User talk:Stephan Schulz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Greetings[edit]

Hi all!

I'll answer all messages left on this page here, so that a possible discussion is kept in context. Watch this if you are waiting for an answer.

--Stephan Schulz

Archive

Archives


2004-12-13 to 2008-04-15
2008-04-15 to 2009-01-22
2009-01-22 to 2009-09-01
2009-09-02 to 2010-04-14
2010-04-14 to 2011-06-16
2011-06-17 to 2012-08-02
2012-08-03 to 2013-06-21


Useful links (courtesy Angela 02:29, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC))[edit]

Wikimania and TPWs[edit]

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)

Thank you very much!![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png
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)

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


Re: Bradley Manning Edit[edit]

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)

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)


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)
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)
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)
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)

T[edit]

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

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)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

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)

1942 German textbook[edit]

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)

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)

accidental insertions[edit]

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

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)

Puncture-proof tires[edit]

Hi,

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

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

Berkeley Earth[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

An apology.[edit]

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)

P.S.

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

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)

What is the next step? John Calvin RfC Closure[edit]

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)

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)

You might be amused[edit]

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)

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)

Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hallo Stephan Schulz, Du warst letztes Jahr schon auf der Wikimania, und hattest hoffentlich positive Eindrücke. Deshalb ein kurzer Hinweis: die Wikimania 2014 steht schon jetzt vor der Tür. Vielleicht hast Du ja wieder Lust hinzugehen, oder Dir fällt jemand ein, der gerne hingehen würde; oder hier liest zufällig 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)

Hallo Dirk! Danke für den Hinweis - im Prinzip würde ich gerne kommen, aber ich habe immer um die Zeit private Termine, die ich auch gerne wahrnehme. Also vermutlich dieses Jahr nicht. London ist natürlich schon ein Kracher... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The African-American inventors page[edit]

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)

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)

Recent global warming controversy[edit]

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)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

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)

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)

Race and Intelligence[edit]

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)

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)

Creation Evidence Museum[edit]

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)

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

Request for comment[edit]

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)

Note[edit]

Banned users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
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)

Thank you for your contributions to climate change mitigation[edit]

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

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

the common name[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

GW sidebar[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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 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)
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)

Chip Berlet[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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)

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

Thanks for comments and please keep them coming[edit]

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)

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)
Thanks for letting me know.

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

RSN thread on Breitbart[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Sally Hemming's article reviewed[edit]

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)

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

CO2[edit]

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)

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

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)

Just saw it[edit]

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

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

Albert Einstein Edit[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Ok if....[edit]

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)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)