User talk:Stephan Schulz/Archive 3

List of Military SF

Please see here: [1]

Cheers, --Gego (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the list has been redirected to the Military SF article and I started a list with references (although I wouldn't consider some of the books MSF, but whatever...) at eLib, so as to step on nobody's toes. I will copy the finished and agreed upon list afterwards as the basis for the new article... complicated, life at wikipedia. You could add them at elib first, if you want... Military SF Bibliography Cheers, --Gego (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Wikipedia has many opinions, and you might run up against one by chance. Anyways, the copyright statement you wanted to have in there does not really jibe with Wikipedia. A note on the talk page might be better (and it's all in the history to dig out, of course). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

greenhouse effect

You just reverted my edits, please see discussion on talk pageAndrewjlockley (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User following my edits

Please, I need your help. User:Donadio disruptive user following my edits. Recently, I noticed that when I post something in an article, he soon appers on the same articles, trying to stir up trouble. Please, take a look here 1, here 2 and here here 3]. Notice that on the last example, he tried, at the buttom of the discussion, to re-opened an old issue that I had already resolved with another user. He was already accused of being a Single purpose account, which I agreed. May you please check this user? Opinoso (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced that he follows you consciously. He (or possible she) may simply react to edits on his (or her) watchlist. It looks like you both edit, at least at the moment, in a very narrow range of articles and that you seem to have very different interpretations of the material. It's also obvious that there is bad blood and a failure to communicate with good faith. May I suggest that you both step back from the topic for, say, a week, and try to understand the others position? For me it looks like you both are somewhat overeager, but none of you is trying to actively harm the encyclopedia. If either of you engages in an unrelated field like Geography of Belarus or Richard Feynman or The Crusades, and the other follows, I'll be ready to step in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, could you kindly check anon IP 200.251.176.130? It has reversed an edit by me at Proletariat. The kind of "blind reversal" that shows a user that erases contributions without even reading them; also "rv" (reversing vandalism, I suppose) in the summary. Thank you! Donadio (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP has only two edits, the second one to a (*surprise*) Brazilian Population related template. That certainly looks suspicious, but does not yet reach the nuisance level in my opinion. If problems persist and become annoying, you might want to initiate a WP:RFCU. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Stephan. Donadio (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi there - welcome to the debate. I see you granted Zara her request for yet another lock-down on this article. I presume you read the talk page first, so that you could make an informed decision, but since you undoubtedly did I'm wondering why you thought that supporting a disruptive editor who believes she has a right of veto over the majority was the appropriate step? There has been a lot of debate and a substantial consensus on the way forward, which Zara refuses to accept. Since you undoubtedly familiarised yourself with the issue before exercising your draconian powers, please could you clarify for us why you think that pandering to Zara's veto-complex is going to help? Wdford (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your polite message. I did not grant Zara's (or anybody's) request, but I locked down the page for a short while due to persistent and massive reverting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. The problem is, though, that this article has been the subject of intense discussion for months, and the stumbling block is that one particular editor refuses to accept the majority view on the scope and the wording of the lead section. A time-out is not going to magically resolve anything - what is needed is a firm policy decision on the extent to which any individual editor is permitted to impose a scope restriction on any particular article, or impose their particular POV on the lead section. If you could please clarify that policy for all of us (in clear and unambiguous wording) then I think it would help, but giving a certain editor a lock-down every time she can't get her own way is unlikely to help any more than the previous lock-downs have helped.

Your constructive assistance would be gratefully received. Wdford (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

Afrocentrism

Hi Steve. The Afrocentrism article has had a probation tag on its talk page since forever. The person who requested it no longer participates in the dicussion, and this article has been recently rebuilt with much professionalism and no heat. Could you perhaps look into removing the tag sometime soon? Many thanks Wdford (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but article probation is decreed by the Arbitration Committee, and cannot be removed by me any more than by you. Also, I don't think I've ever looked at that article - almost certainly not recently or in any depth, so I don't have a good feel for the state of things. You can request lifting of the probation at WP:RCAM. But are you sure this is a good idea? Probation just reminds editors to show their best behavior. It really does not limit anyone sticking to best (or even just decent) practices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming holiday

[2] Remember, this Sunday is John Frum Day! Don't forget to paint "USA" in red on your chest. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether std::endl is more portable than "\n"

Hi, you reverted my revision of "\n" to the ostensibly "more portable" std::endl, with the following message:

Undid revision 271010302. Well, then change iostream. Please read and discuss THIS talk

page before changing this again. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no argument.)

Ok, I've read the talk page now and understand why you might be fed up of such revisions :-) But genuinely, what would be the appropriate change to the text of the "Iostream" article? You've obviously looked into this matter long and hard and have a considered opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.108.177 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I know, the statement in iostream is simply wrong. It certainly is unsourced. As such, I would suggest to simply remove it. The example can stay, of course, to illustrate the feature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent revisions to Conservatism

Stephan,

Regarding revision 271081679--you were correct that the article was originally published by the APA; I found the entire PDF on the Psychoanalysts Oppose War website and incorrectly assumed that it was their original publication. However, my categorization of the the P.O.W. website as partisan and anti-conservative should not be qualified as an ad-hominem, but as a clarification of the nature of the research. I offer the following quotes from the website:

---

"But if there were a single feature of conservative political psychology that has contributed the most to the recent horror show of death and unfathomable yet preventable suffering that has so riveted the attention of Americans, it would be the fear and hatred of the care-taking functions of government, what Republicans since Ronald Reagan have reviled as the “mommy state.”"

"In short, the right-wing is imposing a culture of death on this country and we shouldn't stand for it."

"Liberal Talk show host Thom Hartmann describes the Republicans "psychological warfare" on white working men, to convince them that their problems are due to castrating women, not the insecurity created by ant-worker policies.

---

Properly, the "psychology" section should be deleted, or retitled into a critisms section. All such research is inherently biased, and shouldn't be included in a general information website. If such a section is to be included, there should be a disclaimer--if not for the entire section, then at least for those authors whose history of publication demonstrates a bias against the ideology under discussion. As I pointed out in another revision, there is also research pointing to liberalism as a "mental illness." Doesn't it make more sense to get information on conservatism from conservative or unbiased resources, and information on liberalism from liberal or unbiased resources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q2600 (talk • contribs)

An article does not become biased if someone chooses to republish it. There are plenty of whacko websites that republish the US constitution - that does not make it a whacky document. The ad-hominem (actually, it's more like "guilt by association") is that you try to associate the article with the anti-war group, when it has not been originally published there and has indeed been through peer review at the PB, which is a recognized and reliable scholarly source. In short, the POW website is entirely irrelevant. Please discuss suggestions about the article at the article's talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Guilt by association I understand. Sorry about the incorrect venue; I'm a newbie--I'll move this to the correct forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q2600 (talk • contribs)

No worries. It's not a hard and fast rule. In general, I prefer to discuss article-specific topics on the articles talk page, which has a larger and usually better informed readership. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji's Law: "Even if a complete fscking moron says it, it still might be true." arimareiji (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

global warming

pls see my comments on your revert on the talk page. Perhaps you'll consider undoing my revert?Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Answered there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

a toss-off comment

Any relationship between "scientists/academics" and "people who know their ass from a hole in the ground wrt science/academia" is purely coincidental, mind you. ;-) arimareiji (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Thanks for your contribution. DOI bot is bust, dunno what to do about that. Even expandbyhand doesn't seem to work. I now 'watch' rage TP, sorry i missed you before. Any other concerns, TP me - always looking to raise my game.Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you go to "my preferences->Watchlist", you can tick the last 4 boxes to put all pages you edit automatically on your watchlist. And, not to beat a dead horse, but you still have not given an explicit answer ("sorry, I put in the wrong doi" would have been fine) - I had to go to the article and see what you actually changed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno how it happened but it was def. the wrong DOI. I'm having problems with cut/copy/paste at the mo, or it might be human error. Now i've explained this, is it possible for you to update your RFC comment? I'm sure there may be plenty of reasons why you may wish to comment, but the specific example you gave wasn't really anything other than a simple mistake.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Putting in the wrong doi is no big deal. But look at that talk page discussion. Q Science asked about the source. I replied, and we had a nice chat, but no progress. Then you came in - which kinda implies you saw the discussion - with what at least looks like a somewhat snide, but certainly was a useless comment ("Why not find a source you think is better? "). Well, we cannot even evaluate the source if we don't know what it is. And in your latest reply on that page, you still did not answer that question, just made a claim that you "fixed" it - how? Did you find another source or did you find the correct doi for your original source? I guess it's the second, but why do I have to guess? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should have been fuller. I apparently messed up the DOI first, so i replacedit with the right one. I genuinely wasnt' being snidey to Q, I just was respecting his POV and inviting him to make the necessary change. Perhpas i was too brief for clarity. Cheers for the brief update to the RFC.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ecopass

Hi Schulz. I would like your help with a never ending discussion going on in the Talk:Ecopass. The same kind of editorial disruption has also occurred with the same user in the series of articles regarding congestion pricing and road pricing. Just peek the Talk:Congestion pricing to have a taste of this controversy. I request your participation not as an administator but rather because of your experience, deep knowledge of wiki policies, and used to deal with OR and non NPOV in the climate change articles. Your orientation will be welcome, so please, drop by whenever you have some time.--Mariordo (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And now the endless discussion move to here and following sections. I would really appreciate if you can clarify OR, NPOV and RS for us.--Mariordo (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't currently have a strong opinion on this. I think "tax" is reasonably neutral, but I also agree that we should stick to reliable sources. Have you tried WP:3O? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Climate change

WMC removed a section from climate change without discussion on TP. I reverted him, and then you followed suit. I wouldn't normally breach 1rr but I don't think it's acceptable to section hack in this manner. Please comment on TP first. I see his point on applicability, but I strongly disagree with yours on speculation. Look forward to TP discussion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ID LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR MAKING AN ISSUE OUT OF SOMETHNG THAT IS KIND OF UNFAIR THE

THANK YOU FOR MAKING AN ISSUE OUT OF MY USER NAME. EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO HISTORY OF DOING CONSISTENTLY RACIST THING'S, OR PRO HITLER THING'S, OR ANTI JEWISH THING'S HERE, AND EVEN THOUGH MY USER PAGE EXPLAINS WELL IN A WAY NOT TO HAVE MY USER NAME BLOCKED THE , YOU STILL WENT AHEAD AND P WELL KIND OF SAID SOMETHING HOW MY USER NAME IS UNNACCETABLE THEN AND .

SIGHNED - ARYAN818, WHO'S USER NAME HAS BEEN BLOCKED AGAIN BY SOMEONE ELSE THE , EVEN THOUGH HIS USER PAGE BASICALLY TELL'S PEOPLE NOT TO BLOCK HIM, AND EVEN THOUGH THE NAME ARYAN IS A NICE NAME IN SOME PART'S OF THE WORLD, AND EVEN THOUGH THE 818 IS HIS AREA CODE.....

THE BY WAY MY 818 IS NOT 88 THEN. AND I HAVE NO HISTORY ON WIKIPEDIA OF DOING PRO HITLER KIND OF THING'S . AND MY USER PAGE KIND OF MENTIONED NOT TO DELETE MY USER NAME AND . WATER . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.85.193 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not brought up the issue, and I have not executed the actual block. But I do support it. Note that only the name is blocked, not you yourself. Just ask for a name change, and your account, including your contributions, will be moved over and unblocked. I've explained here why the name is unacceptable even if it was choosen in good faith, and the discussion was unanimous. Wikipedia is an international endeavor, and we do not want to cause unnecessary offense anywhere. I can somewhat understand why you like to use your family name. But I don't understand why you are so hung up on your area code. Pick Aryan1869 (birth year of Gandhi - I'll still consider it questionable taste, but I won't support blocking it). Or pick Area818, if you want to. And please don't write all in CAPS. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Septic?

Have you started embracing the dark side[3]? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Scepticism is one of the foundations of science, after all! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Teeline Shorthand

Morning. You said in your edit summary that you thought the Teeline Shorthand article needed more references. I don't agree, as it is a short article, and the reliable reference supports all the facts. Unless the article gets expanded, I think the one reference suffices. Alan16 ^talk 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan. It's not particularly controversial, so I don't think it's urgent. But in general, Wikipedia's notability guidelines require coverage by multiple independent sources. The current source is not really independent, and it is only a single source. As a result, the article has a certain promotional feel. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I've been learning Teeline for a while now, so if I find any reliable sources on my travels, I'll add them. Alan16 ^talk 01:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

PD claim on logos/trademarks which are marked circled-R

See Talk:Drudge Report. The "double logo" is still marked as PD, and the claim is that the circled-R Drudge uses is illegal(?) as they assert the logo is not trademarked. Which I find to be a bit far out. You might wish to drop back in for a second. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism and the panarabism ideology

You may remember you speedied this article a few months ok. It looks very much recreated (as Intolerance and the panarabism connection and an AfD [4] has just started. I hope this attack page can just be speedily tossed in the garbage. I also wonder what happened to the creator of the "racism" page; the creator of this latest article is a new SPA. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Too late... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Heart of Rock & Roll

Many thanks for your edit to the "The Heart of Rock & Roll" article. I didn't know exactly how much of the lyrics we can put on the encyclopedia, so I didn't place that in myself. Thank you so much and have a good day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you are concerned about copyright, a single line of a complete song should be entirely on the safe side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Types and uses of radar

Hi,

I've proposed the merger of Types and uses of radar article into Radar. Could you give your input on that as one of the author at Talk:Radar#Types and uses of radar. Pierre cb (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AJL RfC Issues

I stumbled upon the AJL issue right before it went into RfC. I've kept myself out of the line of fire for the most part but some new things have come up and I think they probably need addressing in this RfC. I was glad to see someone [User_talk:Andrewjlockley&oldid=279985262#Good_deal commend AJL] for his recently good behavior until he snapped back that he's basically doing what he's always done (implying that he learned nothing from the RfC where he said that he claimed to accept the constructive criticism given). Then I see that he edited WMC's main space article and was met with much resistance and was essentially accused of trolling in 2 locations by 2 different people. I believe that editing WMC's article was way out of line considering their conflict. When it comes down to it, I don't beleive that AJL has learned anything from this RfC and that his actions will continue to be unconstructive to Wikipedia. I'm still relatively new and I'm not sure how to proceed here. What do you think? Should I add my concerns (with additional citations) as a new outside view to the RfC? OlYeller^Talktome 05:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think you can make useful contributions, go ahead. You've been here for 6 months or so, that should be plenty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins

You have warned me repeatedly about vandalising a page on Richard Dawkins. I can assure you that I haven't even heard of the guy. I've recieved numerous warnings about vandalising the page and it's driving me nuts. After reading through what it reccommends doing, I contacted you as you gave me some of the warnings. Is there anyway that I can be blocked from editing that one page as I'm fed up of being warned for editing his page when I clearly haven't. Please help.

Yanxa (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yanxa. I have never warned you - in fact, as far as I can tell, no-one has ever edited User talk:Yanxa. If you edited without being logged in, you may have received warnings intended for other users that share your IP address. As long as you edit under your current account (User:Yanxa), you should only see comments directed at you yourself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe it was someone sharing the IP rather than this account. I'll make sure that I only edit from thisaccount in future. Thanks. Yanxa (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. I was wondering if it was possible to lock a section of an article. And if not do you think the Wick article requires semi-protection, as the Notable people section of the article is being repeatable vandalised? Also, most of the people who edit have a username, so it shouldn't limit anybody who wants to constructively edit. Thanks Alan16 ^talk 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your explanation of greenhouse gas lifetimes and being out of equilibrium with respect to temperature. I'm going to read up on it more. I don't want to bug you too much, but if I come across things in climate that I just don't get after banging away at them, would you mind if I dropped a message here? (My knowledge on the topic is only marginally above 0.) Awickert (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll do what I can, but I'm a computer scientist with a very old minor in physics (and my examination was on solid state physics, superconductivity and atomic physics). Most of what I know on climate I picked up on the side. William and Boris are real, bona-fide experts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you had me fooled - so you're doing a good job of it! (And by the way, I think solid-state physics amazingly cool, but another thing that I don't know enough about.) Awickert (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

forcing

you accused me of not understanding thermodynamics, despite having studied it until i wanted to vomit at university. Please can you explain your comments on the GW TP. Pls also don't axe-edit. Make small changes to edit small bits of text, not massive reverts. Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Germanymap.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Germanymap.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Commented there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I win

Ah, so its a race with calculators you be wanting then? :) SpinningSpark 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I can add up 1+1+16 and get 18 ;-). And I did it all in my head! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Pls help me wid my hw

• WP:Reference desk/Science#Pls help me wid my hw

You should try to give links to helpful articles rather than an actual answer to homework questions. There is a good chance that your answer will be copied straight into the homework and, of course, the teacher will not believe that it is his/her own work. SpinningSpark 09:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaargh...I was parsing "hw" as "hardware" and promptly ignored it, thought the question to be a bit homeworky, but gave it the benefit of the doubt. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm impressed that a German speaker could get as far you did with interpreting that horrible netspeak. SpinningSpark 10:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops

didn't mean to undo your edit, I see SBHBOW has taken care of it, but I wished to let you know was accidental. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Everybody can claim that! I'm now gonna keep a grudge for the next 22 months, after which I will let it slowly degenerate into a general dislike. Or not ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion on Global warming controversy talk page

Stephan why didn't you discuss the 2nd Law part of my contribution before deleting it. Having earned my living from this sort of science, I must ask you to explain what is wrong with it, or even better why is WMC correct. Do you also believe that a cold troposphere can heat a warm Earth?--Damorbel (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note D. has broken 3RR (again). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• (to D.): Because a discussion with someone who seems to believe that the second law of thermodynamic implies that a warm blanket doesn't work is a pointless waste of time. You don't get to lawyer your way around the laws of nature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In justifying your deletion of my contribution [5] you remark "irrelevant nonsense. Misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics should be punishable by remedial science classes...)." I ask you to explain further, since I am rather knowledgeable in thermodynamics I am well able to understand any written text you are able to provide. You give the impression that you are also well informed on the matter, from which I assume will mean a speedy meeting of minds.--Damorbel (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Read my above comment and tell me why if and why you use blankets in winter. After all, according to your interpretation of the second law, being colder on the outside than on the inside, they cannot warm you... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[6] didn't we do an FAQ on the second law for that guy who bought an infrared camera? --BozMo talk 10:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, I have read what you have said. I think the thermodynamics of a blanket, has got little to do with the Earth's atmosphere since it works by reducing circulation of air. If I am mistaken please explain exactly how.

The CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation according to the temperature gradient; you will find this document [7] relevant. On p10 you will find this:- "Note that ‘‘absorption’’ is normally considered to include both ‘‘true absorption’’ and stimulated emission, because both are proportional to the intensity of the incoming beam (unlike spontaneous emission). Thus the net absorption may be positive or negative, depending on whether ‘‘true absorption’’ or stimulated emission dominates." The question whether "true absorption or stimulated emission dominates" is resolved when you discover if the CO2 is being heated or cooled. This is where the 2nd law of thermodynamics comes into play, if the CO2 in the troposphere is colder (255K) than the Earth's surface (288K) heat radiated from the surface will warm it. The CO2 in the troposphere is always warmer (255K) than deep space (3K), so it loses heat to deep space far faster than it gains it from the surface. This "extra heat radiated to deep space" gets into the atmosphere mainly by convection of air and evaporation of water. Of course H2O and other gases radiate heat to deep space, just like CO2; you are no doubt familiar with this.

This explanation is an improvement on your "blanket" explanation, on that ground alone it merits a presence on the discussion page of Global warming controversy. --Damorbel (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You fail to get the basic point. In both cases, the blanket and earth, there is a net input of energy (from solar radiation or body heat). Both the blanket and CO2 reduce the loss of heat, leading to an increase in temperature until the increase in emissions restore the balance of ingoing and outgoing radiation. As BozMo points out: We don't have a closed system, we have an open system. Both the blanket and CO2 modify energy flow in this open system, leading to some parts becoming warmer than they would otherwise be.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephan the CO2 is responsible for radiating much more heat to deep space than it absorbs by radiation from the surface because the CO2 (and the H20) are only about 33deg. cooler than the surface but about 255deg. warmer than deep space. You claim that what I have written is "irrelevant nonsense." is not justified by your "Blanket" argument. You are not remotely justified in deleting my contribution if this is the best you can manage, there is no valid comparison between the air circulation reduction of a blanket and heat transport to deep space by radiation. I ask you to reverse the deletion.

I thought you may have had a Thermal blanket in mind, a blanket that works by reflection of radiation but you don't mention it. --Damorbel (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you claim that the second law does not apply to convective energy transport? Actually, and what you fail to see, is that radiation of infrared by CO2 is undirected. Each individual CO2 molecule emits the photon into a random direction. It has no sensor to tell it to "aim at space". And the photons that are emitted downward do indeed warm the lower atmosphere and the ground. The second law is a statistical law. Why do you think it bolsters your case that CO2 also emits towards space? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, you say "Why do you think it bolsters your case that CO2 also emits towards space" Because gases (CO2, H2O etc.) in the atmosphere are a big contributors to cooling the planet, because they get heat from the O2 and N2 (that doesn't radiate) and add that to the radiation they absorb. You can see this radiation happening if you go to this site [8] where you can see the various radiation bands (IR & WV) emitting over the entire globe.

Stephan, in the light of what you put here, you really have a nerve to claim my contribution is "irrelevant nonsense. Misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics should be punishable by remedial science classes...)." This is simple abuse and very much to be deprecated in Wikipedia. I have given you plenty of chance to support what you say about me and you have't produced anything to justify your deletion. In my book you are very short of understanding the implication of my arguments, you don't seem to be able to support your own, don't you think your deletion was hasty and ill considered?--Damorbel (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, yes I have, and your inability to grasp this further confirms my point. I hate to resolve to argument by authority, but you do understand that the published scientific opinion is , right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephan you say "Do you claim that the second law does not apply to convective energy transport?" This may be a misunderstanding, but I don't think this. Could it be why you deleted my contribution?

"yes I have" As far as I know your only contribution has been to delete mine. "your inability to grasp this" Grasp what? That "I hate to resolve to argument by authority"? I would be a lot happier if you would give me some basis for this "authority" but you haven't. I have not seen it said Wikipedia is based on your authority. In the discussion on Global warming controversy article I pointed to a severe difficulty with the case for CO2 and other greenhouse gases warming the surface of the Earth because of heat flow questions. Now where is the authority that establishes that heat flows from the cold troposphere to the Earth's surface? Since something like this would breach most of the principles of thermodynamics and lead to perpetual motion possibilities, thus my contribution that you deleted has every right to appear in the discussion on the Global warming controversy article. Please, I ask you again to put it back.--Damorbel (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If, as you say, the second law applies to convective transport (we agree, hooray), then by the same (wrong) reasoning you apply to greenhouse gases ("the cold greenhouse gas cannot warm the warmer surface"), a blanket cannot work ("the colder blanket cannot warm the warmer human under it"). In both cases, your error can be either understood as the inability to grasp the difference between net and gross energy transfer (there is energy being transferred from a colder to a warmer body - it's just that the transfer in the opposite direction is larger) or as a misapplication of the second law to an open system (there is a constant inflow of energy into the system from the sun/body heat, and greenhouse gases/a blanket hinder the outflow). These views are equivalent - one is process-oriented, the other is high-level, but both refute your position. I have stated this several times. You do not seem to get it. I would like to convince you, as I always prefer understanding to non-understanding. But in the end I don't have to convince you. The weight of the published literature supporting my position. That is all Wikipedia requires. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What difference do you see "between net and gross energy transfer"? First of all is this your idea or do you have a reference? Because it forms no part of thermodynamics. To understand why the distinction doesn't exist, take two bodies at the same temperature, put them together - no heat flow. Take two bodies with different temperatures, put them together - now you have heat flow by conduction (from the hotter to the colder, according to Second law of thermodynamics. The same applies to radiative transfer, for the same temperature the two bodies produce an equal electromagnetic field so there is no energy transfer at all, no heat flow. It is closely analogous to connecting two batteries in parallel. I have seen this argument before but none have been able to explain how this supposed "gross energy transfer " proceeds without losses of some sort. Lossless energy transfer is firmly in the realm of perpetual motion.

Even if you had some sort of "net and gross energy transfer" effect, it still doesn't explain how heat is retained on the surface. On the greenhouse and blanket scale of things heat is retained locally by suppressing air motions such as convection and draughts; again common experience. But this does not transfer to the global scale.

Curiously it is the property of clouds to reflect radiation that causes cooling on the surface which, if clouds were to thicken on a global scale, would cause an ice age since it would move the convection base from the Earth's surface to the cloud's (upper) surface, letting the Earth underneath cool (common experience in England!). This would only happen over land, i.e. in the Northern Hemisphere, away from the tropics, the tropics would be warmer in consequence; this explains ice ages rather well. It is curious to note 1/ that ice ages only occur over land, 2/ they don't occur at the South pole. This is because local air convection is suppressed near the North pole but not the warm sea currents from the tropics.--Damorbel (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Damorbel: Don't feel so bad, since "real scientists" made the same mistake (in the upcoming article). The next couple of months should be very educational, as the comments start flying. Awickert (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to [9], I assume? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ja. (From my great German vocabulary!) Awickert (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

W:BITE

In Talk:Global warming#per country / per capita, I think I screwed up and I bit the newcomer in my first post (WP:BITE). What do you think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. He (or she) seems to be a robust character (to a degree that one might be tempted to call "obnoxious"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking for ways to make it better. ChyranandChloe (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

I have been asked to mediate the content dispute regarding Cold fusion. I have set up a separate page for this mediation here. You have been identified as one of the involved parties. Please read through the material I have presented there. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Effects of global warming

Hi Stephan. Please look at my edits on User:Polargeo/Positive_feedback_effects one by one. All of the points you raise, apart from the first one, are about things that I have not suggested to change but were there already in the article. I agree totally with all of your points but I think we need to take this on bit by bit and my suggested edits are a start of this process. Polargeo (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I'm quite busy right now, and hence cannot handle things that need more than cursory research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:3RR

(originally left at User_talk:Unconcerned) Please acquaint yourself with WP:3RR, our rule intended to limit edit warring. By my count, you have at least 5 reverts, 2 under your IP address, and 3 as a logged-in user, today. If you continue to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you may be blocked from further editing. Also note that the 3 reverts are not an entitlement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not be bullied into accepting yours and William M. Connolley's reverts without argument simply out of fear of being blocked. I do appreciate your efforts to provide the correct external reference. Cheers! --Unconcerned (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR is one of the few Wikipedia rules with teeth. I do not intend to bully you into anything, but every user should be aware of that rule. Giving a warning to a violator is standard operating procedure. Nothing personal... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy header

Stephan, hi, were did my edits go ? Did you find something factually incorrect with edit  ? The title of the page proclaims 1000 years of data on temperatures, then it proceeds to exclude what many would consider the most important...the last 5 years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 ? Hailtomaximus (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They went away. "Many" are irrelevant until you have reliable sources. 5 years are irrelevant to a 1000 year temperature record. If you don't believe me, replot the graph and see if you can even spot the difference. If you want your comments in, find reliable sources (and that means peer-reviewed scientific papers) that make the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying I need 5 sources to verify that the graph is out of date ? Or, that I need 5 sources to verify that its 2009 ? The graph goes to 2004 and stops there ... because if it continued through 2008, it would show the recent cooling trend. What I hear you saying is the most recent data is not relevant. Do you have 5 sources to verify that it is not relevant  ? . Hailtomaximus (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What you need is a reliable source that claims that that has any relevance for the temperature record of the last 1000 years. And you need more attention to detail. One of the graphs goes to 2008, and the other goes from 1000 to 2000, although most of the reconstructions stop a bit shy of 2000 - and by "a bit" I'm talking about 5-40 years. The reason is that the original papers covered slightly different periods. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The current year is 2009. The primary graph stops at 2004. The title of the page references 1000 years of temperature history. Then it proceeds to leave off the most current 4 years (of cooling) because it does not fit your agenda of promoting global warming at every chance. This is so dishonest. You hide behind requirements of 5 sources of peer reviewed everything, however, you ignore common sense.

Looks like you are right about 2004 - sorry. I must have had a older version in mind. The primary graph (assuming you are talking about the black instrumental temperature in File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png) seems to go to 2004 now, at least according to the legend. If you ever read the documentation on that page, the black line is a smoothed curve - similar to the red line in [:File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png]. And it's smoothed not to promote some agenda, but to show longer term trends and the make the plot readable - note that there are roughly 2 horizontal pixels per year, and the lines are several pixels wide. At the 1000 year resolution, you cannot resolve any 5 year period. The graph shows the last millennium because that is the scope of many of the studies visualized in the figure. The black line is there to illustrate how the actual record compares to the reconstructions - and latest of the reconstructions goes up to 1995.

Question. If you woke up tommorrow and the IPCC now said that Global Warming is over and we are in for 100 years of cooling. Would you be Happy... or Sad ? Hailtomaximus (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends. First, I don't take the IPCC's opinion as gospel - I do understand enough about the topic to know how and why we believe that climate changes at the moment. It's very hard to imagine a plausible mechanism that would result in a sudden reversal. If the IPCC came out with such a plausible mechanism (let's assume magic and witchcraft), my concern or relief would depend on the predicted speed of cooling and on the likely persistence and causes of it. See Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#What_is_the_optimal_temperature_of_the_earth_-_and_how_do_we_know_it.27s_not_6_degrees_warmer.3F. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Canal photo

Stephan,

Please have a look at the discussion about the canal photo on the James Hansen page (the photo's on the page, the discussion is on the Talk page). Francis Lima (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong opinion on the presence of the photo. I do have a strong opinion on vandalism, see [10]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendship

Regarding your review of WMC's debated blocking decision, I would only request that you put aside your friendship with the editor in question and have another look at the decision. The disscussion is here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:79.97.98.207_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_24h.29 Off2riorob (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

And to be honest, your comments here [[11]] and you edit summary where you refer to other editors as Whiners is not very helpful or respectful of you. (Off2riorob (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Hi Off2rorob! I stand by the decision. Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Your argument boils down to "but Betty was (nearly) as bad". But that's not an argument for unblocking 79, it's an argument for also blocking Betty. You are free to ask for yet another opinion - I'm fine with a third admin reviewing this. As for the "whiner" - I chose the word advisedly, because I felt a strong word was called for. Sorry, it was not intended to refer to you or other legitimate users who come with valid questions, but to a certain class of users who get blocked for clear 3RR violations and then bear a grudge and harass the blocking admin on every ever-so-remote occasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That is my case actually, that there has been unfairness, but I am not calling for an equality block of the other user. Thank for your chosen words, I respect and appreciate them (Off2riorob (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

The List

Hi Stephan, Do you have any good sources that show that scientists have not been able to get themselves off of Inhofe's list? There's a question about this on talk:Global warming. Awickert (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andy! Answered there... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Danke! Awickert (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified Climate Scientists

Hi Stephan,

What's wrong with adding the adjective 'unidentified' (or 'unnamed') to describe the climate scientists quoted by ABC news? If their names are in the referenced article, I stand corrected.Andonee (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Andonee

If either of the terms "unidentified" or "unnamed" occurs in the referenced article, I'd concede. But they don't. It's your personal framing, not a fair representation of the ABC article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So let's see, the article doesn't name the scientists but I can't say that they're unnamed? That's your logic? Nice. It's not my personal framing, the article does that all by itself by not naming the climate scientists. Saying that they're 'unnamed' is absolutey a fair representation of the ABC article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andonee (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Please see the article talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar

For all your hard work, have another barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the hard work and tireless contributions you have made to Wikipedia while maintaining a high standard of quality. Green451 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Green451 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll put it with the others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Selective collapsing

Even though your intention is to make "drama-free", and less "dramatic" in good faith, that looks like you're selectively choosing words without looking into them, and blocking rebuttals and word flows. The orange collapsing bars rather haul more attentions. I hope you to undo that. Thanks.--Caspian blue 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've captured independent sub-discussions only. Those, and their rebuttals, do not contribute to the topic at hand. You can still add comments into the collapsed sections, of course, or you can undo them yourself if you disagree that they are helpful. But please try to keep straying discussion under control. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Connolley publications

Hi Stephan. I was trying to make the Connolley article look less like a resume and more as a descriptive encyclopedia entry. I have slightly reworded the scientific activity section for brevity and, to be honest, still believe the publications section has no place in the article. What could be done instead is insert the relevant citations as references within the Scientific Activity section; that way the publications would help substantiate the verbiage there. I am sorry if I appear to conflict with WP:POINT but the way the article looked was a little corny. Any thoughts? --70.234.162.152 (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Skin color

Hi,

I am banned from contributing to the talk page on Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy so I will say it here. There is no evidence whatsoever to backup the claim that white skinned people can change into black people, without intermixing. It has never been documented to happen. And even if you found one or two examples, they pale in comparison to the default, that the people there are the people that looked like what their ancestors looked like at the time (barring invasions from outsiders). --Panehesy (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that all humans came out of Africa within the last few 10000 years, its obvious that skin colour can and has changed, and that that is indeed normal. But yes, I would assume that today's Egyptians are as good a guess for the ancient Egyptians than any, and better than most. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

this is true, but it is also completely beside the point. The point is that the insistence to conflate the two topics of human skin color and Egyptology is 100% WP:SYNTH pushed by a small number of racist editors on Wikipedia. I honestly do not understand why the community has shown so much patience with such blatant a case of pushing a racialist agenda on Wikipedia, but it seems that this patience is finally running out. --dab (𒁳) 10:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RfAr

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#William M. Connolley (2nd) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Abd (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome [12]. I expect some random misbehaviour from you now.

All my edits are acts of random misbehaviour! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that last does show your true colours William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've removed your name from the list of involved parties because I can't see how you're massively involved in the case. I suspect you didn't put your own name there, so hopefully you're okay with me doing that. Any problems, please don't hesitate to let me know. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for removing me from the case. As far as I'm concerned, that addition never made sense... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding File:Discussion_in_cold_fusion_with_comments_of_one_editor_highlighted.jpg. Wonnderful! William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Arrow range

Hello Stephan. None of the sources I provided specifically indicated that the missile to be test is an Arrow 3, I have read it here [13]but this source is both in Hebrew and amateur. I allready was referred to a possible misunderstanding I had, however, it doesn't seem to be the case from few reasons: 1.) previously the Arrow 2 system was tested against targets that simulated the ballistic course of missiles with a range significantly greater than 1000 km ("Black Ankor" reportedly a satellite interceptor with higher than 60 km flying altitude)[14], so there is nothing that can be new in this future test. 2.) Few monthes ago, Israeli retired general Yitzhak Ben Yisrael-deeply involved with the Israeli weaponery industry, was quoted saying that "Arrow missile has the ability to intercept ballistic missile over Iran" -there is no sense in such statment ufor a missile with a range of less than ~1000 km. However, on the other hand it seems that such a range is too far reaching and for now I cant use these sources to support a 1000 km range. Indeed, it sounds almost impossible to increase the range of a missile 11 fold without drastically change its basic design. We will have to wait until the test results published.--Gilisa (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gilisia! Keep in mind that a) this is a military test (meaning they don't necessary tell us everything in a press release) b) a simulated target is not a real target (and believe me, I know that!), and c) this test is also very much a political statement ("look, we're chums, we even test our weapons together") and as such the test itself may not necessarily have much technical value at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Stephan, I agree with you about a. As for b - It's not a virtual target that the Arrow should intercept but actually a missile, not an Iranian missile but still one with a very similar range and hence probably with a very similar trajectory. However, I don't have experience in intercepting real or simulated targets so it's just my speculation. Regarding c- military cooperation between Israel and USA is nothing new, espcially not when it comes to the Arrow project which is of great importance to the revived Stars War program. For instance, the THAAD is heavly based on the Arrow systems, even if there are few differences in the operational principles of these two intercepting missiles. If Israel and/or USA want to make a statement about their mutual commitment and against Iran, than they wouldn't do it by testing together a defensive system. I can tell you from what is published in my country that USA keep refusing to sell Israel new Boeing 747 tankers and other military equipment that can make it easier for Israel to launch a strike against Iran nuclear facilities. This is a much stronger statement, I think.--Gilisa (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationism

Your reverts of my edits

There are theists who accept both creationism and evolution though not Genesis.

As to the table, please explain why the sequence is changed.

Also I do not accept that there is no 100% line or that its presence is irrelevant. To my mind it is totally relevant. Thats what PER CENT means, and it is graphically misleading to present it in the way you do, especially as it makes it look like the lesser views seem to be more highly accepted than they really are. --Hauskalainen (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion about specific articles on the article talk page. I have already explained the plot issue there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Check your WP email. Just in case it's an account you don't regularly monitor (like mine). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

How do I keep from losing a revision while I'm engaged in a (currently seemingly pointless) debate about how the subject should be presented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhall318 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't revert, discuss first. Your text is safe in the history. And consider the option that you are wrong... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph as currently written implies that all national and international organizations have settled the matter for themselves; however, many have issued equivocal statements, and in a publicly released brief from a subcommittee, a dissenting opinion has appeared. And yet the paragraph seems to indicate that all national and international organizations express support...But perhaps I am wrong and we need to express only governmentally approved opinions so that we won't confuse anyone. I think I've wasted enough time I should be using to read Sabiston on trying to convince real believers that we perhaps should try to present the current situation with a little more equanimity.{subst:unsigned|Jeffhall318}}

See scientific opinion on global warming. A sub-committee is not an independent organization, and a sub-committee on geology is not particularly qualified to discuss climate science. Anyways, this discussion belongs to the article sub-page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...I somewhat resent such a blanket warning. If there are specific problems, please warn specific users. If there are problems with my comments, I'd like to know which problems and which comments are considered unacceptable. I stand by all of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been warning specific users, to little effect. This blanket warning is not intended to punish those who haven't been a problem, but more to let everyone know that action will be taken if need be. I don't have time at the moment to go through all the comments you've made, unfortunately, although I'm not recalling you to be one of the people we've had trouble with. I'll try to get back to you this evening on that. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate your effort, and I know that you have a group of fairly assertive clients in that particular case.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Global warming (PDF link)

Hi, I'm wondering if we are talking about the same thing. The link in question is: http://www.climatewise.org.uk/storage/610/financial_risks_of_climate_change.pdf and the error I get is the normal "Unable to connect Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.climatewise.org.uk.". Perhaps you are linking to the site locally rather than remotely because you are using a cached copy?—Ash (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I just clicked the link you provided here - and it enters fine into a PDF of 40 pages matching the description (in Firefox on Linux). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• No, I can indeed access the document directly over the internet. I can also ping the server, both by name and by its IP (65.39.205.54). It looks like you have local network trouble (I'm accessing it from Karlsruhe, Germany). Maybe you have trouble to connect to .org.uk addresses? Do you use a proxy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm accessing from London with no problems connecting to other sites, just http://www.climatewise.org.uk (tested now and still not connecting to anywhere on that site). I'm happy to drop the matter as a suspected temporary server problem. Can I suggest that an archive link is used in order to avoid any similar future problems? Just as an addition check I'm pinging the site but it's definitely not connecting. (Note, I can ping 65.39.205.54 and get a reply but cannot connect even when using the IP rather than the site name.) —Ash (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you have name server trouble. For me, www.climatewise.org.uk resoves to 65.39.205.54 from two independent name servers. It seems to be a virtual server, though - connecting to the IP gives a generic error message from the ISP. ClimateWise is an initiative of the UK insurance industry, hosted by Cambridge University and under the sponsorship of Charles (...of Wales). I would expect this site to be fairly stable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Rule 5 and m:DFTT. Even if it's fun sometimes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But my troll crop is growing so well this year... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Must be all that extra CO2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If SBHB is referring to this section, then I agree that DFTT is in order. Please don't respond negatively and please use caution when removing talk page posts. As you're probably aware from the Featured review for the Global Warming article and in other forums, editors have complained about the tone and nature of responses they often receive from the "regulars" at the Global Warming articles. Therefore, all of us, including me, should respond either helpfully to posts on the talk pages or not at all. As you can see, a productive discussion ensued from that comment, noting that India's and China's political responses to the Global Warming issue may need to be noted in the Global warming controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The original posting was a rant, and did not contain anything aimed at improving the article. It was rightfully removed per WP:FORUM, WP:TPG. The climate at talk:Global warming has improved immensely since we have started to enforce WP:TPG with at least minimal strictness. Moreover, the original source in the rant was useless, and the MacOL article it (eventually) could be traced to a) is a lot less radical and b) still not a particular RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

Re:this - in a case where it's that obvious, you should go ahead, block him, and revert all his edits. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Blocked now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: [15] - What is the "Duck Test"? Is there a definitive test here, or is this simply "if it looks like a duck, and it ..."? What, exactly, was the thing that made this user "look like a duck?" Has Raul (or anyone else) performed a checkuser on this user prior blocking them? --GoRight (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"If ir quacks like a duck...". Three users independently found that this was a Scibaby sock. That was enough for me, especially if one of them is Raul, who has a lot of experience hunting down Socks. There are also several good indicators that this is an abusive sock that I'd rather not discuss. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the block but given the small change of an error it might be worth always adding a block notice when you block. --BozMo talk 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that might be good. There is a sock-note on its user page, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fred Singer

Hi Stephan,

I'm not sure this edit was appropriate; both you and John G Miles could be considered to have been edit warring, and in this edit you undid his last edit right after the article was placed under full-protection... since you're an admin and he's not, this seems a bit unbalanced. Anyway, I'm not going to revert it because there should already be a discussion going on to determine what to do with this text, but I just wanted to caution you against doing anything that might lead good-faith editors to believe that WP admins are abusing their privileges. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought - but then i noticed the timing of the protection and Stephans revert. As far as i can see its very close to an edit-conflict. Perhaps a look in the edit history with a more fine-grained tool? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rjanag (and eced Kim). When I made that edit, the article was not protected. You can see that these changes happened in the same minute - when I started editing, the article was not protected, and neither when editing nor when saving did I get a warning about the change of status. Apparently (and technically obviously), simultaneous change of protection and of text is not an edit conflict. I agree that admins should not edit protected articles without good reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see; you're right, I guess the edit window hadn't turned pink yet. My mistake, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

f you have an edit loaded in a browser, it's not updated when the article is protected, and there is no warning to the editor that they are editing a protected article when they save it. --Abd (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation?

Yes, I read the paper. Here's what it says, "An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age." That edit didn't misrepresent the paper at all. Did you read it? Please restore the edit. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See discussion on the article talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at polar bear and its talk page? --TS 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Please don't soapbox. As an administrator you should know better, it's not very helpful. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why was that a soapbox edit? Would you like to spell it out cos it is not obvious. --BozMo talk 06:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What BozMo said. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That was soapboxing. Remember as far as we're concerned, we could care less who is "right" or "better" between Bush and Obama or anyone else. We just build our encyclopedia with neutral editing, which should included both sides of the issues as reported in the sources. If you are unable to put aside a POV or bias, it's better to stay away from the topic(s) in question. Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, your comment leaves out the most important part of NPOV: weight. WP does not consider "equal time" neutral. You are entirely correct in stating that we couldn't care less about who is "right" or "wrong" - but we do care about the overall weight of each side, so that "sides" can be represented in proportion to its overall impact in reliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What Kim said. Or, a bit less laconic: It's a fact, as far as I can tell, that there is a lot more reasonable (i.e. not talk radio shock jocks and their ilk) published criticism of Bush than of Obama. The reason for that is that Bush has made extremely controversial (and, I might add, outrageous) decisions over his 8 years, while Obama so far has avoided similar decisions - whether for better judgement or for lack of time more of the latter will show. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I find people who just repeat an assertion when asked for an explanation unsatisfactory. I do not see what soapbox your fairly matter of fact comment on the differences between these two guys makes. I asked for clarity on what part was soapbox. But hey, why don't they just repeat the assertion again? --BozMo talk 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "the fact that he got the US into pointless wars, threw out rights enshrined since the magna carta, and was impervious to any scientific advice." Those kind of comments do not help the collaborative atmosphere. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that bit. Ok well sorry on behalf of Stephan but I guess this is a US versus Europe thing. Objectively I can see this sounds like a POV but Bush is spoken about in such terms here by all commentators so (like Reagan perhaps) it sounds like a matter of accepted fact, not opinion. Presumably on reflection in the US people cannot all think of him that way because they voted for him, but I have never ever heard someone here speak up for him. I guess the same is true of many leaders who were loved at home. --BozMo talk 17:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

On a stretch, one might argue the pointlessness, but certainly not the wars. Habeas corpus apparently now is at the whim of the Commander in Chief. Stem cell research and action on climate change essentially stood still during Bush's term in office. Those are not matters of opinion, but simple facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are bashing your subject with the statement. Many Americans would disagree, and be offended by the comment. You should be more respectful of other's opinions, especially as an administrator. A level of professionalism is expected. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They are free to disagree. They are free to be offended, too. But there is no right not to be offended when interacting with other's opinions - that's a risk you have to bear in an open society. As for respecting other opinions, sure. But some things are not a matter of opinion, and I wont self-censor on important topics to avoid wounded feelings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You're simply not taking into account the opinions of other editors. This should be a collaborative environment, not a political debate. Keep your political stands to yourself, they do not contribute anything constructive to the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you expect to be respected when you act like that? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this warrants a reply? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rule 5, Stephan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Main point: Don't create a hostile environment on wikipedia. In regards to Boris' personal attack above, I will address the matter on his talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL!

Re your comment here [16] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad if I contribute to improving your life! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"indirectly". phew it looked pretty causal to me. --BozMo talk 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 1988

I put an alternate hook for the DYK nomination of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 1988. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to understand deletion

Why did you delete this entire thread [17]? It had been replied to by other editors, now including me. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been initiated by Scibaby sockpuppet, it's been deleted several times after the sock had been recognized, and it's been restored by a sock. I just rolled back that restoration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I would suggest noting that in the edit summaries. In my opinion, unless an edit is obviously vandalism, a personal attack, or BLP violation, it really doesn't matter if it was done by a banned editor or not. Cla68 (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I see your point, but for obvious block-evading socks I don't check individual edits but just use rollback - which does not provide more detailed edit summaries. If it "really does not matter" if an edit was done by a sock or a legitimate editor, what's the difference between a blocked and an unblocked editor? That said: Nearly all of Scibaby's edits are vandalism. They are carefully disguised and written to cause maximal waste of time, but I've yet to see a contribution that was not misleading and/or miss-reprepresenting the source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK Transport in Hamburg

Thank you. I thought the whole day and had no result. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes a problem needs to be seen from farther away. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agressive "Demote Pluto campaign" IS a kind of vandalism

by wikipedia NPOW policy. 'Benting facts' into POW degrades quality and trust in wikipedia, sticking to facts as they were serves this project and us best. GrzegorzWu (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The particular edit is not a kind of vandalism, but rather a good-faith edit. It's not even factually wrong - Plutonium was named after Pluto. Pluto is a dwarf planet. Arguably, one can argue that at the time of naming it was considered to be a planet, but whether that is relevant is a matter rational people can argue and differ about. Your edit, BTW, not only removed the Plutonium etymology, but also the correct description of Pluto the (dwarf) planet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Stephan, I hope you're well. Thanks for stepping in and ending the π thread on the reference desk. It had become very personal and that wasn't the place for such a discussion. I felt the need to defend myself, and so I did. But I'm glad that there was someone to pull us apart. Thanks again. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad that you two seem to have solved the difficulty soon afterwards. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#racist_vandalism

I responded at the linked thread. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the incident. Ignore the IP for now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby[2]

Hi Stephan, you really should not be taking it upon yourself to block Scibaby sockpuppets without first reporting them to WP:SPI. Aside from the possibility of blocking an innocent party, the powers-that-be are looking at such blocks with a jaundiced eye. Let's not provide an excuse for drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the wisdom of what you say, but I don't share it to the degree necessary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, just didn't want to give certain people an excuse to go after you. But you're a big boy and can decide for yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I have now passed the DYK  Francium12  16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Connolley bio page

Hi Stephan, we were discussing the possibility that Jimmy Wales is misquoted at William's biography page. I have asked Jimbo, and he agreed with me. I've left a note at the talk page. Someone without a COI such as myself should probably fix this up in the interests of being honest about what Wales said. I leave the matter to your good judgement. Best, Alex Harvey (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)