User talk:Stephan Schulz/Archive 7

Respect

Hehe, I enjoyed the Big Ankle Biter you put with AGK's impala. Yes, I do seem to have been growing lately. Have you seen my recent appearance on this sea monster scale? :-) Pretty alarming for the little blue user in the image! Now perhaps I'll get more respect! Thank you for helping! "Jaws" Darwinbish (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

Well, a bit of blood and flailing stumps in the water does wonders for respect! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

US Constitution

Regarding your post about living documents, you take Jefferson out of context (I know that quote btw). He never intended that one should take a given constitution in a given form and reinterpret it NOT according to those that framed it. Jefferson knew quite well the acceptable methods prescribed to change constitutions. If you don't use those, then your constitution is what it is. Bending or corrupting a standing constitution by other means is not at all what Jefferson was talking about. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree (somewhat) - indeed, if you read a bit further in the letter, Jefferson makes an explicit case that no, it's not good enough that future generations can explicitly change the law via a democratic process. He requires an automatic expiration: It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal. (ibid). Of course, Jefferson won the soul of the US, but Hamilton won the body... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

An expiration date is whole other thing indeed. Our constitution doesn't have one. Although he had issue with the original draft, he accepted the final ratified version (incl BoR). It may not be perfect, but you cannot just step out of the bounds at will. Has it been done? IMO it has, but that is exactly what it is....stepping out of bounds. All the founders were aware of possible corruption of individuals and special interest groups. The founders were not a naive bunch, as some presume. I don't believe in moving the goal posts around willy-nilly as some do. You cannot govern under an "equal protection" premise that way. If I can do that, then I can change any contract governed by it (the Constitution) that way too. Nothing in our country would be sacred or firm. No, changes for convenience cannot be allowed. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ungrammatical Edit in Richard Dawkins

Hi Stephan,

I appreciate it if you show me the grammatical errors in the following edit. Essentially how would you write it if you were to do so?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=510660832&oldid=510659023 --216.31.219.19 (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to stick my nose in, the quotation is not great grammatically eg "Religion, like all social institutions ..." should read "like every other social institution" since the verbs in the rest of the sentence are singular. It is also poor in use of language (implying religion is a single social institution rather than a number of them is a bit crappy). But I think the notability of the comment is the main issue. There are plenty of people who think Dawkins cannot see the wood for the trees and point out that Hitler's and Stalin's achievements in terms of death and evil rather outweigh the Crusades but those kind of judgements can be left to the reader. --BozMo talk 06:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was already struck by "Skeptic atheist Michael Shermer describes this portrayal of religion by Dawkins unjust." Quite apart from the unusual characterization of Shermer, it seems to miss a word or so. I also think that the suggested change suffers from two other serious problems. First, it's of questionable notability. Secondly, Dawkins is described as making two (or even three) claims: that religion is a meme that operates like a virus, and that faith is an evil. Shermer seems to respond to the "evil" claim only, not to the "meme" and "virus" claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What is interesting about the "meme virus evil" claim is that it is a form of parable. Clearly not literally true, and functionally it does not take long to show no exact correspondence or mapping. But one would have to agree there is a deal of truth in an analogous sense. At this point my curiosity is raised because Dawkins in some quarters dismissed as a literal reductionist (eg as someone with Aspergers who has a complete mental block on things like music or morality) but yet in communication (where he is strong) he works abstract analogies. Hmm. --BozMo talk 16:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first book by Dawkins that I read was The Ancestor's Tale, a beautifully crafted description of the evolution of man, modeled after The Canterbury Tales. I got it probably in 2007 or so, at an airport bookshop when I had run out of stuff to read (I'm like a meth addict with regards to books), and without any conscious idea of who he was. So no, I don't think Aspergers is a reasonable assumption. I also read The God Delusion, and I was a bit disappointed by the superficial treatment of religion. However, I don't think this is due to an inability to see deeper, but rather a deliberate choice. Dawkins thinks (and I tend to agree to a certain degree) that most of the claims of religion can be rejected as either irrelevant or obviously false without going into deep metaphysics. I can still appreciate the history and beliefs of a religion, without accepting it as a useful source of truth about the universe. But, given the depressingly low level of eduction of many believers about their own (putative ;-) religion, I would make a similar choice that Dawkins. It makes no sense to try to tell your average Southern Baptists about the fusion of apocalyptic Judaism and Helenistic neo-platonism, the difference between the different Christologies in Mark and John, the subtleties of the Trinity and why Filioque split the early Church, about the Sumerian sources of the Flood stories, and so on, just to then get them to reject the result as irrational nonsense. They will probably burn you at the stake anyways, as soon as you mention that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, not King James English... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep well certainly you have to decide on your audience but whether there is any point in dealing with Southern Baptists is another matter. Don't get me on to how depressing the world view of believers or unbelievers is. --BozMo talk 18:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally "useful" is a tough test for religions. I might need to think about that. Is music "useful"? --BozMo talk 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ask the birds! In evolutionary terms music could be useful in multiple ways, in aesthetic terms my recollection is that Dawkins expresses appreciation of music, whether religious or agnostic music. Didn't think "TGD" was as good as his other books, but the TV series "Root" was fun. There's a certain fascination in the knots religious adherents can get into when trying to square realities with their preconceptions. Just don't call their flock animals ;-) . . dave souza, talk 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Martin Luther said that making fun of "the knots religious adherents can get into when trying to square realities with their preconceptions" was a game which could easily be played by a cow or a sheep and was beneath a human but Stephan probably knows the exact quote (it was about people who asked of what material the banners of Christ were made that they burn not in the fires of hell or something like that). Anyway James Barr did a far better job in his book Fundamentalism of entertainment from such people ("much good fun can be had from reading Bernard Ramm"). --BozMo talk 20:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't know the quote. But, on the way home on my bicycle, I came up with another, and less bombastic, reason for keeping the discussion of religion simple in a book like TGD. If I write a book, I want to get it right. My expertise is automated deduction, and Dawkins is evolutionary biology. To feel competent to write about religion in depth, I would need to study for a few more years, and while it is a topic I enjoy as a kind of superficial hobby (see the last userbox on my user page ;-), it's not a topic that really excites me in the same way as making computers reason. And even if I walked that walk, I would still feel the need to qualify every other statement with "probably", "as far as we know", "in my opinion", and so on. That again, would probably not be a book that helped me spread my view very wide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) P.S.: If I get to write my own epitaph, it will be "Here lies Stephan Schulz. But it's not that simple!"

For what it's worth, I wrote fascination rather than fun. Barr sounds interesting when time permits: my current bedside reading, The Bible, Rocks and Time, combines [accurate, as far as I can judge] history of geology with evangelical belief in biblical inerrancy.[1][2] An uncommon perspective, but also a reference with potential for improving some articles such as flood geology, if I ever get round to it. Back to Dawkins, my feeling is that he wants to stir up thought about dogma rather than present himself as a theologian. Or should that be an atheologian? . . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading your comments. Many thanks for the grammatical note and the rest of the notes. Just out of quriousity, you folks ever read books such as this and this? I mean, the "antiphonal voices" does not always have to come from McGrath or other religious enthusiasts. Moreover, do you guys think there is room in Dawkins' article at all for non-trivial criticism? I am saying this, because I feel there is this urge in the article to portray RD as a hero, though this is not the dominant point of view of even all atheists. I might of course be wrong.--216.31.219.19 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not read either of those. I was going to offer my own reading suggestions here [3] but notice that I have not included any Dawkins books in it. Our rules on biographies of living persons are always on the kind side. Besides some people genuinely believe Dawkins is a hero, just as people regard Russell a hero for writing "why I am not a Christian" in the 1920s or John Robinson for "Honest to God" in the sixties. If someone is troubled by a particular perspective and offer a way out they are likely to love you forever. And certainly religion is a bit unpleasant as an experience for people who think slightly more than their immediate companions. However, I don't think Dawkins claims to be any kind of original thinker on religion, he claims to be a communicator and deserves credit for being a fair communicator. There are plenty of clever agnostics or atheist who think him unprofound and even a bit simplistic and irritating. --BozMo talk 05:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You mention the rule of "being kind" in biographies, but then doesn't it violate WP:AUTO? For example, is it not fair to include the criticisms of those agnostic/atheist thinkers who find Dawkins unprofound?--24.94.18.234 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't reopen closed discussions.

This matter is available for discussion on talk. If you reopen it without consensus I will file a complaint at ANI. We do not advise readers that small amounts of deadly poisons are safe for the to drink. Please discuss this at the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw and replied on the talk page, as did several others. To put it bluntly, I am right, and you are wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

sci ref desk advice on poison?

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs)

See above and there. And please sign your posts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mayan calendar re WMC

Actually, we agree on a fair number of things -- when he's not being totally unreasonable....

He might say the same about me? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed yet so rarely decided by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over time."

 -- Joachim von Schouw, 1826.

1826. Things have changed a bit since then, including use of language (like "proofs"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Gun Powder Ma has been reported to ANI for the edit war on Muslim Mafia (book). It seems you were sort-of involved in that, so perhaps you wish to comment. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Roscolese made most necessary points. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For your amusement

Hi, this brief report on a speech by a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology somehow made me think of you. Yopienso (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the same half an hour ago on Slashdot. It would be funny, if only it weren't so sad... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:DTTR

You gave me a template about not templating, that emphasizes others' potential for bad faith assumptions...

First, you should indicate the situation that is causing you concern...

I am quite familiar with WP:DTTR. I find it ironic in it's emphasis on helping those who make bad faith assumptions. Still, I realize the need to help deescalate disputes with other editors, especially those clearly cannot follow our behavioral policies and guidelines.

If you're are concerned about this, I suggest you look at his block log and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change.

If you'd like to suggest better approaches beyond templating me, I'd like to hear them. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not template you, but wrote an individualised and, at least to the limits of my ability, polite message in response to a particular situation. It contained my advice for such situations: either write a specific, polite message, or ignore the situation. By the way, sorry for the dupe - I had some trouble with the Wikipedia database. I only had one successful submission, but it appeared twice on your page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice how Ronz sneakily deletes your non-templated warning under a deceptive edit summary [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed. I'm not always wise enough to follow my own advice, but this time it's an easy choice to ignore his action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Aah, glasshopper, you have wisdom; I must strive to emulate you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a template to me. The additional irony is that yes, you may have done your best, but it did not improve the situation anymore than using a template. The fact that it was personal is not a solution. Further, you've fixated on that one fact, ignoring the real issues and your opportunity to help.

Yes, the Wikipedia database was having problems at the time. Thanks for pointing it out. The duplicating had nothing to do with my response to the message and to you.

Of course, we now have further information that behavioral problems are at play with the comment above (19:46, 7 October 2012). My next step will be ArbCom enforcement should the edit-warring and other problems continue. I hope yours will be more in line with improving this encyclopedia as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The "consensus" on Marcel Leroux has been shown to be wrong

Perhaps you are conveniently unaware (fat chance) of the new consensus being reached at [5] in your joining the revert warring as usual at [6]. But that excuse only works once. --Africangenesis (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy talking to the SPA :-). He'll go on and on and on with the least encouragement, as WilyD is finding out William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And like you, I don't always need encouragement.--Africangenesis (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What I see at your link is a consensus of one, opposed by, apparently, everybody else. The long-standing consensus on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, on the other hand, is "no red links". Take it to DRV, reinstall it, then we can discuss it on the merits. Until then, you just waste our time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you help in the discussion? The whole AfD was intended to waste time. You may be thinking of the old cabal consensus, the relevant "consensus" is "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.".--Africangenesis (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A friend recently pointed out that if I read two books a week, and live to age 90, I can read less than 10000 books in my life. That's why I've decided to concentrate on things that I find interesting, important, or fun. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, that is a depressing fact :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yawn??--Africangenesis (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely it should be fewer than 10000 books in your life? Seems rather many to me, but then my house is tending to overflow with books I've read or intend to read. Plus some library books, sorry, gotta go and do some reading now..... dave souza, talk 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't really speak saxon. But I can feel your pain. My flat has the sleeping library, the living library, the bath library (mostly journals, though), and the kitchen (too greasy to store books permanently). I had to sell or give away some books. It's all Amazon's fault, really! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stephan Schulz. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thank you for your help with my C problems! 169.231.8.73 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's appreciated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ani - you know why

WP:ANI - Youreallycan 21:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking someone for insulting you is... not ever anything that ends well! Especially a fairly mild riposte. I suggest (in a friendly way, I'm not being patronising or anything) unblocking and let other admins decide what to do. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not blocked for insulting me. He's blocked for personally attacking Mongo, and reacting to a warning with a further attack. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Which was levelled at you. That's not an unimportant distinction. Surely you were aware that warning Malleus was pouring oil on a fire? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't followed the drama fest. I was aware that MF has a long block log and recurring civility issues, and that there is a WP:TLDR AE case, but I don't think that should excuse him from using at least a very basic level of civility when interacting with other editors. I'm neither block-happy nor particularly fond of overly strict interpretations of WP:CIV. But there is a line, and he crossed it, for no good reason at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The very fact you call it a "drama fest" should have warned you about pulling the trigger. The (unfortunate) outcome of such an action is merely to put you in the firing line: various factions have been lined up all day waiting for someone to make a misstep enough to hang them out to dry. I tried to deflect that at AN/I but sadly it did not stick. I'd say your best bet here is to go to AN/I and say it was a misjudgement. But I am sure enough people will be badgering you about it from now on so I will leave you be from now :) cheers! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not sure your logic holds together here. If an editor insults another editor, then replies to an admin warning them about it, by levelling an insult at the admin, the admin is then unable to take any further action regarding the original insult to the first editor? Sounds a bit like the old Mbz1 essay on how to make sure no admin can ever block you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, certainly a difficult call. My own view: sure, if someone levels the insult at a warning admin they should take especial care over the block. And when it is an editor with the notoriety of Malleus then they should take yet more care! I know I would be unlikely to block an editor in the middle of a dispute simply for being uncivil to me when I warned them. To a certain extent I'd expect it. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, but, as Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked in this instance.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think there should be special rules, or special approaches, to whether and how an editor can be dealt with just because they're notorious. Wise to be cautious, perhaps, but that's a slightly different thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"As Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked"? Surely you're enjoying the drama-fest and aren't actually that thick. That is absolutely why he blocked. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Surprising though it may seem, not everyone on Wikipedia is here for "drama". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just some advice

Hi Stephan. I haven't read your page, I'm on my phone and it takes a whole to load, instead I thought I'd offer you a little advice on how best to handle incivility in my opinion, you are welcome to ignore it. If you are going to warn someone for being uncivil, you must expect them to respond with more incivility, especially at you for making that warning. It's likely that under stress or strain people will make less pleasant comments and as an administrator you should be able to spot this and take it into account.

For example, I found a user who had been chronically uncivil to a number of user recently, I left him a note. He responded poorly, much worse than Malleus did to your comment. Please do take the time to read my response to him, it did the job, yet without me forcing a block down his throat. It's very important to drop the ego when dealing with civility, it doesn't matter what they call you. The block button... It doesn't help, and really should be an absolute last resort.

Anyway, I assume your going to get slated during the night (if you haven't already) and I'll be sorry to see it, I hope my comments might help you in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 22:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Don't worry, I'm a reasonably robust person. As I wrote above, I don't often support blocks for incivility. And indeed, I very rarely issue blocks at all. But nobody has a license for gross personal attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the principle, but MONGO and Malleus have quite the history. I'm about to shut off my phone but I will say that blocking a user for incivility when incivility is a massive part of the case at Arbcom is unwise. Arbcom can put through emergency powers, the time for shooting first and cleaning up the mess later... Really not now. Worm^TT(talk) 22:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Worm. Civility blocks, in general, do not work anyway and just lead to more incivility, but when dealing with two users like Mongo and Malleus with a history, you just have to move the crowd back so there isn't any collateral damage. I think the block was a mistake, but I'm not going to question any motives here. What Malleus said was pointed, but in the context of the greater discussion, it was actually pretty mild. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another reason for me to hang up the tool. There's a quote on my user page from MONGO, in case you really thought that this was a fair exchange, and not the baiting by one editor of another--the one apparently ArbCom and admin-approved, and the other blockable on sight. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• MONGO left another announcement of his campaign to ban Malleus before banning his supporters at AGK's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I thought you handled the situation appropriately. There's a clear disparity in the way admins are treated who block a newbie editor and those who block an established editor. It's one of the reasons why established editors get away with behavior that newbies aren't able to. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's rare enough that we agree to mark the occasion. On the larger issue, I am willing to give established editors with a proven track record more leeway. But if someone insists on setting the stuns'ls if already racing towards a rocky shore in a gale, he or she will hit the ground sooner or later. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone keeps saying Malleus and I have a history....we had one heated but protracted disagreement over a year ago. I didn't even participate in the civility arbcom case. I left a message at Casliber's talkpage about a best solution for situation (but I've retracted it)...I even asked Jclemens to adjust his now infamous comment and he did. When Malleus showed up at AN/I, the complaint wasn't even about him in essence...it was regarding User:John. John was however attacking me about comments I made about Malleus, much as Drmies did after I made 1 (one) not so kind edit summary about his buddy. Now the only thing I would like to see is a permanent ban on Malleus for I fear there is no way he will comply with our policies...that is how I see it and I cannot see any reason to AGF on this one.--MONGO 04:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should take the guilt off arbcom and reinforce my comment...whatcha think about dimm apples Drmies? I don't want to disappoint anyone...please allow me to be the horrible satan that gets the blame for what Malleus types! Arbcom can blame me...I can take it! It's MONGO's fault Malleus calls people cunts, twats and assholes and tells them to fuck off! MONGO did it to him! I can live with it!--MONGO 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

On the recent wheel warring

I've written something on the Clarification request the calls you out by name, so I wanted to let you know. --Tznkai (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but who is this Shultz guy? I also think your comment suffers from a wrong perspective. Very much most Wikipedians (including, up to tonight, me) are only very tangentially aware of the MF dramafest - and they should not need to be aware of it to do their normal editing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What does your "normal editing" consist of Stephan? Doesn't seem to have much to do with creating content from what I've seen. I have a hazy memory of an RfA in which the candidate promised that he would stick to a very narrowly defined task. Was that yours? Malleus Fatuorum 06:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Corrected the spelling of your name, and my apologies for it. As to the rest, normal editing involves some amount of due diligence.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to nag, but my name is spelled the same everywhere ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus...I bet Stephan isn't going around the website calling other editors twats,cunts and assholes or telling to editors to fuck off...is that your very narrowly defined task? Malleus you have any plans on discussing with MatthewTownsend why he is leaving the website...he claims its because of you.MONGO 06:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. In fact he's not doing very much at all as far as I can see. As for Matthew, he's a liar, just as you are. Malleus Fatuorum 06:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... and I'm fucking off from here in part because of you and your ilk, Mongo. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to disappoint anyone. Arbcom seems to think Malleus gets special exemptions...I think he is not above the law...he shows up here to badger Stephen and you think I'm just going to sit back now and let him get away with it...fat chance.MONGO 07:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But you are being economical with the truth here, as so often. For example, in the Townsend matter you have failed to draw attention to how Townsend upset Truthkeeper, Iridescent and Moonriddengirl (among others) ... even though Stephan has explained that he is only marginally aware of the background to the current farrago. This is typical of you, as is your badgering and your insistence that "the law" is how you see it rather than how others may see it. In situations such as this, you are far, far from blameless. Anyway, I'm out of here. I only came back to archive my talk page and see if ArbCom had come to their senses. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you are misinformed...hence his comment at the clarification. This blind defense of Malleus is only going to make you look like a fool. That's your choice...but we do hope Arbcom comes to their senses and bans Malleus like they should have last time...that way there isn't a next time, which there will be thanks to his inability to abide by the policies everyone else must.MONGO 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

So why was he (Townsend) banned from the talk pages of some of these people? And from where do you get the idea that I am blindly defending Malleus? Jesus, you are some manipulator. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Townsend did not mention any of those editors at his statement at the request for clarification here...if your off because of me and my "ilk", (not sure who the ilk are), then scram. Malleus showed up to obviously bully this admin about his edits...you were right behind him.MONGO 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! So you did no research and, presumably, assumed MT's statement to be accurate because of your long-held a priori position regarding Malleus. You also didn't check my talk page etc to see if I had given any reasoning for my withdrawal. In contentious matters, it is always best to do your own research before pronouncing, AGF or no AGF. No wonder you didn't get the bit back: you demonstrate a high degree of incompetence. And I am off in part because of ... - you are careless even in your reading. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The incompetence is yours...that you fail to see how from Townsends comment at the clarification that Malleus is the issue makes you blind...he didn't mention anyone else there. But you go ahead and twist it around anyway you wish...me and my ilk...what ilk? Hope if you're off I'm the sole reason, not just partly so. Bye.MONGO 08:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Is he? So you can see into his soul and know how he feels...he's far from the only editor that avoids you. As far as lying, you're the biggest liar this website has ever seen. In fact, you might be completely delusional in thinking that you're going to continue to get away with calling people disgusting names. Looks like your like sick minded compadres seem to think that if you're banned then their will be no justification for their garbage either.MONGO 07:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You (and anybody) are welcome to check my RfA and my contributions to form an informed opinion on your claims. I like Horizon Field Hamburg. Of course, I don't schlepp every second edit to DYK or GAN... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to echo Malleus here (mostly because it suggests I'm casting aspersions on your count of FAs being less than MF's, thus you're "less worthy"), but "normal editing" isn't blocking other editors. You shouldn't block anyone unless you know who and what you're dealing with. A moments look at MF's contribs would show the ArbCom ruckus, and why this block was crassly inept at that moment. If you knew this, you were deliberately stirring hornets. If you didn't stop to discover this, you're trigger happy. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've written on AN/I, I was aware of the Arbcom discussion (although my life is too short and too full to read and research every comment there). There is plenty of precedence for people being blocked during Arbcom proceedings, and for much less than the more-or-less continuous stream of personal attacks from Malleus. Now if the block was wise, I have my doubts. But I felt and still feel that it was justified and indeed necessary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Your RfA was in 2007? And only 38 supports? Malleus has more friends than that. You qualify for an automatic desysop. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I thought your block was a good one. Anyone else would have been blocked for saying the same things, and just because you were unaware of the extent of Malleus' history of special treatment is no fault of your own. Just beware of Malleus' acolytes, who are now trying to bait you into doing something stupid (like telling them off) in the hopes that they'll be able to desysop you. Why they feel this is beneficial for Wikipedia, or why anyone feels it is necessary to constantly exercise their ability to call people childish names while building/maintaining an encyclopedia... I will never know. So anyway, here's at least one admin that agrees with you, and I encourage you to ignore this drama-fest and get back to doing good things. Cheers. -Scottywong| confess _ 16:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, so far it has got me to visit Horizon Field Hamburg again and update it with post-exhibition data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Pretty much what Snottywong said above. Malleus has a ton of enablers, mostly admins, that will do their best to get him out of anything he does wrong. He's essentially a classic case of The unblockables. And don't let his enablers draw you in, now that you've done something negative to their bff, they'll do their best to get you in trouble for it to an inch within the rules (and often several inches outside of them). Silverseren^C 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link - the article shows astute observation... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You're mentioned here: User talk:Nobody Ent/block log Nobody Ent 20:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy would requires spelling my name correctly ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I get called Denis all the time. You get used to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly better than being called SS, which also happens quite frequently. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who makes the mental connection, can't necessarily blame others for that. --213.168.110.69 (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I think in the UK people are much more familiar with "SS" standing for "sister steam ship as in the "SS Great Britain" which I remember watching as a child being brought back up the river Avon in 1970. Perhaps computer war games have reminded people of the other use. You were too young to remember 1970 I guess Stephan? Sounds rather grand though, being a ship. --BozMo talk 08:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm? I always thought that SS stood for steamship. Live and learn :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [seems that i'm not alone in that Ship prefix] :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Splendid initials, was on SS Sir Walter Scott only a few months ago. p.s. also have a soft spot for PS, as in PS Waverley . . . dave souza, talk 09:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can, could you help me with something.

Hi. You just handled an ANI situation that I posted and I just have one question. I don't know if it's possible or not, but is there anyway you could permanently delete the legal threat on my Talk Page so that it no longer appears in my User Talk Page edit history for everyone to see? If not, that's ok, but if I have a choice I'd prefer it to be gone forver. Either way, Thank You for your quick response to my ANI issue. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot do that even on a technical level. You might want to ask somebody with oversight privileges (per WP:OVERSIGHT) to remove the revision, but I'm not sure the situation warrants it (I'm not sure it doesn't, either - I don't deal with oversight much). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, Thanks, Cheers Mate, King of Nothing (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary on AN

Have a hot cross bun in food faith.

I noted that edit summary and I'm sorry but I don't get the reference. This must be something that Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman doesn't cover? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

As a mathmo I was guessing the "The real problem in speech is not precise language. The problem is clear language" quote. The point was that a consistent definition did not achieve what was needed; it was precise but only that. This doesn't completely fit so either the edit summary was an afterthought or I too was lost. --BozMo talk 19:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, the idea that "lists maintained by government entities" are (therefore?) based on "predictably consistent definitions" was so funny that the obvious reaction would have been "Surely you are joking, Coren". Me being I (or is it I being me?), I prefer to be a bit less obvious, so I went down the association ladder for one step. As always, the joke gains when explained ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Particularly, I find a diagram helps with jokes. Perhaps a Feynman diagram in this instance would explain better than words? --BozMo talk 21:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sensitivity to humour can lead to folks taking a fence, please accept this remark assuming food faith. . . dave souza, talk 10:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I always take my remarks in good faith! In fact, I always make them in good faith (or so I claim ;-). Are you sure your link is correct? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"How one gets from one very tentative article on the (now well-accepted) cooling effect of sulphur aerosols that also acknowledges the opposing effect of CO2 and mentions global warming as a likely outcome to "a focus on global cooling" is hard to explain when assuming food faith." . dave souza, talk 11:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

on israel and palestinians

you say if you threaten to shoot the teller if they dont give you money and they don't, then its your fault if you shoot the teller. but this is clearly false, because think about israel: israel has repeatedly told palestinians to stop committing acts of terrorism, stop firing rockets into israel, and stop threatening israel's existence. it has said, if it does not do these things, and also stop claiming nation status (i.e. "give them money") then it will step up consquences ("shoot them"). Palestine "has a right" to apply to the UN for nation status just like the teller "has a right" not to give the robber money. But if the teller does not do so, and the robber follows through on the threat, then since the threat was made credibly to begin with, this is the teller's fault, whos hould have seen this consequence. The consequence to Palestine of its applying for statehood has been stated extremely clearly. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your moral compass is severely out of whack. Try to make that argument in court. And talking about any group of people as if they were collectively responsible for the actions of some of the group is the very core of racisms. Go away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can just agree that Palestine can act as a nation and Israel has no right to get in its way. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You said, "Your moral compass is severely out of whack. Try to make that argument in court. And talking about any group of people as if they were collectively responsible for the actions of some of the group is the very core of racisms.", so I guess logically we can just agree that Palestine can act as a nation and Israel has no right to get in its way, right? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Repeating your statement does not make it clearer. Palestine is a piece of land with rather variable demarcation, arguably first so named by the Romans back in 132 CE. It does not "act". The Palestinians are a nation, unless you don't use the standard definition. Under debate seems to be the question if the Palestinian territories can act as a sovereign state. You seem to suggest the only options Israel has are "nothing" and (threat of) "genocide". That is a very limited outlook. Israel could, for example, support the Palestinians and try to build better relations with them. Or it could continue to defend the status quo, unsatisfactory as that is. Or it could argue for a different approach (e.g. returning the Gaza strip to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan). What it cannot, morally, do is to threaten or execute mass murder. Luckily, most Israeli are well aware of that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The article on Collective punishment might help this discussion. btw Matan Vilnai does not seem to agree with you about threatening "Shoah" but I agree he is fortunately a minority. --BozMo talk 09:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Are there books" on the RD

Stephan,

Per your comment at User talk:Keeeith: I agree completely that a slightly-reworded question would be just fine (and would also recommend BCoF for a one-volume ACW book). My response to Keeeith was mostly driven by my concern seeing two such questions in immediate succession. First, I didn't much want to find out how many topics of interest Keeeith might post the same poor question on. Second, I didn't want to leave the questions sitting out on the desks as-is figuring that parts of the RD community would treat them as something of piñatas. That said, I should have offered the alternative phrasings as you did. — Lomn 21:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I agree that Keeeith could phrase his questions better, but for many questions he does seem to lack the background to ask them more properly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

ref name

I know its a very small matter, but i want to thank you for properly naming the reference used in Tau Ceti. for some reason, i cant grasp how references are named. I probably just need to read up on it and commit myself to doing it. but i always feel funny adding a full ref twice, its such poor form. again, thanks.(User:Mercurywoodrose)99.157.206.37 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy enough: When you use the ref for the first time, use <ref name=foo17>[Some stuff here]</ref>. When reusing the same ref, just write <ref name=foo17 />. That's all there is to it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol

Good one. Thanks. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes find it useful to state what I think... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Thanks! Would you mind having another look, though? The points that you focused on weren't really the things that were at issue when I requested 3O. You can assume that I take the article to be reliable. "Many" is ambiguous, especially when it is used to refer to 56% of 6% (70 US / 1200 worldwide), which is to say 3%. I'm not saying we should be throwing these percentages around in the article, but I do want to quantify that statement. Openverse (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Infinite loop

This is one of the funnier things I've read in a while. --Nstrauss (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to get a serious point over without appearing to heavy-handed. I hope it succeeded....

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For this gem μηδείς (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll put it on the front porch. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Politics of Global Warming STOP PLEASE

Stephan, This is a grossly complex issue. Please stop arbitrarily removing interested parties. They are all special intersts parties. Next you'll remove the environmentals and somebody else will remove nuclear and somebody else will remove the oil companies and finance. All these groups are interested parties in the debate. Come to the talk DO NOT remove anything else please.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've only looked at two in detail, and they were supported by horrible OR and bad sources. The parties may well be interested, but the claims made about them are unsourced, and, at least partially, absurd. If you can find proper sources that do allow us to describe their roles, feel free to add them back with more reasonable claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Then let's keep making it better vs obliterating it. I will find better sources and I will add them to the article. There are many sides to politics of global warming and we have to respect the opposing viewpoint's rights to add their content. We can't remove the interest of small island nations in the debate simply because we don't agree with them. It's going to take a while to get this to grade A but let's not destroy the article before we have a chance to get there. I came here a year ago and this article was utter garbage precisely because a bunch of interested parties came and took out what they didn't like and added their own POV laden trash. It's starting to look like a sensible article. Give me a chance please.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You just removed my edit. even after I added another source backing it up. why?-Justanonymous (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. There is no deadline - please do not add absurd "sources" like the SPPI to support extremely contentious claims. We don't require perfection, but there is no reason to let plain wrong stuff in the article. If you feel uncertain about the suitability of a source or claim, feel free to propose it on talk first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

no there is no deadline and I know wp burden. SPPI is just fine just fine because we are describing their position in the article. It's their position that is being described. We're not debating whether they're right or not. BUT, they claim this position (radical as it might be) and they are a voice in the debate. MSNBC will NEVER cover climate change spend. Just like Foxnews will NEVER come out against the oil industry. Yet it's fair to describe their positions in the broader tapestry of describing the politics which is what we are doing here. Don't remove it because you find it objectionable, these are special intersts and interested parties in the debate. We are describing the debate here, both sides, all sides. It's fair to use these sources.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you want to use contentious sources, you need to clearly attribute the opinion ("According to SPPI..."), not claim them as if they were fact. There are plenty of reliable journalistic and even some scholarly sources on the topic out now. There is no reason to rely on self-published statements by pressure groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's politics Stephan, there are going to be multiple sides and in describing the heartland institute, it's just fine to reference them. It's going to be very painful to go and say that "some groups like the Heartland group consider environmental groups lobbying groups but that environmental groups don't consider themselves lobbyists." That kind of weasle wording is ridiculous. Greenpeace and the environmentals are a lobbying block. Main Stream Media takes sides on this issue (foxnews is a climate change denier - msnbc, nbc, cnn are avid supporters) and guess what in the 1970s they supported global cooling.....why? because it sold papers!!! Academia is an interested party in this. It's fair to describe and include them. Please, I ask politely - I will endeavor to find the very best sources and make the article better in a balanced fashion. I've worked very hard to bring this article up in a balanced fashion and I don't want special interests to tear it down.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I read your profile, you are an academic. I appeal to your academic nature to look at this from 100 years in the future. How will they look at all these groups in 100 years. I meant no insult to academia or to you in writing that academia is an interested party. Many times academia takes sides on these issues. If I thought religion was an interested party here, I would add them too. I meant no disrespect to you either.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires us to use reliable sources. We can only state things as facts if the are covered in reliable sources and if there are no conflicting sources with equal or better standing. The Heartland Institute or SPPI are not reliable sources. A National Academy of Science or books published by Cambridge University Press, on the other hand, are generally reliable sources. Yes, academics participate in the debate. But the argument that "academia" in the abstract profits from funds for climate science research is absurd. Overall funding levels are unlikely to change in response to a threat - if anything, physicians or particle physicists or computer scientists like me will receive less funding if more is spend on climate science. Of course, as an academic with a minor in physics and some experience in publishing and editing, I also can somewhat evaluate the quality of publications, processes, and arguments. As such, I'm fairly certain, that in 100 years the work of the IPCC will still be held in high regard (even if partially superseded), while groups like the Heartland Institute or SPPI will be recognised as non-scientific pressure groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've unwatched the page. If you'll note I started my edits in December. Feel free to revert the page to the UTTER GARBAGE that was here in December. If you want to create a junk encyclopedia, go for it. I'm frankly tired of the global warming junk POV pushing going on around here especially by administrators that have been found to be Rogue. I won't contest your POV pushing. Do what you want. I'll unwatch the page, you do what you want with the page. I'm tired of dealing with POV pushing Rogue Administrators. the quality of the encyclopedia is now in YOUR hands. It's been a long day and I've poured a lot of work here.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to read that. But "my way or the highway" is not how any collaborative enterprise can work, even if used in a self-referring manner. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephan, you write:

Wikipedia policy requires us to use reliable sources.

On contentious issues there is no person or group who have the 'truth', and certainly not the 'right' to delete other positions. It is the duty of editors to expand and enhance the contributions of all positions, even if the do not agree with them. Malicious activity against this concept has lead to the banning of at least one contributor to Wikipedia. It is very sad when someone gets banned but it becomes necessary when editors disrupt other contributions with which they do not agree. The same applies to the reliability of sources, it is 100% necessary to show a source is unreliable, not that it is disagreeable! --Damorbel (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that last part is wrong. There is no presumption that sources are reliable - that has to be demonstrated. We can, of course, also use less-then-reliable sources, but only for the explicitly attributed view of the author or publisher, not for a statement of fact (I.e. "According to Answers in Genesis, the Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood [ref here]", not "The Grand Canyon was formed by Noah's flood [ref to AiG here]". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What are your criteria for reliable sources? Down the ages climatologists have been building a thesis that an object orbiting a star has a temperature dependent on its albedo (cf. the Earth at 255K without GHGs). It matters not one jot that 3000 climatologists believe in this sensitivity. That planetary temperature is sensitive to albedo is not possible, neither experience nor theory permit such an assertion, but it is widely believed! What then is a 'reliable source' for this scientific nonsense? There cannot be a reliable source because there is not a shred of truth in the assertion. So one is left with a faith position that no climatologist has ever tested; the poor creature would get the shock of his life if he (she?) were to examine the matter seriously.

Think about it, just where is your 'reliable source' for the albedo sensitivity of temperature?--Damorbel (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest to engage in a largely unrelated discussion about albedo with you on this page. I'm sorry if you disagree with basic scientific understanding and prefer your own WP:TRUTH, but you've had this discussion with several people, many of which have explained this to my satisfaction. I don't think my own version is going to make a difference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration to make the article better involves us getting together on a talk page and discussing improvements. Instead, we block delete and then when we bump up against the 3R rule, we escalate to some RS forum with some curt note on the talk page indicating so and no real discussion on improvements. That style of editing plus the Rogue admin badge really leaves a taste of bad faith in my mouth that we're headed off the cliff on this one and that we're just going to remove whatever we don't 100% agree with and the result will be a garbage article like we had here months and years ago. This is a complex article, probably one of the most complex and Wikipedia deserves to have a good high quality article here. The debate regarding albedo might have to be settled scientifically in the global warming scientific pages but in the global warming politics pages all we need to say is that the science is politicized, that there is a consensus and that there are groups out there who try to deny while others try to amplify the alarm - those are factual statements. To deny that there are politics and disagreements and to suppress one faction, no matter how radical, in a political page (not a scientific article) is to be disingenous to the article and to the nature of Wikipedia. Similarly, greenpeace is a lobby group as are the oil companies as are the nuclear power companies as is the media and academia....for different reasons. True collaboration involves us trying to make the article better but collaboration isn't hacking or using procedural machinations and bogging good editors down on bureaucracy - it's helping to find sources and replacing sources with better sources and truly helping to improve the article. I'm just tired guys, tired of coming to find junk articles on Wikipedia where all we can hope to agree with is a loose agglomeration of overly sanitized and referenced sentences that aren't woven into a cohesive article. If the topic is even mildly contentious the result is a garbage article - barring some very heavy hands from above blocking the POV pushers and allowing serious balanced editors to help out like we had to have on the climate change page. So yes, we have to have filler sentences that aren't going to have a reference, it's an article. So I stand by my statements, if this showing up of Stephan indicates that we're going to get the Pro and Anti global warming Cabals show up to trash the page yet again, then I will step aside and let you guys have your little fight and let you trash the page - the quality of the encyclopedia will suffer for it. It's not my way or the highway, what I'm saying is that if the goal is to POV push, edit war, and destroy the page then I will step outside the fences of the school and let you guys have your little fight lest I get a bloody nose too. You guys decide. It had been very quiet on the Politics of global warming for quite a while and I was hoping we were making progress. I've been trying to line up a good copy editor to come and help out to really bring this up. Perhaps it was too much to hope that we could build something meaningful on quicksand. Go ahead and trash the page if you want - the encyclopedia will suffer for it. I'll just watch as the nice neighborhood gets torn apart.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

1. The effect of albedo is not really under discussion in the global warming debate - essentially all sides that know what the word means agree on the effect, even if Damorbel does not. There is some discussion which way albedo is going, in particularly how changes in climate affect cloud patterns, but that is discussed without questioning the basic concept.
2. You should probably know that the Wikipedia:Rouge admin (not rogues here) on my home page is a badge of honor, put there by myself, as part of a Wikipedia joke, and not because of someone finding me a "rogue admin". I've been an admin for more than five years, and my use of the tools has been very conservative.
3. I've explained to you several times why your use of sources is at conflict with Wikipedia policy. You have not followed. That's why I put a request up at WP:RS/N to get some additional experience opinions. If you think you are within Wikipedia policy, see it as an opportunity to get support for your approach. If you don't get it, consider the option that you are wrong.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Look KimDabblestein just showed up and started hacking away. I'm sure the rest of the brothers will show up shortly and just take out anything they don't like (anything non-green) vs actually trying to improve the article. Most Rogue Admins who claim the title have been sanctioned by Wikipedia in the past and hence why I have an apprehension. Why anybody would want to associate with that kind of behavior is beyond me - like proudly tattooing convicted felon on your forehead - makes no sense. If you want to associate yourself with that group of people, fine. Anytime I bump into a Rogue Admin, trouble usually follows and not in any NPOV fashion. It's like having a convincted felon showing up on my front door with chains and a crowbar, best to just move while they trash the neighborhood. You guys have fun. Frankly, I wasn't looking for an explanation. I was telling you that I had issues with your noncollaborative approach and people just coming in and tearing down without trying to improve which you didn't care about. Which is exactly what is going on. Good luck. You're the Administrator here. Your boys are doing fine work over on the page, btw. ;-) -Justanonymous (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If I also tell you it's rouge, not rogue, per Stephan's point 2 above, will you see that they are two different words? Bishonen | talk 20:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

The best organized crime bosses don't explicitly break the law in any manner where they might be caught. I can only speak from experience in seeing those guys show up. Coincidence that Kim Petersen shows up today when he hasn't beena round for months? Who next Souzza, WMC?.....I'm not dumb. It doesn't matter, I'm an old man, I'm retiring. I built a nice house for you to destroy one last time. And no disrepect but it's a critical flaw to think you're smarter than another man....Red, Rogue, tomato, tomatoe, if it quacks like a duck....WP:DUCK.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption & personal attack at Ref Desk

Since I've seen your name at the Help Desk forums, I thought I'd ask for your advice about this comment by User:Reisio which seems to cross the line of NPA: "It’d never come up if people like you weren’t attempting to delude others in addition to yourselves" [7] I've posted a complaint about it at ANI [8] because I think it's part of a pattern of disrespectful comments I've seen from him. El duderino ^(abides) 03:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While I think that he is over-eager and somewhat abrasive whenever Macs come up, I don't think this rises to an actionable level. Applying WP:AGF, it can be interpreted as tongue-in-cheek, so I wouldn't worry too much. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking into it. That's basically what two others said at Ani. El duderino ^(abides) 20:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mora edit

Your edit on Mora (ship), and your edit comment " ...and we don't need to explain "she." I understand you know a ship is called a she and I know that. But do the readers all know that? From comments on other venues I don't think a lot of individuals understand a ship is called "she". That's what the Wiktionary entry was for. I think is serves readers who might not understand; those that do won't click on it. Also it follows WP:TPA, branching out to add meaning to the subject. If you have another idea on how to convey this into the article, I'm open to suggestions, but this wasn't done on a whim. I had a definite purpose. Thanks Bear♦patch talk 02:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have very strong feelings about the link, but found it somewhat distracting. The use of female pronouns for ships is reasonably well-established. And I think there will be trouble if we try to do this at every ship article. So I prefer it without, but I'm not adamant about it. I am adamant about the capitalisation issue ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Touché, and thanks for the feedback. Bear♦patch talk 14:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I may have been involved in all kinds of things ;-). Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#massive_supression_on_Cla68.27s_talk_page or something more sinister? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Translation

I was looking at the Deletion discussion on Dick and Enid Eyeington which seems to be about whether they had any notability aside their deaths (although they got lots of prominent obits which I thought qualified as notable but I am probably out of date and couldn't be bothered to find the new policy). The only pre murder item I can find is in German http://www.spiegel.de/schulspiegel/swasiland-der-freund-der-kinder-a-231993.html partly I guess because even ten years ago was more print media than online. I assume this is just a kind of magazine piece and does not say much about notability? --BozMo talk 08:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bozmo! I agree that receiving (is that the best choice of words?) several obituaries in major newspapers should be enough to establish notability. The WP:ONEEVENT argument falls short, since the reporting may be triggered by the event, but is not restricted to it. As for the Spiegel article: It's an interview with Richard Eyeington (the "all Richards are dicks" truth is not very present in Germany). He talks about his current and past work and projects in some detail. It contains quite a bit about the Waterford school, his current work as an SOS director, the way donations are routed and why there is no money for Anti-HIV medication. It's a good source of information, but I'm a bit concerned that people might write it off as a primary source, so potentially controversial claims would need to be attributed. Is that enough or do you need a sentence-by-sentence translation? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No that will do, thanks. --BozMo talk 15:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Drug pedaling [sic] award

	Drug pedaling [sic] award 2013
	How hillarious! ;) Must be more observant on my spelling next time... You sure have eagled-eyes. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You're welcome, too. Given that I have about 5 typos per 10 works, I need to spot them to remain intelligible ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC notification

Stephan, do you think you could give Robinlarson (talk · contribs) an ARBCC notification? It certainly looks like he needs one. Prioryman (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you can do it yourself. But they keep changing rules (not for the better, in some cases) every few days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK only admins can, which rules me out... Prioryman (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I suppose it's uninvolved admins, which, of course, don't usually have the articles on their watchlist. Anyways, I'll wait a bit, and if nothing happens, I'll do it via WP:IAR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

statistics

Binksternet still thinks the "margin of error" is huge - he commented on the article talk page -- and I think a person whom he will not auto-revert should now add the study <g>. I honestly have no idea at all why the lower number is such an "article of faith" for Bink and SlimV - but I guess chacun a son gout? Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing the Mark Satin page!

Dear Stephan, - I am the principal author of the Mark Satin FA bio, which you just rescued from a vanndal. I canno thank you enough! A controversial picture on that page, the one of Satin counseling Vietnam War draft dodgers in Torono c. 1967, is currently the Picture of the Day on the main page, so the Satin page may get more bogus edits in the hours and days to come. Can we lock the page, at least temporarily? It is after midnight here, I am not of your generation, I must now go to bed. Thanks again, so much. - Babel41 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, although my revert only removed some unknown language (and alphabet) text. I don't see enough recent vandalism for locking the page, but articles on the main page usually are quite safe, as there are so many eyes on them. If it becomes a major problem, I (or some other admin) will do it. My generation here in Europe just got up, btw. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction

Hi Stephan, this had an obvious error which I've undone. Hope that's ok with you, you're welcome to delete this message from your talk page. . dave souza, talk 16:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave! Weird - the same text also appears on that page further down, where it belongs. I have no idea how it got transposed to the other place. Anyways, thanks for fixing it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Sources which may or may not be reliable, which you have discussed here, have become the subject of a Request for Clarification of the ArbCom proceeding here. You are welcome to participate in the Request for Clarification. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Response from ---Jf (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stephan. First, thank you for coming to my talk page and very rationally discussing catalytic converters and CO2. I admire your writing style and you are the first person in a range of subjects to actually take the time to explain how you think I am mistaken. You articulated well.

The only thing I can add is that modern engines produce almost zero HC(hydrocarbons), CO(Carbon Monoxide), or particulates. These are all uniquely products of incomplete combustion, which just does not happen nowadays unless there is a misfire. O2(Oxygen) is produced at the same pace as these pre-catalyst emissions, so it is used as a measure of all by the O2 sensor(s) in 2 places: The exhaust manifold and post-catalyst. after all is said and done, you can measure the difference in any modern car and see both basically have the same %ppm.

So, in other words, that very expensive, government mandated, platinum filled device, required to be put on every car, is actually quite worthless nowadays. Its usefulness has run out. With a carburetor it was important because of the disgusting smoke and horrible 'smog' that resulted from inefficient fuel delivery. We used to be able to actually look at the huge level of smog in the atmosphere almost every day mostly in our big cities. the converter used to be a hard working, very effective addition to our arsenal of controlling the pollution our air. I always liked the idea, but now If a car has any level of unburned fuel from lets say the #2 cylinder misfiring then that thing gets red hot and melts. A new one costs at least $200. Also, the Junk yard (or whatever politically correct name they use nowadays lol) cannot sell you one by law.
:You might think after reading my post on the talk page of the global warming scientists article that I am not concerned with the environment. It is the opposite. There is nothing worse than people who purposefully pollute and mess up our air, water, lakes, streams and ocean. I rescue animals and have spent my adult life working to protect nature. I have no patience for smiley glad-hands with hidden agendas, telling us lies and distracting from the real causes of the destruction of our earth. I have had many years to examine all of this, and believe a lot of it to be nothing more than propaganda and big brother. I am sure you are a decent man, and you are where your own questions have brought you too.
:::Peace, ---Jf (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jf! Thanks for the reply. I haven't looked into the overall economic and ecological effect of catalytic converters with current well-tuned engines. From personal experience (Germany was very late in introducing them), I know that the smell of unburned hydrocarbons definitely has mostly vanished from German roads now - and as a cyclist, I'm both in a position to evaluate that on an anecdotal level, and I'm quite happy with that result. In general, if regulation is necessary, I prefer regulation that prescribes the result, not the means of achieving that result. You might be surprised (or not) that while I'm all for a reasonable level of environmental protection, resulting in a sustainable way of life, in the abstract, my primary concern is with the representation of the science. We can all have different opinions on how to best structure our society, or what level of environmental degradation is acceptable. But there is no excuse (except maybe ignorance - and that is curable) for misrepresenting our scientific understanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)