User talk:Stephan Schulz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Greetings

Hi all!

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

--Stephan Schulz

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

[edit] Creation Science

You did right on the "Flood Geology" page. While there are some intelligent, articulate "Creation Scientists", most of them are of the "Dr Dino" school of junk science and how everything in the Bible is literal (which would mean, I suppose, that Jesus of Nazareth thought that Herod Antipas was canid since he referred to him as "that fox"). Lots of things which is true "are said" don't belong in an article. Some Purdue students have been known to refer to Notre Dame students as "fish eaters", "bead stringers", and the "Pope's Pupils", but that certainly doesn't belong in an article about either school in an encyclopedia.
Thanks for attempting to bring a viewpoint from the mainstream scientific commuity to the "Flood Geology" page. For Wikipeida to remain credible, it has to reflect mainsteam scientific values. While I have no problem with people who have their "alternative theories," I do have problems with people who see their minority viewpoint as one that must gain instant credibility or be totally accepted by others, or even resent it ever being characterised as a minority, non-mainsteam viewpoint even though that is what it is. Rlquall 18:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I can, in fact, tolerate vast variety of beliefs. What I cannot stand are intellectual dishonesty and sheer stupidity. --Stephan Schulz 19:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fighting to keep the scientific opinions on flood geology fairly represented. I never have the patience for that kind of thing. --Laura Scudder | Talk 21:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] flood geology.

i understand, but i don't understand what relevence deep time has for the flood. the days of creation may have been millenia ... but the flood was still the flood. also, regarding the above, may i suggest that it is far more persuasive to provide evidence than to perpetually insult and malign? Ungtss 22:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Maori language

I take your point. However, it is counter-intutive to sail a canoe, even if it is technically correct. Arrived doesn't change the sense. I'm reverting again. Smoddy (t) (e) 16:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) (see also User talk:Ping

Hi Smoddy, no problem. I actually was triggered more by your comment than by the actual edit. Canoes do sail. Canoe sailing used to be an olympic discipline (I think it still is). Polynesian sailing canoes helped spread humans over 1/3rd of the world (by surface area, if not by dry land). Yes, the well-known American Indian canoes were paddled. But you can even buy sailing rigs as an add-on for many of the modern fiberglass/aluminium imitations...--Stephan Schulz 17:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Poinmt well taken. Just seemed counter-intuitive. I understand now (that's my something learned for today!) Smoddy (t) (e) 19:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voting Warschau/Warsaw

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] png format

Can you convert the Germany map to this format? I don't believe that I have the facility to do so. Others have raised objections to the .gif format. I only use it because it is a bit crisper than .jpg. Kelisi 18:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. See .
Both PNG and GIF are lossless formats, and nearly any graphics program will support both (typically you choose "Export" and then the format). PNG has been developed as a response to the Unisys patent on some parts of GIF (now expired) and has a number of advantages. JPEG is lossy, and not very good for hand-drawn and similar pictures - it is optimized for photographic images. --Stephan Schulz 10:28, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

"Do not archive ongoing discussion." - I'd hoped that anybody objecting to any specific section being archived would just move it back individually from the new archive (Talk:Global warming/Archive 3). If you disagree with the Talk:Global warming/General discussion subpage, please say so. A total revert of a quite time-consuming bit of tidying up, with the intention of focussing on the actual purpose of a Talk page (improving the article) is rather disappointing. Rd232 22:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Humm, I just noticed that you also removed all the active sections (and indeed, nearly everything). Talk:Global warming/General discussion now looks fine (was I supposed to find it? Your link here was the first I found), but the version I reverted was very different and very nearly empty. I think it's better to archive stale parts than to archive (nearly) everything and then ractivate parts - that breaks versioning. But maybe the system went berzerk? --Stephan Schulz 22:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what you saw, but the revised Talk:Global warming had the General discussion link at the top of the page, above the TOC, and the archive was added in the Archive section. I s'pose I should have made a new section "Hey I've moved stuff". As for versioning of active discussion - we don't need strict versioning of talk pages as we do of articles - as long as the content is all there and access to it is clear, that's enough. I would have thought moving any discussions considered active from the Archive to the main Talk or to General discussion would fix this perfectly well, and people involved are perfectly capable of doing this. I'm quite annoyed at losing my tidying up work, so please help fix it. Gruesse, Rd232 06:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was away/busy for a few days. I did not understand your idea of General Discussion - sorry. I took it for an alternative version of talk, not for an extra page. I think it's a very bad idea, moving the active parts to a new page. I don't want to do without versioning for talk pages. And the "general discussion" does indeed help improving the page. It helps build consensus and uncovers a lot of sources. So my approach to archiving would be to just take completely stale subsections and move them out, but not to do anything else. --Stephan Schulz 00:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Automated theorem proving page

Wow, you've really improved that page recently. It is starting to look more like an encyclopeda entry, and less like a few random facts. Nahaj 23:13:10, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm mostly sticking to incremental changes, as I don't have the time to really make it into what it could be.--Stephan Schulz 12:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I caught your comments about the recent edits to the page. I thought I'd come here and add some somewhat off topic comments. The phantom anonymous editor would lead you to believe that the only exhastive search of the proof space is breadth-first search. (A "fact" he needed for the argument he made in his second edit.) There are (very limited) areas of research when an attempt at an exhastive search over a (know small) section of the proof tree is an aid. Even in those cases, breadth first search is *STILL* not anybody's method of choice. My stuff for D-complete systems, for example, uses the rather simple minded "shortest first except for special patterns" algorithm, and can do dramaticly better than any breadth first search. My point (such as it is) is that I believe his statements to be wrong as well as not meeting any need. Nahaj 00:46:09, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

[edit] GW (again...)

Thanks for your help on GW. You may want to take a look at the history of Attribution of recent climate change too. Regards, William M. Connolley 22:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC).

Hi William. Thanks, I may take a look. But my time is limited - I mostly react when I find something weird on my watchlist.--Stephan Schulz 22:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

SS, don't be a mindless sycophant, become informed on the issues.--Silverback 22:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Silverback, thanks for the "compliment". I've been called some things, but this one is new. I do try to keep up with the science. I am a working scientist (although in automated theorem proving, not climatology), and I understand how the scientific community works. I also know how hard it is to read and understand scientific papers even in my own field. That's why I'm sceptical about your weird interpretations of recent papers. On your user page, you write "judge my posts on the merits, not credentials". I'm trying to, but I see little merit at least in your contributions to GW. --Stephan Schulz 22:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Automated theorem proving is a long way from replacing the Supreme Court, but maybe we will get there someday. On GW, I don't see how you can find WMCs OD statement, which is pretty much the same as what our solar section says, supportable. Qualifying the TAR statement which doesn't mention the solar activity is a minor issue, although I persue it as a matter of principle. I don't think we should worship the consensus and that page of the TAR is out of date, even if the statement extracted from the page did not go far enough to be wrong. Apologies about the "compliment", but you evidently did revert the page before you read the paper.--Silverback 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't quite see the conenction between ATP (which is about undeniable conclusions reached from unambiguous axioms in a well-defined logic) and the supreme court (which is mostly about weighting opinions based on a nice-but-unclear 200 year old piece of paper that was cobbled together as a compromise by a gang of querulous back-forrest revolutionaries - now why does that remind me of the GW discussion?). Back to GW: You say the consensus has moved. I think it has not moved significantly - it has been refined. We have a better understanding of many things now. But that does not change the basics. At the level of abstraction in an encyclopedic article, the difference between the TAR and the current state of the art is negligible. Oh, BTW, I did not revert before reading, I just could not get my edit to talk into the system because of permanent edit conflicts. --Stephan Schulz 23:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Legal reasoning may be far more intractable than theorem proving. I do think that some legal precedents spread like computer viruses and can be quite erosive. For instance, the right to a jury trial has been lost when the possible sentence is less than 6 months, and the reason is "efficiency of the courts". If that can excuse can overcome the supermajority requirements for amending the constitution and erode the constitution, it can erode anything. As for GW "consensus", I used that term because it seemed to be one that WMC understood. I really think the state of the science is represented by the latest peer reviewed literature, at least in the highly visible journals, i.e., as long as it hasn't tried to escape scrutiny in some backwater publication. For GW, given the multi-discipinary nature, there are probably a couple dozen journals, where if a significant result that moves from the IPCC summaries has been published, and it specifically discussed its work in perspective relative to those previous results and it hasn't been challenged within a couple years, then that is the state of the science. Part of that "better understanding of many things now", is how solar activity after 1950 that was not thought to be greater than that before 1950, is different enough when amplified by GHGs to account for a significant minority of the post 1950s warming. The Meehl paper investigates the contribution of the solar activity in improving the data fit over runs which only include the GHG increases. Stott goes further and actually puts numbers on the solar contribution. Frankly, you can't defend the statement that this doesn't make a difference at the level of abstraction (and I assume "generality") of this encyclopedic article, since the solar section makes statements similar to those that WMC made in the OD article that are just patently wrong. If the article can have incorrect statements on a subject, then correct ones on the same subject must also be relevant.--Silverback 03:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] printf vs. puts

It doesn't matter much, but if you don't think that puts is simplier than printf just compare the length of the resp. man pages. You should never use a function before reading it's documentation. ;-) -- Hokanomono 15:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, people have to learn printf() for any non-trivial program anyways. printf() + puts() is definitely more complex than puts()  ;-) Also see my reply on talk: C programming language --Stephan Schulz 16:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Admiral Hornblower's seniority

If we are going to extrapolate when fictional Hornblower would have raised his flag as an Admiral by looking at when real Captains raised their flags we need to bear in that promotion came more quickly during war time. The main reason was the needs of war required the promotion of lots of the more senior Captains in order to raise the most able to flag rank. Dozens of Captains more senior to Nelson were promoted, and yellowed, in order to raise Nelson. It is a minor point. Most readers wouldn't care. I tried to think of a real officer who was promoted to Captain around the same time as real Hornblower. I thought of a few, but they didn't live long enough to become an Admiral. -- Geo Swan 19:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. But the effect of yellowing, dying, resigning, and so on is limited - it can speed up promotion of a candidate, but it can never lead to someone with less seniority being promoted to admiral before someone with more seniority. For that, it needs something like a suspension from the list, or maybe an act of king or parliament. If they did not do this for Nelson, it's unlikely (but not impossible) that they did it for Hornblower. Very likely Forrester just messed it up ;-) --Stephan Schulz 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Connolley

No; British English adds a full stop when the abbreviation abbreviates by cutting of the word, not otherwise. Thus "Street" become "St.", but "Saint" becomes "St"; the same goes for "Mr", "Mrs", "Dr", etc. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, that surprises me. I'm certain that I learned Mr. and Mrs. from my (Scotish) English teacher. I was not certain about Dr., though. Thanks for pointing the rule out!--Stephan Schulz 22:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know either! Thanks Mel. William M. Connolley 08:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC).
It also seems to be a British English thing - Strunk and White has Jr. (even on the title page), Ph.D., etc., and Webster lists as rules (noting inconsistent usage):
  • A period follows most abbreviations that are formed by all but the first letters of a word (your rule)
  • A period follows most abbreviations that are formed by omitting letters from the middle of a word (which would cover Mr., Dr., etc.)
  • Normaly, no period for acronyms (NASA, EU,...)
Webster also lists Dr. explicitely (I've got the 1996 New Encyclopedic Dictionary). --Stephan Schulz 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA etc

Thanks for your comment over at the RFA. I'm not quite sure whats up with the arbcomm at the moment - probably overload - but they don't seem to be very talkative. William M. Connolley 22:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Climate change Arbitration re-opening request

There is a request, of which you are a party, to re-open the climate-change Arbitration case here. I thought that you might be interested to comment, or at least observe.

Yours sincerely,

James F. (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for letting me know (and thanks for the move to where it might do more good). --Stephan Schulz 11:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tenth Crusade

Regarding restoring the controversy bit, yes good call.

I'm not going to touch it now, but there are really a lot of issues there that should be covered:

  1. Does Bush think of it as a crusade? (Some evidence he does.)
  2. Do the Muslims think of it as a crusade? (Pretty clearly, many do.)
  3. Regardless of the above two questions, is it actually useful to look at it in terms of a crusade? Are there more similarities than differences? Does it fit the model of a crusade? If it does, does that help us understand any of it any better?

A lot of work needed, probably something that can't really be done objectively for about 10 years, once we have a bit of distance from it, or perhaps 30 or 40, when the archives open on this stuff.

But interesting.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ben, that's why we settled for a description only approach in the previous rounds of discussion, and cut out all the evaluation and the "some say this, some say that" pseudo-NPOVing. I think this is the right thing to do in this case. --Stephan Schulz 12:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V citations

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Hi SEWilco, thanks for the notification. I've seen the poll and think it is somewhat flawed (for example, it presents wrong dichtonomies). I'm also not certain if another global policy is a good thing for Wikipedia - even if it in theory improves articles, it might affect the community negatively. If I find enough time to think about this, I'll enter my comments on the poll (don't count on it - I'm in the process of moving, so I have two flats and a new job at the moment). --Stephan Schulz 08:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you (SS) for getting this case re-opened. I was a bit dubious (privately) as to whether this was the best thing to do, but it seems to have worked out. William M. Connolley 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC).
Thanks to all involved. Actually, when I started this I did not expect it into a full-blown case. But anyways, I'm reasonably happy with the outcome. William, congrats to your 3 extra days of free reverts ;-). Merry whatever you celebrate and a good new period of however you measure longish periods of time! --Stephan Schulz 23:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "broken bot"

His bot isn't broken, he is broken. See the comment I left on his talk page, just above yours. He went through blindly reverting all of my disambiguation link fixes from yesterday. I'm in the process of fixing them, as well as getting outside observers. Search4Lancer 19:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It sure looks like that. I think that bots run by anonymous users are problematic anyways...--Stephan Schulz 20:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEW

Hi. Just wanted to say that DF pointed out to me the latest SEW stuff: User_talk:William_M._Connolley#SEWilco_2. See my comments there... the bottom line is that Im not going to comment "officially" unless I really have to. William M. Connolley 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi William! Probably a wise decision. --Stephan Schulz 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SEWilco's RfAr

Guten Abend, Stephan. Wie geht es Ihnen?

Bad, if I'm addressed in third person singular. I'm not that old... ;-)

On SEWilco's RfAr, you said "See WP:ANI, where the discussion seems to take place." You're quite right, and it occurs to me that our discussion is probably out of place there. I'm replacing all that text with a pointer to the objections, but I don't want to step on your toes here. If you think it's a bad idea, that's fine; I'm just trying to tidy things up a bit.

Tschuss, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite ok with me. Thanks for informing me.--Stephan Schulz 01:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Stephan. Thanks for your vote in the RFA, and also for your support during the voting. William M. Connolley 20:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

It's a pleasure! Congrats! --Stephan Schulz 21:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aetherolombotomry or whatever it is

I've blocked our friend whatsisname TTsomething for violating 3RR and personal attacks. There's no point weasling about whether a peer-reviewed journal is "mainstream" or not; it is implied in peer-review. NPOV does not mean compromising between a rational position and a stupid one. — Dunc|☺ 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I can see the problem that "peer-reviewed" has a well-defined meaning in scientific circles, but is open to misinterpretation. Anyways, I'm happy enough with your version. --Stephan Schulz 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gdansk vote redux

I recall that you were one of the architects of the Gdansk vote. Please comment on the interpretation of the vote expounded by Space Cadet on Talk:Simon Dach. Thanks for your time, Ghirla | talk 14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ghirla, I think you misrecall. I voted there, and maybe left a comment or two, but I had nothing to do with the setup or format of the vote. Anyways, I'll take a look. --Stephan Schulz 15:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing, Account

Hallo, besten Dank, but actually I don't want to edit - Wikipedia is just filled with too much oneside POV. MG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.39.36 (talk • contribs).

Well, you do anyways. No reason to deprive you of useful tools.--Stephan Schulz 21:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's been a long time since I wrote on that article. I agree with your sentiment in principle, but I don't know if this solicitation is the right way to do it. I may take a look, but I don't have the time to be a regular contributor in a topic I don't have first-hand knowledge or very much expertise.--Stephan Schulz 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German grammar question....

Hi, this is an Einstein/Licorne question..... debate distatsteful enough that you don't want to get involved.... Licorne's been quoting the phrase "meiner theorie" as if it was proof that Hilbert claimed ownership to General Relativity. I'm a de-1 speaker, so what bothered me wasn't completely obvious... The sentence he's quoting from is "Einstein kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück.", and he picks on "meiner theorie" as if it reads "my theory". However, my weak grammar sense of German says that "meiner" is a grammatical form (of which I've forgotten the name) that is used when talking about a property of the thing, not the entire thing - that Licorne's abbreviated quote, "Einstein kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu meiner Theorie zurück.", is not only wrong, but ungrammatical. Care to help pase? --Alvestrand 06:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, I cannot help you. "Meiner" in "meiner Theorie" is the female Genetiv of "meine" and indeed translates into "my theory". Of course Licorne's permanent repetition of the quote should, by normal usage rules, be converted to Nominativ if required in the quoting sentence ("meine Theorie"). But as a literal quote, it is at least factually correct. However, as usual, Licorne ignores the context. The full journal edition is online at [1] (then click to the paper). Hilbert writes in full: "Indes sowohl Weyl gibt späthin seinem Entwicklungsgange eine solche Wendung, daß er auf die von mir aufgestellten Gleichungen ebenfalls gelangt, und andererseits auch Einstein, obwohl wiederholt von abweichenden und unter sich verschiedenen Ansätzen ausgehend, keht schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück." This could be interpreted as a priority claim (which would still be only Hilbert's, and not a truth). However, if you look two only two sentences up, you will find: "Die gewaltigen Problemstellungen und Gedankenbildungen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie von Einstein finden nun, wie ich in meiner ersten Mitteilung aufgeführt habe, auf dem von Mie betretenem Wege ihren einfachsten und natürlichsten Ausdruck, und zugleich in formaler Hinsicht eine systematische Ergänzung und Abrundung." (emphasis by me). The emphasized part translates to Einstein's general Theory of Relativity, and is unambiguously assigning the theory to Einstein. Hilbert does not claim priority. He may or may not claim priority on the final form of the field equations ("meine Theorie" could also mean "the theorie I am presenting here" or something similar), but he recognizes them as only the final, inevitable step, while Einstein did the important conceptual work. But, as I wrote: Who cares about Hilbert's opinion. He is only a dead German...--Stephan Schulz 08:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Knowing that I can't make that argument is also a great help! (Online version added to the references section of the "disputes" article) --Alvestrand 09:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licorne

I moved the comment per your suggestion. I do mean what I wrote, though, as a form of the most fundamental "testimony" of all -- I'm testifying with my feet: I'm leaving as a writer and editor until he's gone. Plus I think that Licorne may be dangerous (whatever "Licorne" may be -- we are assuming "he" is one person with no "organization" behind "him", just a "free lance" or "loose cannon", as it were) . I've been around long enough to know bad when I see it.

This is reflecting bad on Wikipedia: Wikipedia has to grow some cajones and do something soonest to remove Licorne's vileness. I cannot believe that Wikipedia has tolerated this sort of menace as long as they have. wvbaileyWvbailey 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has millions of users. Of course there will be some assholes among them. We also assume good faith as a policy, so they can often run wild for a while. But Licorne is banned, and I do expect this ban to become permanent. Also, that page I linked to as evidence is not visible for a casual browser anymore. So the mechanisms are working, if slowly. I don't think this reflects badly on Wikipedia at all. Any large collection of people will experience similar situations. If people start cheering him on, then is the time to walk out. --Stephan Schulz 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

HA! Thanks! ;-) Netscott 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! ;-) --Stephan Schulz 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, did you actually follow any of the links for that user page? And if you did... any comments? That's a new move on my User page... and I'm curious to know what others think. Thanks again! ;-) Netscott 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I did, but I did only glance at the linked text. I'm a computer scientist, so I split hairs for a living. I don't need to watch others split them on Wikipedia ;-). --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paternoster

Please see Talk:Paternoster. All the best, <KF> 23:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knuth-Bendix completion algorithm

Nice example on the talk page. And nice that you were willing to spend the time to answer his question that well. Nahaj 01:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I had hoped to improve that page for a long time, but a) have no time and b) was reluctant to throw away all that was there. Maybe now we'll get someting better...--Stephan Schulz 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werner Herzog

Good Job!--Staple 02:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope so...there is still the father, though. Let's see what happens. --Stephan Schulz 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The strange thing is, I think he's probably telling the truth. A Salvatore Basile does have a smallish part and assistant director credits in Cobra Verde--and a fairly long acting and producing career, mostly in South American cinema and television. Its hard to believe that someone would just pretend to be some obscure actor (although he might not be so obscure in colombia...)just to argue over herzog's ethnicity....but then again, its hard to imagine a professional actor and director caring enough to come back and change the info every day.--Staple 19:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Germans did not really distinguish between all the different people in (former) Yugoslavia. We had a lot of "Yugoslav" restaurants, went to "Yugoslavia" for holidays, drank "Yugoslavian" wine, and so on. I still find this conflict hard to understand and totally pointless - as far as I can tell, it took them half a year just to figure out who belonged to which team. Anyways, I'd be happy with just documenting the lack of hard sources ("father from Yugoslavia"). I'm certain Herzog wouldn't mind. I'm far less certain that Herzog actually knows the Ethnicity of his father... --Stephan Schulz 19:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. But communist unification was just a blip on the historical radar of this conflict. It's been going on so long I doubt we'll convice anyone to change their minds. It's interesting how global animosities bleed over into the world of Wikipedia. I bet if you look at the webpage for any troubled area, you'll find an edit war. Maybe in the future rival factions will just revert each other's information instead of spraying each other with Kalashnikovs.--Staple 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

But there had been a unified Yugoslav state since 1918, and a "Yugoslavia" (albeit with serious internal strain) since 1929. I suspect that what caused a lot of the present animosity was the Nazi occupation and the Nazi strategy of playing different groups against each other. Anyways, we probably cannot immediately change the situation, so let's make the best of it.--Stephan Schulz 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colours & albedos

Stephan, Following you recent comment on albedo/colours (Pluto) I wondered if you could comment / give me some advice how to improve the renderings on my different diagrams. I’ve struggled how to render the diverse albedos and colour indices on different diagrams trying to balance the visibility and ‘credibility’ of colours. As example, as you know the broad spectrum colour indices do not translate into a unique RGB. Also, translating linearly albedo into brightness makes dim objects almost invisible, given the range of albedos, so after some tests, I’ve settled on a logarithmic function. In addition, some data are missing or not directly comparable, and of course, my software has still bugs. While the modest ambition of these diagrams (e.g. TNO.colours, centaurs.colours) is to ‘give a rough idea’, they are a bit more that an artist’s vision, as they are based on the best data I could find. I would be very grateful if you could comment in more details or could give me some technical advice. Thank you. Eurocommuter 10:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on imaging as all. I had the impression that the second image was more technical (saturation corresponding to albedo), while the first series looked inded a bit like (processed) photos or artists impression scaled only for size. I like both, byt the way, and think they are quite effective in the article.--Stephan Schulz 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that’s right. The first is just built from NASA pictures I’ve put into the same frame to go with (somebody else’s) text in the article enumerating the moons bigger than Pluto. The second is really ‘mine,’ entirely based on the data from different sources for albedo, colour indices and size on and my n-th attempt to model them without offending the common sense. The first time I went for a ‘simple’ model and received (very rightly) no, it sure cannot be such a hellish hue comments. The biggest problem is Pluto; people got used to NASA’s cheerfully yellow ‘natural’ colour. No reader seems to think about such details like the amount of Sun light available at this distance or the size in pixels of the original HST image given the camera resolution! After that, try to image Pluto as a dark, dim brown. Of course, if New Horizons probe sends sun-flower images I promise to eat my source code. Thanks for your note. Eurocommuter 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:POINT on Germany

Sorry about that. The German Wikipedians are innocent. I shouldn't mess up the article about their country. :-) - Alan 22:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But the argument essentially holds for all (or at least very nearly all) the other articles, as well. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard image

Thank you for notifying me; I've already updated the image --TBC☆O M G! 02:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, very good! --Stephan Schulz 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Why aren't you an admin, anyway? Then you could smite the ungodly yourself. Do you want nominating? William M. Connolley 21:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, but I'm not in a hurry. My edit count is about to hit 1500, which seemed like a reasonable number to go up for admin. Notice, however, that I'm not particularly strong on smiting...I think its generally overrated ;-) --Stephan Schulz 22:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, a few more edits would be good. And a desire to smite :-))) William M. Connolley 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Na...smiting is fine for Cusaders. I'm more a mixture of Judge and Rebel. I dissect them with my superior intellect, all for the cause of good ;-). BTW, this is number 1496. You might enjoy 1495. --Stephan Schulz 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Christian Goldbach
Semi-Linear Resolution
Georg Daniel Schultz
Martin Davis
Karpacz
Raynold Curicke
German Eastern Marches Society
Delayed clause construction
Daniel Chodowiecki
Bernhard von Reesen
Isabelle theorem prover
Gandalf theorem prover
Anthropogenic climate change
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Formal verification
Climate commitment studies
Clontarf, Dublin
Proof procedure
Deutsche Volksunion
Cleanup
Logic in computer science
Cult classic
Lebensraum
Merge
United Nations Climate Change Conference
Goldstone's theorem
Centre Against Expulsions
Add Sources
Homeopathic proving
Scientist joke
Dini test
Wikify
Aaron Brown
Algoma University College
Minas de Oro
Expand
Bytom
Emergent algorithm
Moa

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hi Stephan, thanks for your note. I didn't have you in mind when I said a couple of people appeared to want to start trouble. My point was simply that it's a straw poll designed to guage what the parameters are. There's no need for oppose "votes," negative comments, hysteria, aggression. No need at all. But we always see reactions like this from one or two around these proposals; some people enjoy trying to turning things into a circus. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think we found a nice compromise now, too (indenting "oppose"s so they don't mess up the automatic numbering, but are still around). I have to say I got into this discussion at all primarily because I was a bit unhappy with a full-blown poll at what for me looked like the very start of the discussion. Have a great weekend! --Stephan Schulz 12:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grüezi

Thanks for the advice. The trouble is with personal case studies is that they become, well, personal. However, I am still sorting out my approach. It takes a while to "learn all the rules". Wallie 20:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Stay around a bit, and you will come to value the Wiki approach. It's no perfect (what is?), but look at what it has achieved up to now...--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I am a pretty tough bird. I am just trying to help improve it further, as should we all. This is the sort of thing I was refering to. [2] Wallie 20:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EWS23's RfA

Hello Stephan! Thank you very much for your support of my request for adminship. I hope that the new tools will make me as effective as you thought I could be, and that I will continue to remain "level-headed" now that I have the mop. Thanks again, and if you ever see something that I could be doing better, feel free to leave me a message. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page Revert

Heh, it was no problem. Thanks for keeping Guillen in line, at that =) - Saaber 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Is Saaber your preferred form of address? --Stephan Schulz 17:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

You took out the reference to The Hype about Hydrogen, but that book argues, among other things, that Hydrogen is not feasiblie as a technology useful in slowing global warming. So I think it is relevant to the entry? Since you deleted it, I'll leave the matter to you, but it seems relevant to me. --Ssilvers 23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers! The global warming page deals primarily with the science of global warming. Hydrogen has no connection to that. Using Hydrogen as a portable replacement for fossil fuel may help reducing CO2 emissions if it is generated without fossil fuel use. But that connection is at least two steps removed from the issue of this article. We have a seperate article on mitigation of global warming. Your source might be a better fit there. --Stephan Schulz 00:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks, Stephan. --Ssilvers 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Errr... welcome! William M. Connolley 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Tanned, increased muscle mass, minimally decreased waistline (still plenty to go ;-) - beach volleyball and swimming are good for you! --Stephan Schulz 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

E-Bod has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

I Just Love your Edit Summary (The universe is a tad older than 13.7 years ;-))

You just made my day. Congradulations.--E-Bod 01:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It improves my day ;-). --Stephan Schulz 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary for policymakers

Just a request for you look look at recent edits to Summary for policymakers William M. Connolley 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I find the article to be a) misnamed (there are more than just IPCC reports that are sumarized) and b) superfluous (whatever needs saying should go into IPCC). --Stephan Schulz 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... could be. As originally created [3] it was just a stub so I could type SPM in... maybe merge/redirect? William M. Connolley 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nitpick

on Talk:Global warming, did you mean "it criticizes", rather than "I criticizes"?  :-) bikeable (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it should have been "He criticizes" (and is, now). --Stephan Schulz 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] global warming

Many thanks for your message. Unfortunately I saw it too late, but actually the quote (as properly quoted, not as originally misquoted) is quite informative, and this is what I've picked up on. You'll see my edit to the article, and my followup comment on talk. I'll leave others to do with it as they see best. Feel free to change anything I wrote that doesn't fit in well with the article. Arbitrary username 22:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey Stick - neutrality

Dear Stephan,

I am not sure whether you understand that the blog RealClimate.ORG was established by Michael Mann et al. with the primary goal to promote their work on the climate, especially Michael Mann's work on the temperature reconstructions. The recent NAS panel's report rejected a significant portion of their statements and confirmed all criticisms originally made by McIntyre and McKitrick I can think of.

It would be a striking clash of interests if an interpretation by an "expert" from RealClimate.ORG were taken as a starting point for (mis)interpretations of the NAS report. Is the report so unclear that you need a third party anyway? Why don't you look at the summary and/or listen to the press conference? [4]

All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate the kind words. I just want to see the article improved. RonCram 21:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blinded

Thanks for helping me find some balance. I can distinguish bias from neutrality when I read it; that doesn't mean I can always write in an unbiased way. Think of me as an art critic who can't paint, or a sports commentator who can't do figure skating. :-) --Wing Nut 13:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. In time, I can find some more balance for you ;-) --Stephan Schulz 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

...for all your good contributions to Global warming, and for the phrase "I sometimes even travel to the big room with the blue roof." which is priceless. Keep up your good work. --Guinnog 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could claim that phrase as my own, but I probably stole it off the net. Anyways, thanks for your good opinion! --Stephan Schulz 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Global Warming Controversy

Questions about my adding *The Real 'Inconvenient Truth' at JunkScience.com to the list of Science References; 1. Have you read that page at the link? 2. Do you think the information on that page at the link has value as part of the Global Warming Controversy? 3. If it's worthwile as a link on the Global Warming Controversy page, where should it go? 4. If not there, is there someplace elses you believe it could be appropriate? Sln3412 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JunkScience is not a useful source for any information. The page you linked to is less obvious than most, but has enough misinformation and spin to make it useless. We do have a large number of excellent real sources, from primary research papers to the integration reports by the IPCC, the US NAS, and other organizations. So we do not have to rely on any sources from a well-known spinhouse. --Stephan Schulz 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, okay. I happen to agree with a lot on that particular page, and a lot of the graphs from NCDC or IPCC data, regardless of who's paying for the site, and/or if the rest of the site is junk or not. But if you think it's biased too much, or not needed, it's cool. Thanks Sln3412 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to The National Academies

Question: Where if anywhere would you believe a link to The National Academies National Research Council's "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" publication should go? I did not see one anywhere on the Global Warming-related pages. *Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 Years Sln3412 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That actually is a useful report with some weight. I would suggest to put it at temperature record, as this is only a minor topic on global warming, which is countinously overload anyways. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Will do, thanks!

[edit] 400Kyr talk

I am unsure what I started, Image_talk:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png but might you look into that? I don't know if I should mark that NPOV or not, or if I should drop it and let the others come to some conclusion. Sln3412 17:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear about what you ask me. DF has give a rather good description of the situation as far as I can tell. --Stephan Schulz
I think it's a little lopsided to claim "Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1800, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere" or at least to point it out in a graph/caption. Plus I'm not sure anything's showing that burning fossil fuels has specifically caused this rise in CO2. I'm not aware of any data proving cause/effect. It also looks to me like around half that rise in CO2 has only been since the 1950s, and that warming's only spiked since 1900ish. Although I might be interpreting that data incorrectly. Historically, I'm also under the impression that we're looking at the Industrial Revolution as running from either 1780-1840 or 1760-1830, that's a rather wide "circa". Or are we talking about the Second Industrial Revolution, from 1870-1915 or a combination of both? Sln3412 23:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
We know very well that the dramatic increase in CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels. Not only is the order of magnitude correct, what is much more significant is that the isotope ratio of the carbon in atmospheric CO2 has changed in a way that is entirely compatible with the burning of fossil fuels (fossil carbon has much less C14 than carbon from the biosphere, and, if I remember correctly, the C12/C13 ratio is also different). I don't think this fact is disputed by anybody, not even JunkScience or Crichton. The industrial revolution is what started the wide-scale use of fossil fuel, and that is where the massive anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 started as well. Yes, this is not an overnight process, so having an imprecise date is fine.
Secondly, CO2 and warming are two different things. For one, warming lags any imbalance created, because Earth and especially the oceans have a very high termal intertia. If you put a kettle on the stove, the water will not boil right away. For another thing, other effects also affect the climate. A biggy here are the sulphate aerosols (the stuff that caused acid rain). We put out a lot of them during the middle of the 20th century. They have a strong cooling influence on the climate and have masked the warming effect for a while. But a) we've cleaned them up and b) we've continued adding CO2 to the atmosphere (CO2 essentially accumulates over long times, while suphates have a rather short atmospheric lifetime). --Stephan Schulz 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If we start using hydrogen fuel cells as a power source, and the exhaust is pure water, will that increase humidity levels so much we create a positive feedback loop that raises the sea levels 20 feet in the next hundred years?
No, because water vapour is in a dynamic equilibrum in the atmosphere (thanks in no small part to all these open oceans covering 70% of the planet).
How about the increase in population being the primary reason for higher CO2 levels? More Sun? Less Sun? Earth's angle or wobble? God? Computers? My point is that there's too much conjecture, with models that right now are lacking.
Actually, you are confusing your lack of knowledge with the state of the science. See above for the isotope ratio that is one very strong piece of evidence that tells us where the extra CO2 is coming from.
And that we can spend the money in better ways regardless of the answers.
And that is a total non-sequitur. Are you trying to say "If we understand the science better, we might make worse decisions (because the public is stupid or something?), so we should obscure the science to make better decisions?". That's a morally bankrupt position in my eyes.
Be that as it may, thus is not some closed-loop system where we can directly attribute cause a to effect b. I don't disagree that humans affect the Earth, nor do I disagree that burning fossil fuels adds to polution and to CO2. And I don't disagree that temperatures have risen as an average, as we're measuring them directly now. A graph that states directly this causes that is not exactly balance, not given this subject!
The graph states that the industrial revolution with its reliance on fossil energy has led to increased CO2 levels. That is a fact, and undisputed by anybody with a rudimentary understanding of the issue.
I just don't see any long-term overwhelming scientific evidence that humans adding to CO2 by breathing is any better or worse than plants adding to O by breathing, or that we can measure anything directly and compare it to proxy readings either.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. CO2 is CO2. But CO2 from breathing contains carbon that has recently been fixed by photosynthesis. All the carbon we breathe out (and give off when we decompose) as CO2 has been extracted from the atmosphere by plants a short time ago (for breathing, that will typically be a few months). It does not change the overall balance of gases in the atmosphere.
We simply can't tell right now because the time periods are far too short, and the variables far too many. It really doesn't matter; neither you nor I are going to majorly affect the debate on any of the levels needed to solve this particular problem or non-problem. --Sln3412 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, you confuse your understanding with the state of the art. And I will do my best to affect the debate, wether in the small or in the large. The more people understand science and how to distinguish science from pseudo-science and propaganda masking as science), the more satsified I will be.--Stephan Schulz 10:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think the fact that the CO2 we've produced is in the atmosphere (I agree, of course it is) can't be equated to answering why the Earth is keeping it in these quantities. All the other noise just, to me, complicates the issue. A seemingly political and policy issue more than anything. And I'm not saying we shouldn't spend the money or obfuscate anything (or even wait for more research or more falsifying of theories). I'm saying that given limited budgets, and a lack of cooperation on many levels, the money is best spent on things that will have some sort of large, measurable, immediate effect on the problems and possible problems that face us as humans, of which global warming is one. Is it wrong correlate the data to give global warming less weight as a pressing issue, or to doubt much can be done about it, or to think this is more of a political and policy issue? I just don't draw the same conclusions you do. But I don't attribute it to some conspiracy or anything. Just that this subject is so emotional in so many ways, and that the discussion mixes too many subjects into one big mess. Thanks. --Sln3412 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Earth is keeping it because it has no way to go ;-). Earth is keeping it in the atmosphere (for the time being) because the geological processes that can sequester it work on really long time scales. Read carbon cycle (and understand that carbon is neither created nor destroyed in these processes - it just moves between different reservoirs). The biosphere is a carbon reservoir, CO2 (and methane) the atmosphere is one, carbonic rock is a major one, fossil fuels are one, and the oceans are one. To remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the carbon needs to go somewhere else. The oceans take up some (and get more acidic from carbonic acid, i.e. CO2 in solution), but only until a balance between acidity an atmospheric CO2 is reached. The biosphere cannot grow significantly, as it depends on sunlight and other nutrients. And the creation of fossil fuels and other carbon-containing geological formations takes geological time periods (i.e. really long ;-). We do know a lot of stuff about these processes. --Stephan Schulz 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(Indent fix.) We do indeed know a lot about the processes, and that's in a way my point on it all, this all happens on such a long timeline that it's difficult to see "the forest for the trees" as to exactly what's happening right now in this short timeline. CO2 does need to go someplace, but I don't think anyone would say we totally understand all the climate mechanisms in the first place much less how they interact. This is a lot of variables. While it might be a good probability that we are producing CO2 too rapidly for the Earth to be able to adjust to it all, which might lead to warming, and while there might be a way to prove it, I can't see us proving so in a few years or decades or centuries.

Earth is adjusting fine. It's way of doing so is increasing atmospheric TCO2 and as a consequence heating up. This causes problems for is, of course. As far as "proving" is concerned: There is no strict proof outside of mathematics. Science does not offer "proofs", only in models and explanations. But as far as the common sense notion of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" is concerned, yes, we have proven that anthropgenic CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere.
I don't deny it's accumulating and that we caused what's accumulating. There seems to be a step missing. And a few other problems. I think we've already been disagreeing on most of those.

If we assume that reducing CO2 production will reduce atmospheric (or oceanic) levels, that's fine, it's not unreasonable. Nor is attributing 'production = levels' unreasonable.

Actually, it is. Since CO2 has a long atmospheric life time, it accumulates over time. So the level is a function of previous emisssions. Reducing emissions helps us to decrease the speed by which CO2 accumulates. To actually reduce CO2 levels, we would need very drastic reductions in emissions (and it would still only decrease slowly, with probably many 10000 years to return to pre-industrial levels).
I hope I live another 50 years so I can see what everything actually does. After that, it won't matter to me any more!  ;)

But not unreasonable doesn't mean true. I'm just saying we can't really prove it by experiment, and the only way of proving that reducing production will cause lower levels is to do it, which we haven't.

You cannot prove anything by experiment. It's always possible that the aliens that control the simulation we take for the universe change a parameter. Or that God or the Pink Unicorn decide to fudge the experiment or to change a law of nature. Experiments help us to form hypotheses and to validate theories, not to "prove" them.
I'm more fond of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But anyway, the best experiments control as many variables as possible, no? Depends on what kind of proof you're looking for. If I put water where it's 30F it freezes, that's my kinda proof. And it makes beer good, too.

I'm not sure we even can, given the social, political, economic, emotional and organizational involvement in it all.

That's quite possible. But it does not affect the validity of the science. There are two totally different questions here: "What is going on?" and "What should we do about it?". While the second depends on the answers to the first, the first one is totally independent from the second.--Stephan Schulz 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. My answers are different than yours on that though: The first is "the average temperature of the Earth is increasing". The second is "nothing". But I totally agree with that statement you made. Well, except maybe a question in between the two, what CAN we do about it. --Sln3412 22:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm going to deny that the Earth is getting warmer on average, nor that we aren't affecting it. I'd hope others wouldn't deny there are a lot of factors going on here; that we don't totally understand all the patterns in the now.

"Total understanding" is not in the realm of science. Try meditation or LSD. Science offers us good models. And our models of the climate are plenty good enough to understand that adding CO2 to the atmosphere leads to an increase in temperature.
Ah, I should rephrase. I don't think we understand the paterns well enough yet to make the claim, but that we will understand them better in the future to be able to do so, whenever that future is. Obviously, you don't agree with me on what "well enough" is. Fair enough.

Just because I or anyone draws different conclusions from the data (or offer up ideas that are marginal, just as ideas) doesn't mean that we don't understand the basic process. Just sometimes the conclusions drawn from them, or how we can affect them positivly are not understood (by anyone at times). This isn't a matter of science, per se. Me, I'm not on anyone's side. My interpretation of the data is just mine, and I think this is too large to be some sort of odd non-falsifiable conspiracy. It mainly looks like big organizations fighting a mostly PR battle. Clearly, though, we are impacting the environment all the time. It certainly seems there is a correlation between burning fuels and more CO2 in the air.

It not only seems so so, it is so (for fossil carbon-based fuels, of course). No discussion.
I disagree with the cause/effect analysis. Nothing to discuss, yes.

It does look like there are ways of removing (letting go, neutralizing, absorbing) it that may not be good. As in, getting rid of nuclear waste. Perhaps technology will make it better. Perhaps technology will destroy us all.

I don't get this part.
Nuclear power has a bad result of producing nuclear waste we have to get rid of. Some of the ways we can remove CO2 might not be good either.
I agree on that. That's why it's a good idea to not produce to much CO2 in the first place.

While looking at ice cores is good, it's rather different than directly measuring things; in time, in region, in matter, in method. I don't think we can take the two and directly compare them, which is part of the problem I believe.

We don't measure anything directly. To measure temperature with a plain old thermometer we rely on a model of fluid expansion under heat, measure a distance (using a theory about light and optics to read the scale) and convert that to a temperature. And of course we need the laws of thermodynamic to believe that the thermometer will actually assume the temperature of its environment.
Watching mercury expand or contract in real time to temperature is as direct as you can get, just as is grabbing CO2 out of the air. Getting it from ice cores is a second step, and thus less direct.

Back to my point; just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one causes the other, nor does it not mean one causes the other.

Absolutely. They can be unrelated and just coincide by chance, or they can be caused by a common cause. But for anthropogenic global warming, we actually do understand the mechanism to a good degree. Svante Arrhenius has predicted the effect in 1896, long before it could actually be measured with any reliability. What we are now doing is, in a way, a giant experiment validating his theory. Wo do not rely on coincidence. The same holds for CO2 in the atmosphere. We release a lot, it increases a lot. That should be enough to convince most people. But we also have the isotope ratios to directly measure the relationship.
Nicely said! Makes sense.

I just think we need more data to make absolute statements that A causes K without going through the steps first. But maybe we don't. No matter how crazy or bad my ideas, I try to look at all the points, and I try not to deal in absolutes. Just because we can't make absolute statements doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do something about it just in case. That's another topic though. --Sln3412 03:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, science never does absolutes. Try religion. But we do have a much stronger case about anthropogenic global warming than is needed to convict somebody to death, to go to war, or to allow a new kind of medicine. --Stephan Schulz 11:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of absolutes. The temperature water boils at, the chemical reaction from mixing base and acid, etc. The synodic period on Mars is 779.96 days. Hydrogen has 1 electron. Whatever. Regardless, I don't agree we have that strong a case, but you do, okay. I don't think we'll be on the same wavelength on this subject any time soon!  :) --Sln3412 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
To not extend this infinitely, but: The temperature water boils at depends at least on solvents, pressure, and physical impurities (you can e.g. have superheated water even under otherwise normal conditions). The chemical reaction of an acid and a base depend on temperature, concentration, and again a lot of other factors. --Stephan Schulz 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm controlling my variables by using bottled drinking water from the store and putting it in a pan on my stove. Something like that. I mean, sure, we can say, well, we're on mars or the water is 98% salt and 1% gasoline, etc. Still, I don't like the text in the box on that graph. I'm in the minority, oh well. Thanks again! --Sln3412 22:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Research money

Hi, Stephen. I am puzzled by what you meant by this:

  • Scientists don't receive "research dollars" for publishing papers.

I'm not making a point about the article here, just trying to clarify your language.

When you say receive research dollars are you referring to wages, i.e., money for personal use? Like, "I got a $500,000 grant so I can quit my job and go study the polar ice caps for the next 6 years." (Oh, and maybe hire a grad student or two to assist me.)

I'm personally a little unclear about where research money goes. Is it just used to fund the non-salary expenses of a project? Like, the scientist gets $45,000 a year from his university (personal income). If he's awarded a $250,000 grant, his personal income doesn't go up in the slightest. He can just buy things and hire people? --Uncle Ed 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it. Typically, the grant holder does not even see any of the money. It goes to the university (or other institution), which deducts its overhead (from 20 to 50% - that covers not just administration, but also things like buildings, energy, lab space, generic infrastructure, and so on). The grant holder can then charge project expenses (RA's, specialized equipment, travel money, and so on) to this account as long as some balance remains. Some kinds of grants in the US allow the grant holder to "buy" himself out of certain teaching obligations (i.e. he does more research, less teaching) by hiring a substitute lecturer. But none of the money goes into his own pockets. There may be some indirect effect, however: Having grants is seen as a good thing, and may help you to renegotiate your base salary with the university (mostly in the US), or when applying to other universities. --Stephan Schulz 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's almost enough for a small article of its own! :-) --Uncle Ed 16:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
One could argue that if I know I can expense my costs, get published, get out of obligations, become known, and/or get a raise because I brought in a grant, and then I go get a grant... However indirect, it is a money benefit to me.
Yes, one could argue that. It would be rather inane, but that probably wouldn't stop Crichton and Seitz.
Not everyone does things others deem sensible, and not everyone is in something for direct benefits.
In a way, it's like spending your remaining budget before the end of a quarter so your funding doesn't get reduced. --Sln3412 03:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that relates at all... --Stephan Schulz 09:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Getting a raise later from getting funding earlier is rather like the unintended consequence of budgets causing people to waste money earlier so as to keep the same levels later. --Sln3412 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] wikipedia in school

Re your harry potter argument that seems to have been deleted with the other content. I understand that the US schools can be quite draconina with their censorship, which is why i suggested the US schools, since they seem likely to be the ones censoring. Somewhere they have a standard. i am sure i would not agree with that standard, but at least we could allow the thousands of really great articles that do not offend. Think of all the good stuff related to math, physics, chemistry and biology alone that is lost due to a few 'offensive' pages. for me the things we lose are worth the things that become available. Sure, the censors win, but they already have won, meaning zero access to wikipedia. Who's laughing, them or us? David D. (Talk) 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

i also agree with your comment re; are the schools really censoring wikipedia. I still have not seen strong evidence for this. This may well be a case of WP:BEANS, if we ask the schools if they are censoring wikipedia they will turn around and say "why do you you think we should be?" maybe we should just keep mum for a while. :) David D. (Talk) 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As others have pointed out: There is nothing to stop schools from censoring just parts of Wikipedia. There is nothing that stops people from forking a safe (and even static) version for schools. And there is nothing that stops you, me, or an AOL IP address, from inserting a picture of Paris Hilton blowing some guy into a Wikipedia article on Arithmetic. Censorship and openness are diametral opposites. Wikipedia's very model is openness. Therefore we cannot censor (and should not try it). --Stephan Schulz 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Landis

I disagree that the policy of WP:Not refers only to articles - It states for example: Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article See also Help:Talk page which states Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. and also Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages--A Y Arktos\talk 22:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Misusing talk pages is discouraged. But so is deleting material from them. Posting a reminder to keep on topic (as you now did) is much better than deleting others comments, appropriate or not. --Stephan Schulz 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • While I do understand your point, it is in fact allowable to remove content from talk pages - see Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages: Content to remove ... Superfluous - Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant. and even more specifically under Prune: Following Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, an editor is encouraged to remove any content that is not appropriate. See Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia for what is content that is not appropriate on a talk page. My edit summary was quite clear, and following your prompt, I have indeed addded a message to the talk page to state I have done so and am also declaring my intention to do so again unless concensus on the Landis talk page disagrees.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 00:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it, and will reply via email. --Stephan Schulz 10:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific headers in SPM

Thank you. This [5] is much better than my bland initial attempt. :-) --Uncle Ed 09:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I still doubt the article is useful, but I'll try to make it as good as possible...--Stephan Schulz 11:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christendom as a Political Polity

It was initially sourced to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it has a whole section in the wikipedia article on Christendom, and it referred to the political role of the pope and the papacy in that early medeival time. A polity can also refer to a collection of entities with a common theme making up a political unit, plus it didn't say that one existed, just that there was a strong ground for it and was part of the reason took the cross to show their allegiance to the church. This concept of Christendom being peculiar between the 10th to 15th century is well attested to, christendom has since changed in meaning which is why the footnote was placed to clarify what is being referred to by the term, leaving the detailed distinction to the main wiki article. I'll pass on the holy war footnote its not really that important, but why did you revert the link to the religious war as well?--Tigeroo 05:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo! I didn't (this time). I did it in the earlier cases for three reasons. The first one is grammatical. You more or leass each time added something equivalent to "the crusades were a series os religeous wars". No, they weren't. They typically were campaigns in a war. The second reason is that not all crusades were primarily religeous. They all had a religieous component, but the motivations of the crusaders are varied and complex. The third reason is that I don't see that this link really adds a lot to the article. It just suggests that a simple term explains a complex situation. --Stephan Schulz 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thats fine, I will kill the holy war thing, the distinct difference here was that everything was couched in terms of religion lending it a flavor, even if it wasonly used to justify or excuse the war. I will amend accordingly, and lower the emphasis, but removing it would be wrong.--Tigeroo 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree but I'm not sure how your last RV causes changes that correspond with the Edit Summary! I'll do further editing to correspond as mentioned.--Tigeroo 18:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice your other half sentence. The thing you labelled as [citation needed] was, of course, not one, so I took it out. --Stephan Schulz 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusades

Hey, S. Schulz, amigo, stop screwing around with legitimate edits. I put "thus" and "CE" in the Crusades piece and you called it "vadalism." How is that. If you object to use of "CE" then suggest "AD," but it seems to me that any piece that deals with events in the "9th" century should tell readers if you are talking AD or BC. (And I don't know who put word "Jason" in the article, but if your point in editing that was to refer to "vandalism" make very sure you don't overreach and call everything you take out as "vandalism." You paint too wide a path when you do that and it's a misnomer. So stop screwing around and get with the script. Rossp 04:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)rossp

Hi Ross. Sorry about that - I was referring to the edit by anonymous User:24.88.254.19 ("jason") just before yours. Just unlucky timing, I wasn't aiming four you. --Stephan Schulz 06:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey stick (graph)

I didn't want to get into an extended discussion about this on the ArbCom talk board. But if you go to the search box on the left and enter "Hockey stick (graph)" and click the Go button, or click on the link in the title above … you'll find that that is an alternative name for the article.  TheSeven 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Seven! I know that that term redirects to temperature record of the past 1000 years. But that does not imply that it is an alternative name for the page, just that the topic is discussed in this article. I think there was a suggestion of having a seperate page just on the Hockey Stick. --Stephan Schulz 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany transport

Thank you very much for pointing that out! I was very sad to see such a well-written section go but I felt that the copyright of the site had been violated. I will be sure to be more careful in the future. TSO1D 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Nowadays, its rather frequent for other sites to borrow from Wikipedia (that they credit us is rarer). Good luck! --Stephan Schulz 00:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] <p> tags

Thanks Stephan. For some reason, the user had a space in there and it still came up jumbled with Guettarda's submission above it. Maybe a quirk on that person's browser design or settings, and/or a little glitch in the WP code. I also like to use the <p> to create a little space between paragraphs, something the WP code seems to respect. Thanks for the message. ... Kenosis 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shattered Consensus Mediation

You have been listed as a party in this mediation. As mediator, I would welcome your input. Thanks! --nkayesmith 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied to at Talk:Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming#My opinion. I'll be only online very sporadically during the next days, so expect delays if you try to communicate with me.--Stephan Schulz 00:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/e/User_talk%7EStephan_Schulz_91b9.html"