't show up in the revision history at AN, so I assume the 'close' tags were added somewhere else? But where? Thanks in advance! --IJBall (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had me stumped for a while, too. The requests are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, where I add ((Done)) tags. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yeah, that is very subtle � I would never have picked up on that if I hadn't known to look for it. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to become a proper stalker, one of the more useful tools is the "User contributions" button - it helps you to figure out what a certain user did at a certain time ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

für revert, aber ich könnte auch protection gebrauchen wie es scheint --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zu spät ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fühle mich gut doppelt und noch mehr bewacht, danke, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I found the instant improvability of Wikipedia to be nearly irresistible"
Thank you, veteran editor with the same great line on the user page from 2003 to now, for quality articles such as Craig M. Wright, British Alpine Hannibal Expedition and Talk:Global warming/FAQ, for answering science questions at the help desk, for precision and protection, for earning praise for "calm, rational, civil and good-humoured manner", for "Further delay is possible in the rare cases where I think before I write something", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke auch für die Rezeptübersicht! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And you are very welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was amazed when I wasn't able to get Jehovah's Witnesses to understand why they should release their Bible translation into the public domain and use trademarks to protect it instead (which the Fortune 500 company Red Hat does). Especially in light of projects like Unspell that had to use KJV.Scientus (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in spirit, but Red Hat Linux is not public domain - it's Free Software or, depending on your philosophical outlook, Open Source Software under a variety of licenses, but most significantly the share-and-share-alike Gnu General Public License. This is similar to Wikipedias Creative Commons licensing. I kinda like the KJV from a language point of view, but it is full of anachronisms old and new. It's weird that one can copyright the Inspired Word of God to begin with - I suspect all the bible sellers will have to confront "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" when someone is mightily pissed of with the spin given to Her word. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not public domain everywhere: see King James Version#Copyright status. Bad lot these monarchs. . . dave souza, talk 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the new AE request? Doug Weller (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what brought me to the article. I probably shouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed there is more variation within chimps and humans than between them,[6] a fact little known to amateurs who are easily deluded by Marxist pseudoscience. Tortoise Handler (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Race_and_genetics#Good_new_source_for_this_article.2C_a_book_by_a_geneticist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck edit by banned user Mikemikev, delete if you wish. Doug Weller (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It smelled of well-worn socks... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan! Answering here because the Misc Desk and Ref Desk Talk are currently semi-protected, so as an IP Editor I can't contribute there.

Could the story be Camp Concentration by Thomas M. Disch? It's too long (i.e. decades) since I read it to be sure of the details, but the Article summary is not inconsistent with your remembered scenario. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is the closest so far. I think it was a short story, or at most a novella, but I've asked Amazon to get the publisher to release a Kindle edition ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephan, I added the Robert Spencer defense to be a leader of a hate group accused by SPLC because of the principle of impartiality of the page. He was accused by the SPLC as a hate group and I thought it should have his response. I've already seen this in the page of "David Horowitz" where it is written his response to Morris Dees of SPLC. Anyway, if the edit stills does not fit to the principles of wikipedia, I obey. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odirjmm (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that Spencer is not a reliable source, but rather a fringe publicist. It's not particularly notable that he tries to discredit organisations that disagree with him. Take a look at WP:WEIGHT - we're not looking for "equal treatment", but for coverage that reflects reporting in reliable sources. If you can find third-party reliable sources that make points in favour of Spencer, then we can add those. But that Spencer thinks Spencer is right and others are wrong is not useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should post this. I'd posted earlier to the noticeboard on the same topic, but did not have a chance to update the Talk page. I've done so now: Jochen Peiper Talk page | Agte. Cleaning up dubious unsourced or poorly-sourced information has been an on-going 'project' where a couple of editors are also involved; if you are interested, you can review Waffen SS and Individual articles and the thread right below it. Or check out my 'collection' :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately, Wikipedia competes with several other projects, so I have to limit my time and pick my battles carefully. But I very much appreciate the sentiment! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert at Scientific consensus has been noticed. Biscuittin (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I hope my explanation at global cooling has also been noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do the red bars not mean that it's getting warmer? Biscuittin (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not in themselves. Each bar only shows a single month anomaly, i.e. a red bar shows that that month was above the 30 year average. The changing distribution from blue to red bars (and the changing lengths of the bars) represent the temperature increase. What you see is semi-random variation on top of a secular increase of the base temperature. Check out File:Satellite Temperatures.png, which shows the UAH and other reconstructions in parallel, and also includes the linear regression trends for the different temperature series. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Besides temp readings, one also looks at what's happening around the world. Try googling images on [multiple lines of evidence of global warming] and poke around in the nice pictures. For example, the study of Phenology shows that spring is coming earlier in many places. Or my personal unexpected favorite, the bonanza-yet-crisis in alpine archaeology pretty much everywhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]