User talk:Stephan Schulz/Archive 6

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



Hah! Good one. I know Tufte hates PowerPoint and various people blame it for various bad things, but if the goal is to make a slide-ish presentation that looks good, there indeed is nothing close to PowerPoint (as far as I know). PowerPoint is a fine tool if the presenter puts a lot of thought into what he or she wants to communicate and how to do it. If there's a problem with PowerPoint, it's that nobody takes courses on how to communicate well with it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the computing ref desk for further comment. I regularly use PowerPoint and Keynote, and Keynote is a lot less painful overall. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Haven't used either, but note that An Inconvenient Truth#The slide show has been discussed as a successful use of Keynote. . . .dave souza, talk 19:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm always struck by [1]. Of course, in that case it's probably not primarily the tool. And it's hard to make such presentations and to use them effectively. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson and Slavery[edit]

Hi, I suggested to Ebanony and Rjensen that they first get the article "TJ and slavery" edited to their satisfaction, then bring the collaboration back to that summary section (hopefully) in the TJ article. They agreed, so most of the discussion on that topic should now be at the associated article, if you're still interested.Parkwells (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am, and will take a look. But I'm somewhat busy, and "An American Controversy" is still next on my reading list... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


[2] is instructive - thanks. Minor note: I could have endorsed several other views, but felt that a few was indicative. That doesn't matter for a broad overlook, though William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found it hard to get an overall feel for the opinions, so I tried to organize the data a bit. I should be able to do this algorithmically, but the structure was a bit to irregular, and signatures are a pain to parse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Question Minor Deletion[edit]

Hello, I wish to question why exactly you removed the 2 words I was able to contribute to "The Age of the Earth." (These being "supposedly" and "proposed") Please look up the meaning of the word "science" before you remove such a word as "supposedly" or "proposed." Please prove to me how "supposedly" or "proposed" should be removed from these sentences. Are you acting on your own belief system, or behaving in neutrality, in adherence to the rules of Wikipedia? -MusicalCrossbow

Given this edit, I don't think we have a sufficient base for communication. However, I do have some experience with science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not feel you've answered the questions I've posted adequately. Could you please commence in doing so? I am genuinely curious as to why you acted in the manner you did. May I add that just because "you have some experience with science" does not prove why removing my words was beneficial or correct. Musicalcrossbow (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors on the article's talk page is discussing this matter, therefore discussion on individual user talk pages is not necessary, and would in fact hinder the communication efforts of users trying to communicate across multiple user talk pages. Please keep the discussions related to the article on the article's talk page. Thank you. - SudoGhost 19:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Willie Soon.[edit]

Thank you for your comments on Talk:Willie_Soon#Documents_show... (",) (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the AGF nudge re: the Marcus Bachman/Tarc discussion. You were right, and I have removed that part of my comment. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy[edit]

Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. (",) (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

thank you re/ Rio Hamza[edit]

Dear Stephan, thank you for also having an eye on the Rio Hamza page. I was put out to see there was no critical material in it when I came upon the BBC article, but was worried nobody with better technical skills than mine would notice the Wiki piece. Vielen dank! Pufferfyshe (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I actually saw the first message on Slashdot, and then noted some syntax trouble in the references here... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Help on ruling[edit]

I believe the admin Kuru has made a terrible mistake here.... Sillystuff84 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He has all but admitted his mistake here: Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know Kuru, but as far as I can tell, he has behaved graciously and wisely so far. You did, indeed, revert 4 times, even if you only used "undo" thrice. Please carefully re-read WP:3RR. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Note that blocks are not punitive, and no admin is ever forced to make a block. If there is another way to prevent edit warring, it's certainly preferred. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

One out of two[edit]

I really need the opinion of someone clever and argumentative. Want to think through a casual comment at the school date. I guess one out of clever and argumentative might do so thought I would try you. Q: what is the status of "Evolution" or most of biology for that matter in scientific terms Q background: obviously I have never even met anyone credible who doubted the essential correctness of evolution as a description but (1) the falsifiable fundamental governing equations of biology would appear to be quantum electronics (2) no derivation of evolution from QE appears to exist, unlike say the central limit theory recontruction of Newton's Laws from Hamilton's Principle or Quantum Mechanics (3) equally there doesn't appear any general belief that evolution ever gives different results from QE; it is not required to "prove" its existence by finding a hole in the contender's description. So in some ways this leaves evolution in No Man's Land. Is evolution (and biology) therefore a sort of "rule of thumb" rather than proper science, to be tested against "usefulness" rather than "truth"? I mean it can not really compete with QE on truth. A bit like chess rules like "knights on the rim are dim" which have now been superceded by decent chess computers? Or is there something subtler in your view about science providing human understanding which allows parallel description without requiring inter derivability (thats dangerous as an argument because then we might as well cure cancer rather than search for the Higgs boson/bottom/bozmo)? --BozMo talk 19:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm really argumentative, so I don't know if I should feel flattered....
I really think there is a fallacy here. We don't need to reduce something down to first principles (in fact, we may not even know the first principles) in order for it to be science. Note that no-one would bother to reduce the curve of a falling stone down to the quantum level (indeed, given that it is also governed by gravity, and that we don't have have a working theory of quantum gravity, nobody could), and yet mechanics is a science. Evolution can be demonstrated as a mathematical principle on a purely algorithmic level - see e.g. genetic algorithm. Evolution as a biological fact can both be observed directly and in the fossil record. It makes testable predictions about both the fossil record (see e.g. the discovery of Tiktaalik and the non-discovery of a precambrian rabbit) and the phylogenetic relationships between species and their genetic makeup. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The idea that science is about "truth" is a delusion mostly confined to mathematicians and perhaps a few physicists (e.g. [3]). Science is, in fact, intended to be "useful" rather than "true". It's intended to provide a framework for understanding the natural world and allowing one to make testable predictions about it. Everything about our current understanding of biology is an approximation of the truth, and hopefully a useful approximation. MastCell Talk 20:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
@MC Actually mathematicians in my experience generally get the approximate bit right. The relative sizes of datasets of "real world" versus "spoken language" is pretty convincing on that point and scientific description is at best convergent. Also most mathematicians seem to understand that the fact that a "projection" is singular means that selection of facts in a description can be misleading as in painting versus photograph. @StS good, agree-ish so you are basically happy with any description set which follows scientific rules regardless of its relationship (in terms of parallel explanation of the same thing) to any other? That gives you no intuitive issues? I am curious partly on the "could all of modern science be formulated in terms of alchemy" argument". I guess you answer "why should I care if it could"? --BozMo talk 21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
@MC Or perhaps I should say the wisest of the wise, Applied Mathematicians. I had to do a whole 24 lecture course on Asymptotics in Part III at Cambridge which is entirely around the convergent nature of mathematical models and when limits are well behaved. I noticed at the Science desk quite a lot of the physics contributors are missing this and invoke missing effects (friction, mass etc) without an awarenesss of whether the limit as these tend to zero is well behaved or not (eg picking up a coiled perfect chain by helicopter for example where extreme behaviour/galloping is caused as the flexibility tends to infinity, you cannot just say "friction becomes relevant"). Broadly though there is a valid definition of truth with limited usefulness since it is only in a convergent sense self-referred to a single reasonable sentient being. "X is true if the person who said X would still maintain its truth when presented with all relevant data" etc. The relevant Cambridge academic on that in my day was Brian Hebblethwaite. But none of that answers the question to StS. --BozMo talk 07:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Science is, at heart, a process that gives us a series of increasingly better (in the long run ;-) models of reality. Of course our trust in any particular model increases if it is not only supported by direct evidence, but is also compatible with, or, ideally, can be derived from, another well-supported model. Such support is frequent, but not necessary. I'm a bit confused by your claim about "the falsifiable fundamental governing equations of biology would appear to be quantum electronics" - we have arrived at the theory of evolution (though not in its current depth and breadth) before we knew about quantum theory (and, indeed, before we had discovered the electron ;-). Hence even if we eventually would falsify quantum theory, it would not directly affect evolution. Indeed, even if we could derive evolution directly from quantum theory, falsifying quantum theory would not falsify evolution - it would just remove some support for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't matter if you don't understand what I meant since I have the info on your view which I wanted. FWIW the issue is whether any scientific picture is more fundamental than another when several exist concerning the same physical events. But your view is clearly not (that is to say you are not a reductionist) which is fine and I think right, and furthermore that complete independence is possible which on reflection I think I also agree with. --BozMo talk 18:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"slow erosion of article quality"[edit]

Hmm, I had been curious if anyone else had noticed that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if they've noticed, I don't think many people are allowed to comment about it. After all, erosion is a natural phenomenon related to climate change, broadly construed. MastCell Talk 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is simply the effect of people which do not have a good, deep understanding of the domain pulling together bits and pieces from different sources of varying quality and with slightly different definitions and viewpoints. I can recognise it, but I have neither the time nor, probably, the knowledge, to effectively change the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it likely (based on dynamic system theory) to be cyclical rather than terminal? Tinkerers mess about and degrade articles on WP until from time to time they get bad enough to irritate the experts who then fix them? I am reminded a bit of the famous (non notable) saw-tooth problem with the quality of management in companies. No one ever appoints someone taller than their intellectual armpit, because the new manager is always a potential threat to their position. So sires are succeeded by lesser sons or daughters until eventually someone is appointed who is so stupid they don't realise the threat and they appoint the best person, starting the top of a new saw-tooth. Hence the quality of top management in most really big companies (BP and the like) cycles, as do Wikipedia articles. Perhaps also true of political leadership. It is true over a wider range of technical fluid dynamics ones and religious ones which I watch. The only exceptions are owned articles which have their own problems. --BozMo talk 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Response to Beck's claim of 430 ppm/1940 by RF Keeling[edit]

Hi. I appreciate your response on my WP:RD question. You stated that you could not find any online available versions, but many journal publication sites offer full PDFs free. Here is a microsoft word document for the specific paper: [4]. The original Beck paper made claims about volumetric methods, either at ground level or on air balloons, as opposed to the manometric pressure method developed by Charles D Keeling. It is likely true that the great flux is implausible, but I wonder whether the ocean was involved to some extent. Many 'high concentration" CO2 measurements up till the 1950's were recorded in northern regions under the influence of the Gulf Stream, including one station near Jakobshavn Isbrae in Greenland, which recorded 480 ppm. A sudden local release of carbon dioxide from the warm ocean currents is perhaps plausible during the warming of circa 1920-1950. The paper I described called the rising concentrations an open question, available here. The estimates of carbon source/sink proportions for land seem high compared to ocean. Some early data were labelled erroneous as some measurements were taken during heavy snowfall, while others involved other forms of precipitation or high contributions from nearby cities. Some of the individuals who wrote certain journal papers have Wikipedia articles. I would like more information regarding the "chemical method", its validity and how it compares to the manometric method when used in the same locations. Additionally, does the depressuring effect of retrieving ice cores actually produce an 'artificial' curve in carbon dioxide concentrations like the skeptical source I linked claims? That would not seem to explain pre-historic ice age fluctuations, which are indeed accurately recorded in ice cores. Does carbon dioxide gas also mix more evenly at higher altitudes such as Hawaii's volcanic mountain peaks, compared to surface concentrations over say Europe?

Thanks. Warm regards (pun totally intended),

~AH1 (discuss!) 01:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Is there a specific reason why you did not respond to this message, or do I need to post yet another question on the reference desk? Thanks. ~AH1 (discuss!) 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Oy, sorry. The specific reason is that I was too busy to read up on the topic when you posted it, and, being busy still, it slipped my mind enough to avoid replying. Your link to the Keeling response is still only to the draft by Keeling, not the final paper by Meijer and Keeling, as far as I can tell. The paper you reference is from 1955, i.e. more than half a century out of date. RealClimate has a reaonably good discussion of Beck here, in particular including some comments on the difficulty of measuring the true CO2 background, and not just local effects and noise. A quick Google also turned up this claim in what looks lie a RS to me. Finally, if Jaworowski claimed that the sun raises in the East, I would be very much tempted to get up early to verify that. Also note that he claims that effect that supposedly causes the "depressuring problem" starts at an ice depth of 200m, and that, at that depth, the ice is almost certainly much older than any human measurement of CO2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change[edit]

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have looked at the page shortly, and I can honestly say that I don't really mind either way. This is rare ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


You gave away the punch line! Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Absolutely no idea, I tell you! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI - can you explain your comment?[edit]

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talkcontribs)

Answered there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Someone just called this to my attention[edit]

This edit wasn't really the kind of thing that I hope to see from the best admins. I hope that you'll reconsider that kind of interaction, and if you are in that kind of mood, just step away from the computer for awhile.

We have to deal with all kinds of super annoying people around here - and it's really important that we have a "clean paper trail" and set a good example for newbies. Cursing at people is not helpful. If someone has done something so bad that they need to be cursed at, then they have done something bad enough to simply be blocked.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I'm one of the best admins ;-). Seriously, I was trying for some lightheartedness. Apparently we don't all share the same sense of humor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Not many people appreciate being told to shut the fuck up when they are already in an emotional conflict. And yes, I think that a big part of working together harmoniously with others is trying to remember that not everyone has the same sense of humor. Obviously humor is contextual, and in some contexts remarks like that can be ok, but I think in Wikipedia - and online generally - the social cues are suppressed by the technology and even remarks meant lightheartedly can end up generating more heat than light. :-) Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful response!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Continuing the fine tradition of caring more about civility than content William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I did not perceive the comment as humorous, and found your intervention more disruptive than helpful. It's possible the process could have been resolved at WQA. Gerardw (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo may not be aware that this is a line from the movie |The Big Lebowski, which is a popular source of in-jokes in certain sections of the Wikipedia community (Google for "shut the fuck up, Donny"). Sometimes we forget that not everyone is in on the joke. I was tempted to respond with "Jimbo, you're out of your element" but maybe that wouldn't have been the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way you need to alert the Bundestag about this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
But what I really admire is her tailor! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice outfit! Hope not too much of a nightmare....... dave souza, talk 17:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Note: Jimbo didn't say that you were among the best editors, so your comment "I wasn't aware that I'm one of the best admins" is out of place too. He only meant that the best practice doesn't include comments like yours. (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see emoticon. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That earliest-aforementioned comment would have been most helpful had its intrusivity gradient been reduced by a covariant factor of 0.51, as well as removing the last sentence. ~AH1 (discuss!) 20:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Old age vs genocide[edit]

That's a really nice analogy you posted at User talk:Off2riorob ("death by old age beats genocide hands down"). Do you have a source for the idea, or is it your own? Thanks, Geometry guy 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If I got it somewhere else, I'm too old to remember where. I'm not that old, so odds are it's my own idea ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, congratulations: it is a great point to make in the global warming debate, and could apply to many other situations where people try to evade their responsibilities. Geometry guy 00:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Feel free to recycle it. From the same mind: 400ppm of a 2.5 t Elephant is 1 kg. A kilogram of steel-sheeted lead ("a trace metal in the animal") can, of course, easily kill an elephant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Right - even 250 grams (100 ppm) would likely suffice. Such a concentration argument can be applied to many analogues also. Geometry guy 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Not my video but[edit]

Not my video but the words you quoted "In reality, this motion would not be seen with a small amount of water – a huge mass of fluid is needed – so the demonstrator is using some showmanship to simulate the effect." of course were an annotation added by me. So I was still left slightly wondering about the video. The problem is that these kind of balancing a pencil on a point instabilities are very strong amplifiers (brains are full of them) and my reasons for suspicion don't go much beyond pub quiz type answers. --BozMo talk 19:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The time scale for the Coriolis force is 2π/f, where f is the Coriolis parameter. In turn f = 2Ω sin(φ) where Ω is angular velocity of Earth and φ is latitude. Obviously then at the equator sin(φ)=0 so the Coriolis force takes forever to act. This is also the reason why tropical cyclones form at least a few degrees away from the equator, almost always poleward of 5 degrees. (Note the Coriolis force can in fact be demonstrated with smallish amounts of fluid where great care is taken to let the fluid come completely to rest, and at latitudes well removed from the equator.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Thats more or less exactly the level of detail I was hoping for. --BozMo talk 20:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
BozMo, you need to warn people if you do anything in the real world! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No plans in real world as yet. --BozMo talk 20:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Although I do surreal blogs sometimes [5] if surreal is a subset of real... --BozMo talk 20:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Law in Germany[edit]

This [6] puzzled me. The "our adverts were made in Germany where there are no consumer protection laws" angle in particular. I know USA is really weird legally (the self interest of lawyers thing) but I thought you hailed from somewhere vaguely civilised? --BozMo talk 12:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Text was apparently changed on that link now. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Nah. Wasn't intended to be a verbatim quote. --BozMo talk 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Vaguely civilised. We certainly have fair advertising and other consumer protection laws, although they probably have less bite than the UK. The British have the unexpectedly pragmatic idea that it's not enough to have a law, you also need some organization to enforce it. That's less the case in Germany, where that is often delegated to lawyers or private associations. However, I'd assume that Groupon was just looking for a cheap excuse in this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah guess so about Groupon but I don't recommend QUANGOs as vehicles of enforcement: that was a lot of the trouble with financial regulation (not sure if you know, in times past the financial services authority started offering not very competent consultancy to financial services which kind of made it hard for anyone to complain about banks which followed their inadequate advice, I think the health and safety exec and a few other Quangos did the same). I am enjoying Merkel by the way. I wonder how much we lose in translation. --BozMo talk 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Judging by the English translation of one of the newspaper reports, this edit [followed by a minor disambiguation] seems to me to misrepresent the sources. The phrasing "convicted of defaming a journalist" appears incorrect in English, as it was presumably may have been a civil case and not a criminal conviction. [but I could well be wrong about Defamation] Since my ability to read German is near non-existent, I'd appreciate it if you could look it over and revise the article accordingly. Thanks, dave souza, talk 14:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC) amended 14:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    To clarify, this tranlation says Ramsdorf was found to have made unsupported accusations of plagiarism and of the journalist trying to get him to remove her name from a blog post, the edit to his bio suggests that his rebuttals of her allegations of errors in AR4 were "unsupported by evidence and even libelous". Don't know if anything like that is in the German sources. . dave souza, talk 14:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
It was a purely civil case. Irene Meichsler, a journalist, wrote an article about the IPCC report. Ramsdorf strongly criticised it in his blog, making two statements that the court found wrong (namely, that she had cribbed the material in the article from two other bloggers and that she had asked Rahmsdorf to remove her name from his post (as it turned out, Meichsner's editor had asked him, against her explicit request)). She asked him to refrain from making these statements (and a third statement), he said no, she sued. The court agreed with two of her three claims, but held the third one for a legitimate statement of opinion. It enjoined Ramsdorf from repeating the statements and awarded two thirds of the cost to the journalist (two thirds because she only prevailed on two of the three counts). Given that this was a German court, the cost award was in the 3 digits, not in the 9.... The court did not determine the truths or falsity of the original claims of the IPCC or the journalist, only the meta claims. It did, however, add in a general statement about the context that "[Rahmsdorf] tried to clarify these allegations [of errors in the IPCC report] that have, in the mean time, been shown to be at least partially wrong". So if anything, it sided with Rahmsdorf and the IPCC on the climate issue, but with Meichsner on Rahmsdorf's description of her work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks! I guess it's good no one blocked me, I probably would have just unblocked myself, and that probably wouldn't help anything, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Undo for Saladin[edit]

Hi Stephan! I have edited the article of Saladin and added the following expression with the resources:

"Several historical resources mention "Saladin the Turk"[1][2][3][4][5], which means he might be of Turkish origin as well."

If you read the historical books about the Crusades, you'll see that they mention him as "Saladin the Turk". Do you really think those resources are out of date? The more a resource is close to the fact, the more it is of fact. In the meantime, I give you evidences that "Saladin the Turk" is used in old texts of English historians as you see on this page:

I think you should undo it to the last version please. Be sure that you're trying to change history. The resources which claims he was of Kurdish origin is not reliable, and there is not any historical evidence which shows he was of Kurdish origin. You had better be objective about this subject; otherwise, you'll cause me lose my trust to Wikipedia. Please be frank. (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not undone anything in the reasonably recent past. However, using century old books is indeed frowned upon - these are not reliable secondary sources, at best they are primary sources for the opinion at their time. Writers in the 19th century weren't always particularly careful with or knowledgable about other people - I've seen "moor" used for everybody belonging to an islamic culture, or for everybody dark-skinned. Similarly, "Turk" is has been used indiscriminately for anybody from the the northern part of the Near and Middle East, or for any non-Christian from an area under Ottoman rule at some time. This is not any indication of actual ethnicity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is nonsense to say "out of date" for an old resource. Then why don't we delete old resources in Wikipedia and create new facts of our minds? It would be more nonsense. I just only ask you to add this fact. For history, the date of the historical resources isn't important. And I think you shouldn't change anything according to your own view. Are there any rule of Wikipedia which requires the people not to add resources from the century old books? Even, today's scientific books give us the resources from the past texts. Unfortunately, you couldn't persuade me. If you are really objective, you'd add that old people used the expression Saladin the Turk for him. And today's resources are mostly affected by ideological ideas of several scientists. In the meantime, there are also controversial academic resources (articles and books) of this century which claim Saladin was Turk. Why don't you add these resources, as well? I can send you these resources by post office even if they are written in different languages. I'm not a racist or anything bad. I'm just an objective historian. And I ask you to be like that one. Just being objective. (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
You need to distinguish primary and secondary sources. Primary sources don't loose their value over time. But secondary sources do. We don't reference Aristotle on Solar System, or Thomas Jefferson on Race and Intelligence. Secondary sources reflect opinion (in the best case scholarly opinion) at the time they were written. As our understanding of a topic increases, they become more and more out of time, and eventually become useless as secondary sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Your only resource is of Vladimir Minorsky (the man of 19th century), who claims Saladin was Kurdish, and Minorsky's resource comes from the Sharafname of Kurdish Historian Sharaf al-Din Bitlisi, which is a subjective resource. If you think his sayings are primary resource for you, then let me give you a contra claim of this century from the University of Calgary which says that Saladin was a Turkish general in an article. Read it at Look at the text under the title of Third Crusade "The 1170s and 1180s saw the rise of a new, united Islamic state with Egypt as its center, led by the talented Turkish general, Saladin. Provoked by Christian aggression in the Holy Land, Saladin attacked and reconquered much of the Christian territory in the east including Jerusalem. Jerusalem's fall provoked the launching of a Third Crusade (1189-92)." And can you show me any resource telling Kurds take role in Crusades? All historical records mention Turks which were the leaders of the Islamic world at those times. Everyone knows that old Turkic people were of soldier origin. Be frank and add the resource from the University of Calgary! Also read the following article: - The Crusades occur between the Europeans and Turks. In the meantime, About Wikipedia, it says "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism)." I haven't vandalised or disrupted. I have provided resources and added a few expressions, but you've just prevented me from editing it as my resources were contrary to your ideology. Anyway, you are not objective though it says that Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented. I cited external resources, but you still prevent. It is so pity that subjective editors manages the Wikipedia. (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
If here is a democratic platform, where can I report my complaints about your misbehaviour? I want to carry this case to the concerned authorities of Wikipedia. I'm newbie of Wikipedia. So tell me please. (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy, but it does have consensus-based mechanisms for dispute resolution. I would suggest you present your sources at WP:RS/N, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you think that your point of view is not adequately represented, there is WP:NPOV/N, the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. For general disputes, there is WP:DR, the dispute resolution mechanism. As a first step, it's usually recommended to discuss controversial issues on the talk page of the article, is this case talk:Saladin, not at individual editors talk pages (because that discussion is usually lost to the rest of the interested people). Finally, while it's not really the proper venue, many editors complain about abuse of admin powers at WP:ANI. It's generally recommended to try the most appropriate venue only and don't spam related complaints over many boards - very many people watch several of them, and may react annoyed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

This is so discouraging. Isn't there some administrative way to get Gwillhickers turned off? one person is wasting the time of so many others; he keeps ignoring what he doesn't like, argues with quotes from reliable sources because he doesn't like the conclusions, ignores awards for the work on Jefferson as representing academic consensus because he doesn't like the conclusions. If the article satisfies him by suggesting that there are serious problems with the conclusions about Jefferson's paternity, we will look like fools.Parkwells (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and WP:RANDY. He seems to not have read (or understood) any of the sources he does not like, but instead relies on original research and questionable self-published material. I can think of no simple way of handling this but heaps of patience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your excellent review of facts today; it should be an education for some editors who are willing to read and listen. Parkwells (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope you are not talking about the empty set ;-). I suspect we are dealing with a case of Dunning-Kruger effect here. The best therapy for that is education, but it is sometimes very slow going... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making me laugh. It's good that you continue to be optimistic about possible education. Thanks for working on the article/Talk page with your clear, factual, analytical approach.Parkwells (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
When asked to produce scholarly cites that gave "greater weight" today to Jefferson's "Marriage and family" than the Hemings relationship, or to add content to this all-important topic which some editors say doesn't have enough (which no one who says it's important has done), one editor responded, "Why shouldn't Marriage and family be given greater weight? Martha was Jefferson's wife for Pete's sake. And that's a fact, btw. I think we can assume the sources will support that..." Isn't that convenient? "We can assume" the sources support many things, except when we don't want to use them when we disagree with them. I may be tired enough following the holidays to let them do what they want with the article; it is time to refocus energy where there is return.Parkwells (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Christopher Hitchens, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed (a while ago). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please state your concerns[edit]

When you have a minute please articulate where you think my summary is being selective and biased. I wish to address your concerns so that we can include Revkin's commentary. Thanks. --Hypoxic mentalist (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

edit "Cold Fusion" Nine Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes[edit]

To improve the article:

1) Wiki needs to view it as science.

2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?

Mr, Schulz sir, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's funny....[edit]

Hi, Just wanted to say I laughed when I read your comment in the quote parameter discussion. my wife is a professor... we laugh at ourselves all the time when we come face to face with our expectations.... the kids should arrive in college able to write in full sentences. Do basic math. Turn stuff in on time. Just like wiki editors ought to read their sources! Haaaa Hahaaha ahahaa. Oh, if only it were that way.....

There's no point to my comment beyond just sharing the chuckle. Think snow! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Snow is cold ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to do an analysis of the edits.Bless sins (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not that much work. Congrats to being unblocked. I very much admired how you kept your cool. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

GA promotion[edit]

I just reviewed and passed your article on the British Alpine Hannibal Expedition. Well done! On a personal note, I'd just like to tell you I enjoyed reading it very much. Keep up the good work; I hope to see more of it soon. Keep well now, Cliftonian (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I enjoyed writing it, too - the topic was small enough to not become tedious, and quirky enough to keep me interested. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and update[edit]

Hi Stephan,

I wanted to thank you for your reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences, and to tell you have I've now extended the query to cover three specific conferences relating to a particular paragraph (I'm a little worried that it's an old enough thread that it won't get enough attention, hence my hawking for more opinion here... :) Failedwizard (talk)

I saw it, but was to busy to check this in detail. My first instinct was that conferences associated with the ACM should be good. Workshops are not, generally, at the same level, but there are some conferences that simply continue to be called "Workshop on...", so that's inconclusive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility, too. Plus BLP[edit]

"...Moreover, no matter what you believe about Climategate, Mann, and the International Scientific Conspiracy To Make Us All Liberal Drones, the S&B paper was and is an embarrassment. The quality of the paper has nothing to do with the morals, eating habits, or hats of Mann. That you keep defending it does you no credit..."

Enough said? Pot, kettle, black? Projectile mind-reading?

And you really do need to pay attention to the BLP rules here. Arbs get partic touchy about them in the CC-sanctioned articles. Really, you don't want to go there. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC). Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

WP:SPADE applies. Anyways, I don't think we should move that discussion here, but rather wanted to point out that the obvious abbreviation of my name has some unfortunate connotations that you might want to take into consideration when you refer to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Honestly. that never occurred to me! I wasn't even sure you were German until I saw your web page -- for some reason I thought you were Czech. If it offends, I'll desist. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem - you're not the first and won't be the last. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Your SOPA support[edit]

  • You've got "Support either, but prefer global"... but it's listed under "Oppose". Wouldn't that be a support? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, SOPA you seem to have supported in the oppose section. Is the question a bit unclear? Youreallycan 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I misread the issue. I thought the question was "US-only" vs. "World-wide". In that constellation, I oppose "US-only", but I support either action if set against "no action". The question seems to be improvable, see Wikipedia talk:SOPA initiative/Action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link - I removed myself from that one completely as I don't think there is an option for someone who opposes this action at this time. Youreallycan 18:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative[edit]

Hi Stephan Schulz,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing education[edit]

Thanks for your efforts to share sources and how one might approach learning with an open mind. Parkwells (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Seriously, the OpenYale lectures are very good. As a computer scientist with a minor in physics, I didn't get too much (well, any ;-) university level education in the humanities, but I did learn the difference between the popular myth and the scholarly view. I've tried to make up for the first problem ever since. I think the epitaph on my gravestone will be "Here lies Stephan Schulz. But it's not that simple!"  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. So trying to understand "I've tried to make up for the first problem ever since" I start at the beginning of the paragraph and look at the "problems" to try to find the first one. That would be "As a computer scientist" right? --BozMo talk 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
No, that problem is self-correcting ever since I was "promoted" to project manager. What I'm currently trying to do is to put on a thin veneer of general snobbishness to hide my decaying technical skills. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"WMF has no mandate to determine who can and cannot participate"[edit]

Whatever hard authority the WMF might lack is more than made up for in the soft authority they have. The community will follow a WMF exec before it will follow an ordinary editor. I've reviewed at length just how involved the WMF was here.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Soft authority" is something earned, and easily withdrawn if abused. I think you somewhat suffer from confirmation bias. In particular, it's not at all surprising that organisations that engage in free information are allied and even, over time, share personnel. And it's neither surprising nor unprecedented that those which care about free information on the internet collectively act in creative ways. See Black World Wide Web protest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
If there isn't an issue here then I would think that if another bill sponsored by the content industry should appear next year, you would support inviting their representative(s) to address the Wikipedia community directly on an equal footing with those opposed to the bill. If Wikipedia is an open platform as opposed to reserved for the exclusive use of certain activists I would also think that you would support advising the content industry that if non-Wikipedia civil liberties activist sites are directing their people towards a Wikipedia page calling for community input they would be free to direct their people similarly. The alternative to having the call for input being open without discrimination would be to have it closed without discrimination, such that all outside groups would be equally discouraged from interference.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a different between grassroots and astroturf, but sure, genuine users are and always have been invited to join Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding what's so objectionable about "civil liberties," but maybe that's just me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If taken remotely serious, they do tend to get into the way of civilization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Global Warming Controversy". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 February 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


Re [7]. That is what I thought, until I found out that SR redirects to sunlight... William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know if that's good, but anyways, we can use better terminology in the solar variation article... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Global Warming Controversy, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Stephan Schulz,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Answered by email. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Insulting remarks in edit summaries[edit]

It's a privilege to know you too.[8] Kauffner (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a plural "you", so don't feel too privileged. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Something like Mark 5:8-9? That would certainly make it harder to control the rudeness. Kauffner (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
More like John 8:7, with a bit of Matthew 5:9. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I see there is yet another insulting edit summary. That is certainly a clever way to respond to a complaint regarding insulting edit summaries. If I complain of rudeness, it is treated as justification for additional rudeness, at least if I understand this latest summary correctly. Kauffner (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I wanted to express that if you quote scripture, I'll quote scripture back at you (something I enjoy somewhat, as it allows me to gauge my knowledge of the bible even in a foreign language). I didn't think this particular debate is uncivil (so far). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a question: whats a rouge admin[edit]

I have read the page, but am not sure if that is just a humour page or real. What kind of rouge admin are you?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

VERY rouge! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I meant are you: corrupt, masonic, gay, Zionist, capitalist, Christian e.t.c as listed on that page--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That's complicated. I have no empirical data on my corruptness - nobody has yet offered any money for me to do something imoral or illegal. Sorry, the Order does not allow me to talk about any alleged masonic connections. I'm generally a cheerful person. Zionism is to broad a movement to support or reject in general. I don't have enough capital to be a capitalist, but I generally support free markets as long as they internalize all costs. I'm fairly sure I'm not a Nicene Christian, but, assuming a god exists, she may have a broader definition of Christianity. I am a know-it-all with a pedagogical bent, so I have to point out that "etc" is short for the Latin "et cetera", and hence never ever takes a period after the "e". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
was hoping your the type of rouge admin that take bribes. joke--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted post[edit]

There is a discussion which concerns you at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Deleted Birther soapboxing. SpinningSpark 19:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I would have deleted the "question", too, if it hadn't already spawned a discussion. So I'm reasonably ok with Tango's decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sarah's Choice for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sarah's Choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah's Choice (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Stephan Schulz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


With the Jefferson family line I am trying to shorten the detail about whether Jefferson's later ambiguous letter needs overlong mention. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A good cook?[edit]

Well, I guess we have 'something' in common -- I am a great cook and have been taking step by step photos of some of the dishes I have perfected with the idea of writing a cook book. Any way, it's nice to know that I am on your watch list. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have some of my recipes in English here - I especially recommend the Tiramisu, or the Spagetti Carbonara because it is so easy and quick to make, but still quite satisfying. Anyways, you are not on my watchlist (although your talk page is), but WP:V and WP:RSN both are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
In the Tiramisu recipe, if you mean to translate into English English rather than American it is "sponge fingers" not "lady fingers". --BozMo talk 07:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
But they are not spongy (until moistened in espresso...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Whereas they are "lady"?!?! My wife does not have rough crytaline sugar on her fingers///--BozMo talk 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, but we must all bear our personal misfortunes bravely! BTW, in German they are "Löffelbiskuits", literally "spoon biscuits". They don't look like spoons to me (and the etymology of "Löffel" is different enough from that of "spoon" to make the association with "bits of wood" problematic). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Made using a spoon. You might like [9] Collect (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Stephan Schulz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#National_Genealogical_Society_Quarterly.
Message added 13:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello Stephan Schulz. I apoligize on the "SS" initials in the Thomas Jefferson bio talk page. There was no intent on the Nazi regime reference. Thanks for letting me know. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for an apology - it happens often, and, as far as I can tell, never by malice. But thanks anyways! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the TJ page?[edit]

Stephan, you better take a look at what your last 'edit' has done to the Jefferson page, for starters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, somehow the browser lost all but the first section. Weird. I'll try to redo the change and make sure it works this time... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama articles[edit]

http://danfromsquirrelhill. Here is a very long list of reliably sourced criticisms of Obama on a wide variety of issues. At one time or another, each and every one one of these things has been added to the various Obama related articles (especially Presidency of Barack Obama), but they have always been erased. Some editors have been topic-banned from all Obama related articles in order to prevent them from re-adding this information to the articles. There is a huge amount of censorship by Obama's supporters going on at the Obama related articles. P2d4b8z2 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think our concepts of "reliable sourced" differ somewhat. Moreover, not everything that anybody ever wrote somewhere is relevant for an encyclopedic article. Are you sure your motivation is "neutrality", not partisanship? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a sock of banned editor User:Grundle2600. Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems with a banned user's participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason." Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the Obamacare edit.[edit]

That made my addition better. Thanks.William Jockusch (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

That's what we are here for... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama article POV dispute[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Barack Obama article does not conform to NPOV". Thank you. I would further note that you have been helpful, lately. Thanks.William Jockusch (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ice age[edit]

For the Ice age article if you have time, would you be able to provide the Google books page URL for

  • ^ Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: Geologische Probleme und Versuch ihrer Auflösung, Mineralogie und Geologie in Goethes Werke, Weimar 1892, ISBN 3-423-05946-X, book 73 (WA II,9), p. 253, 254.

A search by isbn:342305946X shows it there, but I read no German to get to the correct page. (viva for cite book conversions) Similarly I think I've converted these correctly, but don't find the ref online, though I think the first one might be in a conference proceedings book, and therefore won't be, but might have an ISBN. URLs would be great.

  • ^ Kuhle, M. (1984). "Spuren hocheiszeitlicher Gletscherbedeckung in der Aconcagua-Gruppe (32–33° S)". Zentralblatt für Geologie und Paläontologie Teil I, Geologie 11/12: 1635–46. ISSN 0340-5109. Verhandlungsblatt des Südamerika-Symposiums 1984 in Bamberg.
  • ^ Kuhle, M. (1986). "Die Vergletscherung Tibets und die Entstehung von Eiszeiten". Spektrum der Wissenschaft (9/86): 42–54. ISSN 0170-2971.

RDBrown (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement[edit]

Greetings, Steve. User:Slp1 suggested I come here.

The above article has seen a lot of activity and disputes. There is one part you might be able to help on. The article states:

"In Tablet magazine, Journalist Michelle Goldberg criticized Zeitgeist: The Movie as being 'steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories', and called the Zeitgeist movement 'the world's first Internet-based cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity.'"

Some editors (or at least one) are unhappy that Goldberg is not qualified to criticize the movement (the movie and the movement are closely related). Slp1 suggested on the Talk page that we look at a German article:

"one "Grauzonen der Antisemitismusforschung, oder: Versuch, den ‚Zeitgeist' zu verstehen" [Grey areas of anti-Semitism research, or: an attempt to understand "Zeitgeist"], is available here, with an abstract in English."

I don't speak German other than a smattering of operatic German, which doesn't get me very far in the real world. So, would you be willing/interested in reading the German source and to determine whether it would be useful to cite to it in the WP article? No pressure if you don't wish to or don't have time - I hate asking others to do work. Just let me know here, either way, or if you have questions ... Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but I'm on the jump to a series of conferences and workshops during the next two weeks that expect ~4 presentations from me, of which ~0 are done. So it may take a while. The paper looks interesting , and from a very first glance, seems to support the opinion you cite for Goldberg above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve, your work, of course, takes precedence. I'll watch this page, although given that it might take some time, you might leave me a TB on my Talk page if you have something to report.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your view?[edit]

The problem with Manual of Style is that most editors have given up tracking them. I think WP:Weasel which you used recently seems to have drifted away a couple of years ago from its actual meaning presumably because someone wanted to make a point. Do you agree with me [10] about what weasel means (since it was your recent usage which sent me there)? --BozMo talk 06:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Having thought this over, my core problem is that it is imprecise and thus misleading. "Scientists recommend Bold!" - well, maybe, but how many, and how many disagree, and how many don't care? --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll[edit]

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good advice[edit]

Schulz, I have taken your advice and reversed two major reverts I made. I can only hope Quarkgluonsoup will slow down. In any case, thanks for your advice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've closed the report. Formally, it's a bit borderline, giving our history of discussion, but, given that we nearly universally disagree, I think nobody will make this a case of favoritism. Thanks for being reasonable! I've always made it a rule to start a discussion on the talk page on the second revert - it keeps me from running over... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It just happens to be at Thomas Jefferson[edit]

I disagree with an argument, please do not assume that I automatically disagree with the conclusion. I may well do so, but I also point out flaws in arguments where I have no opinion on the conclusion, or even (if rarer, I'm no saint ;-) where I agree with the conclusion. I cannot stand bad logic - it's a professional flaw.

I get it. I like your sharpening and appreciate having my errors corrected. Please stick around Thomas Jefferson. Or should I decamp?

Regards, Yopienso (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome, both here and there. I do keep a look on TJ and occasionally barge in. I got a couple of sources - Bernstein, Hitchens (although not that great), Gordon-Reed, and the special issue of the NatGen Society Quarterly on Jefferson Hemings. But I do find it somewhat exhausting to hunt down Victorian sources selectively cited via Google Book snippets only to find out that they don't support a claim. Or even to have to argue that a book from 1873 is unlikely to reflect modern scholarly consensus. Thus, I'm only there on occasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ségolène Royal Article[edit]

Can you please give a warning to this user? She unbelievably warned me this way after I removed Ségolène Royal from the French Roman Catholics category, according to Wikipedia policies, like it was agreed on Talk Page [11]. What does this have to do with her removal from that category beats me. I think she deverses a warning for disruptive behaviour. (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This may simply be a mistake. See WP:AGF. I see no reason for a warning now (and, anyways, you could warn yourself). BTW, have you considered registering for an account? It provides more privacy (no public IP information), and allows you to build a reputation over time. Justly or not, IP editors are often not takes as seriously as editors with accounts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)